“What about building 7?”

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 07:26 AM
link   
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer
 


Okay, let's discuss. The video you cite is shown below at the 1:38 point you claim shows damage significant enough to bring down this steel framed NYC building. Plain and simple - this appears to me to be minor damage at best and even the 9/11 Commission concluded that damage was not a significant factor in the collapse.

Just to be clear - are you claiming that the damage shown below is enough to cause the collapse of the building?








posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by tallcool1
I am just curious here - I generally stay out of the 9/11 forums due to the intense emotional (as opposed to rational) conversations, but I foolishly clicked on the thread out of curiosity anyway (my own fault, I know) - but why are we starting, I don't know, about the 50th thread debating the same exact things - point for point on each "side", that are in the dozens of other threads regarding building 7? Doesn't that kinda clog up the forum with unnecessary redundancy?



The problem for the conspiracy pundits is that for the most part they really don't have any more information than they did ten years ago so they have no choice but to keep repeating the exact same thing over and over to keep the 9/11 conspiracy embers alive.

For a self declared "researcher" like Richard Gage, it's pretty odd that he hasn't done any actual research; he has an architectural background, he has the blueprints to the buildings, he has video of the collapse taken from every angle imaginable, he has 1500 "experts" that support him, and he claims to even know what kind of explosive was used to bring it down. Plus, he certainly has the cash from doing the talk show circuit AND his own media empire that will put out anything he wants. Out of all the conspiracy theorists he is the one person uniquely qualified in experience and resources to conduct his own independent investigation and reverse engineer the collapse to prove his case, but in all those ten years he hasn't even done so much as turned on a calculator.

Either Gage is one hell of a lazy guy who'll be getting around to prove what he says is true "someday"...OR, he knows what he's saying is complete rubbish and he's not about to risk disproving his own snake oil. So, all you ever see from him are new and interesting ways of saying the exact same thing over and over. You aren't going to see anything new from the conspiracy people and you never will.



posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 02:17 AM
link   
reply to post by TheFlash
 

sorry, I didn't see your reply this morning. I'll get back to you before monday morning, promise. I'll get it in between errands/chores. Thanks.



posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 08:18 AM
link   
reply to post by TheFlash
 




9/11 Commission concluded that damage was not a significant factor in the collapse.


And this is the problem with just about anyone who "thinks" they know the truth behind 9/11.

You claim as a statement of fact that the " 9/11 Commission concluded that damage was not a significant factor in the collapse"

Now we are talking about WTC-7 right?

Because as you "truthers" (a most ironic name if ever i've heard one) always love to tell us all, the 9/11 commission doesn't even mention the collapse of WTC-7 in its report. Yet now you are claiming that it does and that it concluded that the damage was not significant enough to cause the collapse of WTC-7.

So just to clear this up for you, no, at no point does the 9/11 commission report state that the " damage was not a significant factor in the collapse of WTC-7. You are 100% incorrect to make such a statement, yet you have just vomited it up in the guise of a fact.

The only way you could make such a statement was if actually,

emmm.....

You have never actually bothered to read the 9/11 commission report!

If you don't actually know what your talking about then don't pretend to know what your talking about.



edit on 20-7-2013 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)
edit on 20-7-2013 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


Thanks for the correction. I meant to say FEMA.



posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by TheFlash
 


And again FEMA never said that, what they said was this


The loss of the east penthouse on the videotape suggests that the collapse event was initiated by the loss of structural integrity in one of the transfer systems. Loss of structural integrity was likely a result of weakening caused by fires on the 5th to 7th floors. The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue.


note, "Loss of structural integrity".

they also say that further research is required which was provided by NIST it is NIST who actually give explain the collapse as FEMA quite clearly said that further investigation was required.



posted on Jul, 21 2013 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheFlash
Okay, let's discuss. The video you cite is shown below at the 1:38 point you claim shows damage significant enough to bring down this steel framed NYC building. Plain and simple - this appears to me to be minor damage at best and even the 9/11 Commission concluded that damage was not a significant factor in the collapse.

Just to be clear - are you claiming that the damage shown below is enough to cause the collapse of the building?


To make it brief, yes, you can clearly see some of the damage in that still frame image. However this is far from being the sum of the damage to the building. This is well documented in other videos and photos.

No, I am not claiming that the impact damage alone was sufficient to cause the collapse of the building. If it had been, then the building would have fallen over straight away, rather than after 7 hours of fire.

Just to make this a more productive post, I'm adding this photo, which shows the same damage from a higher angle and off to the side. As you may see now, the still frame ground level shot shows only the tip of the iceberg concerning this corner damage. Although it is still partially obscured by smoke and the same building, we can see that the damage extends as far down as we can see, and seems to be more extensive- probably indicating at least one column has been taken out at the corner.



