editor
hiraethified
Forgive me if I find myself underwhelmed with your efforts here.Jonti said:
Here's another well-sourced link concerning WTC7.
Hopefully you'll bother to read it this time:
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7___silverstein.html
The 7/7 Report
- Thread starter TAE
- Start date
Here's another well-sourced link concerning WTC7.
Hopefully you'll bother to read it this time:
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7___silverstein.html
Jonti
what the dormouse said
As you like.editor said:
I made a mistake (of sorts -- the material later quoted was not on the link I had checked and to which I explicitly referred to in my post). I asked for more specific information; got it, and then acknowledged its validity.
I do understand that doesn't often happen here.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Azrael23 said:
I'll field this one: two planes hit the twin towers...or perhaps you think it was a video representation of two planes; or perhaps the entire water supply of NYC was tainted with LSD, which caused people to imagine they saw planes flying into the WTC.
I've ruled out the latter as being too far fetched, however I know that won't stop you from using that in your 'postulations'.
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
Presumably:Azrael23 said:
Since he quoted that not 10 posts ago i think it's most likely to describe his views.
editor
hiraethified
Seeing as I've seen absolutely zero credible evidence to support the theory that the building had been invisibly wired by invisible operatives using invisible explosives to coincide with the pre-planned arrival of two passenger planes [pods/missiles - insert your favourite fact-free loonspud theory here], so Occam's razor would suggest that there's no reason to disbelieve Fire chief Daniel Nigro's appraisal that the building collapsed through serious structural damage.Azrael23 said:
So, why do you think the building fell?
Bob_the_lost said:
It's amazing how shite these 'truth seekers' are at basic comprehension and this reading lark isn't it? All that time spent reading and yet taking so little in
So Asrael, why do you think WTC7 fell? I haven't quite figured out if you're in the missile-firing holographic plane or 'it's an explosion' groups as yet, or merely one of those fence sitters who just latches onto the latest pet conspiracy theory...
editor
hiraethified
Thing is, if he believes the building was brought down then he must then believe that 9/11 was all a big inside job, complete with missile/pods/whatever.tarannau said:
Well, either that, or he believes the owner had his building pre-wired with explosives on the remote off chance that two aircraft might hit a nearby building some time soon.
Just wanting to be clear.
As must I, because WTC7 could not have fallen the way the US Govt (heres who your trusting...for some odd reason) has cited. Its impossible. I don`t even mean highly improbable.
You guys subscribe to the ancillary damage theory, which claims that debris from the impact of the jets and debris from the falling towers were the initial factor in the collapse. For this to be true we must first have seen fire and structural damage intense enough to level a 47 storey skyscraper. Not only that but we must also factor in the chances of it falling exactly onto its own footprint.
So first the fires. How intense and sustained were they?
FEMA's report said fires on the south side of the building were main factor in structural damage. Now before we talk anymore of FEMA analysis of the crime scene, familiarise yourself with what was lacking in their investigation.
http://www.wtc7.net/noprobe.html
Yet the biggest fires were seen on the east face.
hardly large enough to melt steel or any other such nonsense.
To give you an idea of what even more modestly protected skyscrapers can sustain we have the interstate bank building fire. This building didn`t collapse, in fact the structural damage to this building was low.
http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/wtc7_collapse2.mpg
Despite the fact that the fires in Building 7 were insignificant compared to other office fires, a decision was made not to fight them. The government has never explained that decision.
As for the excuse of structural damage from the the falling towers, Which fell perfectly on their own footprint too remember. I need only point out the complete lack of damage to all other buildings in the same situation, the point is best evidenced by this diagram,
The buildlings in the blue segment are the buildings which sustained structural damage. WTC 1, 2 and 7 collapsed on their own footprints. The other buildings at a similar distance suffered only modest damage. Some were closer than WTC7.
Yet it also collapsed on its own footprint?! Come on people...you can`t honestly believe that!
It collapsed vertically with a crease in the roof perfectly onto its own footprint...That is only ever a controlled demolition.
As must I, because WTC7 could not have fallen the way the US Govt (heres who your trusting...for some odd reason) has cited. Its impossible. I don`t even mean highly improbable.
You guys subscribe to the ancillary damage theory, which claims that debris from the impact of the jets and debris from the falling towers were the initial factor in the collapse. For this to be true we must first have seen fire and structural damage intense enough to level a 47 storey skyscraper. Not only that but we must also factor in the chances of it falling exactly onto its own footprint.
So first the fires. How intense and sustained were they?
FEMA's report said fires on the south side of the building were main factor in structural damage. Now before we talk anymore of FEMA analysis of the crime scene, familiarise yourself with what was lacking in their investigation.
http://www.wtc7.net/noprobe.html
Yet the biggest fires were seen on the east face.
hardly large enough to melt steel or any other such nonsense.
To give you an idea of what even more modestly protected skyscrapers can sustain we have the interstate bank building fire. This building didn`t collapse, in fact the structural damage to this building was low.
http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/wtc7_collapse2.mpg
Despite the fact that the fires in Building 7 were insignificant compared to other office fires, a decision was made not to fight them. The government has never explained that decision.
As for the excuse of structural damage from the the falling towers, Which fell perfectly on their own footprint too remember. I need only point out the complete lack of damage to all other buildings in the same situation, the point is best evidenced by this diagram,
The buildlings in the blue segment are the buildings which sustained structural damage. WTC 1, 2 and 7 collapsed on their own footprints. The other buildings at a similar distance suffered only modest damage. Some were closer than WTC7.
Yet it also collapsed on its own footprint?! Come on people...you can`t honestly believe that!
It collapsed vertically with a crease in the roof perfectly onto its own footprint...That is only ever a controlled demolition.
Just look at the thing go!
The rubble lies perfectly.
The building fell in on itself, watch the video of the collapse.
http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/wtc7_collapse2.mpg
Your not even suspicious?!
The rubble lies perfectly.
The building fell in on itself, watch the video of the collapse.
http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/wtc7_collapse2.mpg
Your not even suspicious?!
I think that you will find that it was impossible for building 7 to collapse the way it did without outside help. I think it is blatantly obvious to everyone that the building was felled using alien technology. Aliens quite clearly want to provoke a war between the east and west, after which they will land there invasion party. Don't believe, how else could the WTC's have fallen? How else could a passenger plane have hit the Pentagon with such precision?
editor said:
I have the maximum number of posts per page, and still the nonsense had been allowed to go on for 27 pages.
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
I just found proof that prisonplanet is run by idiots.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2004/281104unmistakablecharges.htm
That's fucking brilliant that is.
Now this is supposed to show "squibs" (apparently a technical term), what you do see are a few puffs of debris (presumably) in the top right and front center of the film.
Now i am far from a demolitions expert, however i have taken part in dems training and blown up a selection of house hold goods using standard army kit including shaped charges. I also know the basics of how you demolish a building and since it's a hell of a lot cheaper (and safer) than letting us near real explosives we spent a lot of time on planning excersises.
1) The debris appear in two places on that film, the frontcenter of the building and the right edge (where it's easier to see due to the skyline). The front center of the building is the interesting one, mainly because what it looks like is a shockwave propigating upwards smashing the windows out rather than any explosions.
2) The "explosions" are going off on every floor, why? If you take a Jenga set and hit it at the bottom with a hammer it will fall without you hitting it at the same time at every point. While you might detonate it at several points to aid in pancaking there is no point to setting it at every level. None at all, all it does is increase the complexity.
An example of how to blow up a building:
http://mirror-au-wa1.gallery.hd.org...s-before-explosion-original-rotated-5-DHD.jpg
Points to note, three layers of explosives, 1300 individual charges, if you're planning to blow a building on every single floor then you're talking about so much demolitions that it would be impossible to hide, and take a battalion of military engineers to rig it in anything less than a day. It would also be impossible to conceal, not difficult but impossible. However there are windows on all these floors, could it be that that famously flexible stuff used for windows be shattering as the outer facade starts to deform?