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by TheFlash
 


And again FEMA never said that, what they said was this


The loss of the east penthouse on the videotape suggests that the collapse event was initiated by the loss of structural integrity in one of the transfer systems. Loss of structural integrity was likely a result of weakening caused by fires on the 5th to 7th floors. The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue.


note, "Loss of structural integrity".

they also say that further research is required which was provided by NIST it is NIST who actually give explain the collapse as FEMA quite clearly said that further investigation was required.


You wil ALSO note the statement specifically said things like "suggests", "was likely a result of", and "best hypothesis". The authors are openly acknowledging they aren't specifically saying what brought the building down. They are making their best attempt at an educated guess. The term "official story" being bounced around by the conspiracy theorists is therefore a deliberate hoax, as there isn't anything remotely "official" about an educated guess.

"Leading theory" would be more accurate but we both know there is very little abject paranoia the conspiracy theorists can milk out of the term "leading theory".



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 10:51 AM
link   


"Leading theory" would be more accurate but we both know there is very little abject paranoia the conspiracy theorists can milk out of the term "leading theory".


I can add the terms "leads us to believe" and "evidence suggest to us" along with "most certainly we believe" lets not forget " the only solution we can see". Then getting into metaphorical suggestiveness "evidence shows" and my favorite "theory's concluded" not to be outdone by "evidence-based manifestation" or "testimonial demonstration"

Now children are you ready to use these new words in a sentence?

The evidence suggest and leads us to believe that a testimonial demonstration of our theory's concluded with an evidence based manifestation the only solution we can see is a people just thought they were seeing a plane-we most certainly believe it was a missile.



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


yup!

Exactly, FEMA basically said "we know nothing about WTC-7 and more research is needed", the quote i provided even says "the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence".

Yet Truthers would much rather talk about FEMA than NIST because NIST did provide us with a much more robust explanation.



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by spooky24



"Leading theory" would be more accurate but we both know there is very little abject paranoia the conspiracy theorists can milk out of the term "leading theory".


I can add the terms "leads us to believe" and "evidence suggest to us" along with "most certainly we believe" lets not forget " the only solution we can see". Then getting into metaphorical suggestiveness "evidence shows" and my favorite "theory's concluded" not to be outdone by "evidence-based manifestation" or "testimonial demonstration"

Now children are you ready to use these new words in a sentence?

The evidence suggest and leads us to believe that a testimonial demonstration of our theory's concluded with an evidence based manifestation the only solution we can see is a people just thought they were seeing a plane-we most certainly believe it was a missile.


Excuse me, but is it childish to point out that characters like Al Sharpton are using the Trevor Martin shooting to promote his own self serving racist troublemaking? Is it childish to point out that characters like Obama and Biden are using the Newtown tragedy to promote their own self serving gun hating political agenda that doesn't even remotely address the Newtown tragedy? Is it childish to point out that characters like the Westboro Church are using funerals to promote their own self serving religious intolerance?

If not, then why is it considered childish to point out that the 9/11 conspiracy theorists are using fake propaganda terms like "official story" to promote their own self serving agenda to foster false public unrest?



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 02:37 AM
link   

GenRadek

Originally posted by Happy1
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


Who collected billions of dollars in insurance money with the buildings - plural - being destroyed?

That's the problem with people who don't see the whole forest, when looking at a tree.


Actually Larry lost BILLIONS on this attack. Insurance wouldnt cover all the damages and wouldnt cover rebuilding expenses. He also had to pay rent on the site that was generating ZERO income for years.

You may want to read up on some facts about this misconception. He didnt profit at all.

Larry Silverstein's huge loss


Well since he bought the towers for 3.2 and got 4.6 then he is off to a cool 1.4 bill. Not bad for owning the towers for less then a year.
This also fails to account for the renovations the towers do not have to go through. If you recall they were FULL of asbestos, probably why those fires burnt so uncontrollably...

The towers would of had to been worked on floor by floor... How much do you think that would have cost?
Why would you buy 2 towers full of asbestos.....
It also doesn't mention if he received any help from the city via grants or other programs. Also it does not mention any private investors or any charities that funded the rebuild
It also seems that he was in fact awarded a sum towards the rebuild effort as well


whatreallyhappened.com...



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 02:40 AM
link   

OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


yup!

Exactly, FEMA basically said "we know nothing about WTC-7 and more research is needed", the quote i provided even says "the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence".

Yet Truthers would much rather talk about FEMA than NIST because NIST did provide us with a much more robust explanation.


Ill talk about NIST anytime.
Nothing they have to say makes any sense and does nothing to explain what happened to tower 7...
They have failed to even come close to explaining the 2.3 seconds of free fall
Fire could not have caused that. Not much outside of a controlled demo could cause that.



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 03:12 AM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 





Yet Truthers would much rather talk about FEMA than NIST because NIST did provide us with a much more robust explanation.


they did??????



"as this piece was clearly in a prone position during the corrosive attack and was located no higher than the 53 floor of the building, this degradation phenomenon has no bearing on the weakening of the steel structure or the collapse of the building"NCSTAR1-3C pp.233



oh yea......cleared that right up!!!!....too bad there were no fires on the 53rd floor????

there were no fires in the debris field...just hot steel that melted the boots of anyone whom walked on them.


FEMA C...."steel members with unusual erosion patterns were observed in the WTC debris field"..."severe erosion found in several beams warranted further consideration"


yet they see melted steel in the debris field.....steel on top of the pile is the last to fall off the building....correct me if I'm wrong...I thought the fire was on top????



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 03:17 AM
link   
reply to post by spooky24
 





I can add the terms "leads us to believe" and "evidence suggest to us" along with "most certainly we believe" lets not forget " the only solution we can see". Then getting into metaphorical suggestiveness "evidence shows" and my favorite "theory's concluded" not to be outdone by "evidence-based manifestation" or "testimonial demonstration"


Now children are you ready to use these new words in a sentence?



can you???

...."SUPPORTING EVIDENCE"!

as in....provide it for the claim YOU push as truth.....

YOU above all should KNOW whom is responsible to PROVE....

the ones PUSHING the official claims????

...or the ones ASKING for the supporting EVIDENCE of those claims????

how does YOUR Court work????



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 03:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Unity_99
 

is that the building the BBC reported had been destroyed when in fact it was still up and visible on the camera?



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 03:25 AM
link   

GoodOlDave

Originally posted by tallcool1
I am just curious here - I generally stay out of the 9/11 forums due to the intense emotional (as opposed to rational) conversations, but I foolishly clicked on the thread out of curiosity anyway (my own fault, I know) - but why are we starting, I don't know, about the 50th thread debating the same exact things - point for point on each "side", that are in the dozens of other threads regarding building 7? Doesn't that kinda clog up the forum with unnecessary redundancy?



The problem for the conspiracy pundits is that for the most part they really don't have any more information than they did ten years ago so they have no choice but to keep repeating the exact same thing over and over to keep the 9/11 conspiracy embers alive.

For a self declared "researcher" like Richard Gage, it's pretty odd that he hasn't done any actual research; he has an architectural background, he has the blueprints to the buildings, he has video of the collapse taken from every angle imaginable, he has 1500 "experts" that support him, and he claims to even know what kind of explosive was used to bring it down. Plus, he certainly has the cash from doing the talk show circuit AND his own media empire that will put out anything he wants. Out of all the conspiracy theorists he is the one person uniquely qualified in experience and resources to conduct his own independent investigation and reverse engineer the collapse to prove his case, but in all those ten years he hasn't even done so much as turned on a calculator.

Either Gage is one hell of a lazy guy who'll be getting around to prove what he says is true "someday"...OR, he knows what he's saying is complete rubbish and he's not about to risk disproving his own snake oil. So, all you ever see from him are new and interesting ways of saying the exact same thing over and over. You aren't going to see anything new from the conspiracy people and you never will.


why shouldn't people repeat same information over and over again if it's important, relevant and above all - the truth???



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 03:48 AM
link   


"the planes WE used"

edit on CDT03uTue, 25 Mar 2014 03:55:17 -05005517am83 by Thurisaz because: edit add



posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 03:05 AM
link   
reply to post by demus
 





why shouldn't people repeat same information over and over again if it's important, relevant and above all - the truth???


exactly.....facts and science do not change depending upon whom is describing it.....except on 9-11, as the 2008 NIST tries to push....a "brand new never before seen physics phenomenon", stated by Shyam Sunder at the 08 NIST technical briefing.
vimeo.com...

Shyam Sunder, all through the Q&A section of the video stating,
"brand new event"
"new phenomenon"
"there has never been a collapse like WTC7".

supported by NO physical evidence what-so-ever....the only supporting evidence they have are computer models which they refuse to release outside the authors, the 68,000+ data files that tells the collapse models what to do...how to behave...

Peer review is a process of self-regulation by a profession or a process of evaluation involving qualified individuals within the relevant field. Peer review methods are employed to maintain standards, improve performance and provide credibility. In academia peer review is often used to determine an academic paper's suitability for publication.

......cept for the PUSHED claim of "brand NEW physics phenomenon" falling three buildings on 9-11.



posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 03:27 AM
link   
reply to post by demus
 


Just so you know, dave is a staunch OSer, so he will tell you that all they repeat is lies. He wont be able to tell you what the lies are, but I diggress...





new topics
top topics
 
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join