3) The blasts are too small. I've seen a (little) cutting charge go off, the blast is a hell of a lot bigger than that appears to be. In a confined space the blast would be even more impressive.
4) The right side shockwave propigates faster than the front center one does. If you're blowing a building you'd have the ringmain on the same floor, not vertically, you can't have individual electronic detonators for each charge, you just can't. Also the blasts would have to be near simultaneous (shockwave propigates @ 6.8 kps in detcord) on each floor, this isn't the case in the video. As the debris appears at the top right corner before it reaches even near the top of the front.
5) Why the right rear corner and not the front right one? Why the front center? It's not logical, if there were no support members to cut then there wouldn't be any charges there, however if there was support members then why aren't there on the other corner we can see?
In short: Prison plannet don't know what the hell they are on about.
The video supports the idea that the building collapsed, the debris you see being glass and possibly other bits of the facade breaking off as the frame deforms. The pattern also supports it, one edge fails before another, as it would with progressive failure of the supports from one side to the other, and the rate and irregularity of propigation looks about right. Of course it could all have been done by setting the dems below the camera's viewpoint, but to say it gives any support to the idea that the building was pulled can only be based upon a lack of thought and research.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2004/281104unmistakablecharges.htm
That's fucking brilliant that is.
Now this is supposed to show "squibs" (apparently a technical term), what you do see are a few puffs of debris (presumably) in the top right and front center of the film.
Now i am far from a demolitions expert, however i have taken part in dems training and blown up a selection of house hold goods using standard army kit including shaped charges. I also know the basics of how you demolish a building and since it's a hell of a lot cheaper (and safer) than letting us near real explosives we spent a lot of time on planning excersises.
1) The debris appear in two places on that film, the frontcenter of the building and the right edge (where it's easier to see due to the skyline). The front center of the building is the interesting one, mainly because what it looks like is a shockwave propigating upwards smashing the windows out rather than any explosions.
2) The "explosions" are going off on every floor, why? If you take a Jenga set and hit it at the bottom with a hammer it will fall without you hitting it at the same time at every point. While you might detonate it at several points to aid in pancaking there is no point to setting it at every level. None at all, all it does is increase the complexity.
An example of how to blow up a building:
http://mirror-au-wa1.gallery.hd.org...s-before-explosion-original-rotated-5-DHD.jpg
Points to note, three layers of explosives, 1300 individual charges, if you're planning to blow a building on every single floor then you're talking about so much demolitions that it would be impossible to hide, and take a battalion of military engineers to rig it in anything less than a day. It would also be impossible to conceal, not difficult but impossible. However there are windows on all these floors, could it be that that famously flexible stuff used for windows be shattering as the outer facade starts to deform?
3) The blasts are too small. I've seen a (little) cutting charge go off, the blast is a hell of a lot bigger than that appears to be. In a confined space the blast would be even more impressive.
4) The right side shockwave propigates faster than the front center one does. If you're blowing a building you'd have the ringmain on the same floor, not vertically, you can't have individual electronic detonators for each charge, you just can't. Also the blasts would have to be near simultaneous (shockwave propigates @ 6.8 kps in detcord) on each floor, this isn't the case in the video. As the debris appears at the top right corner before it reaches even near the top of the front.
5) Why the right rear corner and not the front right one? Why the front center? It's not logical, if there were no support members to cut then there wouldn't be any charges there, however if there was support members then why aren't there on the other corner we can see?
In short: Prison plannet don't know what the hell they are on about.
The video supports the idea that the building collapsed, the debris you see being glass and possibly other bits of the facade breaking off as the frame deforms. The pattern also supports it, one edge fails before another, as it would with progressive failure of the supports from one side to the other, and the rate and irregularity of propigation looks about right. Of course it could all have been done by setting the dems below the camera's viewpoint, but to say it gives any support to the idea that the building was pulled can only be based upon a lack of thought and research.
editor
hiraethified
If you're claiming it was brought down by a 'controlled explosion' from prewired explosives, how many people do you think that would involve then?Azrael23 said:thousands of people? missiles? pods? Have I said such things? A reasoned debate does not involve you guessing at what I think. Make a real point.
I'd say it would run into thousands of people directly and indirectly involved but I can't wait to hear your explanation.
You could start by explaining how 'they' got the planes/missiles/pods/alien laser beams to provide the 'excuse' for the demolition.
Ok Bob, so what are those plumes? Don`t tell me its fires.
How many people were involved in September 11th WTC? I`d say conservatively 60-80. No more.
You don`t need many people to carry out such operations.
Why have all my pictures disappeared?!
The demolition wasn`t an excuse its to destroy the crime scene and ensure maximum psychological impact of the event. IMHO I think the entire attack was run from WTC7, then when they finished in the command bunker, they blew up all the evidence.
We have it on tape BTW.
Video footage came out today contains an official on a walkie talkie talking about bombs about to go off, are the bombs ready etc. Its yet to be confirmed as to what building this refers to but its highly likely its going to be WTC7.
i`ll see if i can find it for you.
How many people were involved in September 11th WTC? I`d say conservatively 60-80. No more.
You don`t need many people to carry out such operations.
Why have all my pictures disappeared?!
The demolition wasn`t an excuse its to destroy the crime scene and ensure maximum psychological impact of the event. IMHO I think the entire attack was run from WTC7, then when they finished in the command bunker, they blew up all the evidence.
We have it on tape BTW.
Video footage came out today contains an official on a walkie talkie talking about bombs about to go off, are the bombs ready etc. Its yet to be confirmed as to what building this refers to but its highly likely its going to be WTC7.
i`ll see if i can find it for you.
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
Azrael23 said:
The windows shattering. As i said at least twice.
No comment as to the manpower needed to set that much explosive? No comment about the inability to hide anything approaching that amount of explosives? No comment about the pattern of explosions? No comment about the propigation rate? Hell did you even read my post?
Fuck off untill you do
Badger Kitten
oof
Bloody good post Bob. As an aside, i saw United 93 last night.
It is magnificent, harrowing, humane and terrible to watch.
Everyone should watch it. Especially the loons.
The bloody loons are planning to picket the cinemas and hand out leaflets claiming 9/11 was a lie; after seeing that film I don't think anyone could not be moved. All this conspiracy theories bullshit, have you ever thought of how offensive they are to the families of those who died? Do you care?
The film was made with the support of all the families and many of the air traffic staff play themselves.
Paul Greengrass is a legend. I <heart> him.
And he supports the 7/7 public enquiry.
Hurray for him. Go watch the film, it is out in June.
It is magnificent, harrowing, humane and terrible to watch.
Everyone should watch it. Especially the loons.
The bloody loons are planning to picket the cinemas and hand out leaflets claiming 9/11 was a lie; after seeing that film I don't think anyone could not be moved. All this conspiracy theories bullshit, have you ever thought of how offensive they are to the families of those who died? Do you care?
The film was made with the support of all the families and many of the air traffic staff play themselves.
Paul Greengrass is a legend. I <heart> him.
And he supports the 7/7 public enquiry.
Hurray for him. Go watch the film, it is out in June.
So on the back of watching this film you are ready to denounce the 9/11 truth movement as offensive to the 9/11 families. You should look into the history of the 9/11 truth movement and role of many 9/11 families in it and the questions they were asking before you talk about something you seem to know very little about.
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
Indeed, and for these very reasons you are not allowed to talk about grammer, puncuation or sobriety.sparticus said:
It took me three reads of that post to make anything approaching sense of it. Then once i did i felt rather let down.
Similar threads
- Locked
