Justice Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 Are the Muslims that are getting killed by terrorists the ones that are fighting them? You stated that the fact that Muslims were being killed by terrorists is proof that Muslims are fighting terrorism. No connection. I'm sure that you condemn terrorism but your body of work here at PPP shows where your sympathy lies. Indiscriminately shooting rockets into Israel is terrorism, not something to "understand". Difference between you and I is I understand why the Palestinians have to use those methods. You don't. This isn't a leveled playing field. It isn't army vs army. Now if I were in charge I wouldn't use those terroristic actions. I'd try my best to gain the world's sympathy and resist the occupation with non-violent ways. You live in a world that's black and white. The world we live in is more complex than that.
GG Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 My only issue I have with the events on 9/11 is with what happened to WTC 7. Everything else I buy. Terrorists did the dirty work with those planes. No doubt. Who else was behind it? That's my question and the only reason why I even question that is because of building 7. Is that because you know about the construction and design defects of the original WTC 7?
Justice Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 Is that because you know about the construction and design defects of the original WTC 7? I'll buy anything. I'm looking for any reasonable and logical reason why a 50 story building will just up and collapse. Got one?
meazza Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 I'll buy anything. I'm looking for any reasonable and logical reason why a 50 story building will just up and collapse. Got one? It was built by unionized contractors?
Chef Jim Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 I'll buy anything. I'm looking for any reasonable and logical reason why a 50 story building will just up and collapse. Got one? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2056088/Footage-kills-conspiracy-theories-Rare-footage-shows-WTC-7-consumed-fire.html
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 I'll buy anything. I'm looking for any reasonable and logical reason why a 50 story building will just up and collapse. Got one? Well...it was damaged by lots of debris during the collapse of main towers, caught fire, fire was unable to be extinguished, structurally weakened the building and it collapsed. What is the conspiracy here?
Justice Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 (edited) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2056088/Footage-kills-conspiracy-theories-Rare-footage-shows-WTC-7-consumed-fire.html I'm quite familiar with that story. Not buying it. How did the building even set fire to begin with? Even if it was fire that brought it down, that never happened before or since. It also went down in free fall speed. The building in Oklahoma didn't even go down like that. Interesting how that building burning for hours in Dubai didn't go down, ain't it? Edited March 7, 2016 by Justice
Chef Jim Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 I'm quite familiar with that story. Not buying it. How did the building even set fire to begin with? Even if it was fire that brought it down, that never happened before or since. It also went down in free fall speed. The building in Oklahoma didn't even go down like that. So how did the fires get set if it wasn't debris from the planes> The reason it hasn't happened before or since is because there was no way for firefighters to get in to put the fire out.
Justice Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 So how did the fires get set if it wasn't debris from the planes> The reason it hasn't happened before or since is because there was no way for firefighters to get in to put the fire out. Exactly. How did it? The twin towers got hit pretty far up, correct? The fire in building 7 was on the 6th story. Those building are connected by a bridge on the 3rd floor. Explain.
Deranged Rhino Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 I'm quite familiar with that story. Not buying it. How did the building even set fire to begin with? Even if it was fire that brought it down, that never happened before or since. It also went down in free fall speed. The building in Oklahoma didn't even go down like that. Interesting how that building burning for hours in Dubai didn't go down, ain't it? I have no dog in this particular fight -- but the building in Dubai was built with an entirely different set of materials and design than the WTC. If it was apples to apples, it'd be a great point. But it's not.
Chef Jim Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 Exactly. How did it? The twin towers got hit pretty far up, correct? The fire in building 7 was on the 6th story. Those building are connected by a bridge on the 3rd floor. Explain. I can't but it's easier to assume that a when two huge jetliners filled with several thousand gallons of jet fuel crash into two buildings that the ensuing fire will spread. Easier to believe that somehow some group of people entered WTC7 and rigged up explosive and no one...not a single goddamn person saw or reported seeing something fishy. That's just !@#$ing whacked.
Justice Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 I can't but it's easier to assume that a when two huge jetliners filled with several thousand gallons of jet fuel crash into two buildings that the ensuing fire will spread. Easier to believe that somehow some group of people entered WTC7 and rigged up explosive and no one...not a single goddamn person saw or reported seeing something fishy. That's just !@#$ing whacked. Sorry bro. I'm not buying it. It isn't logical. Fire doesn't burn hot enough to bring down a steel structured building. Now the twin towers I understand. Two high speed airplanes fully loaded with fuel crashing into the buildings can probably take it down, but debris from the planes??? No way. Not possible. Plus we all saw the impact of those planes and the fire ball that can from it. I didn't see fire raining all the way down to the sixth floor of the building behind it.
GG Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 I'll buy anything. I'm looking for any reasonable and logical reason why a 50 story building will just up and collapse. Got one? Yes, look at the flawed design as a start. A building that spanned two city blocks, with a huge atrium, very heavy equipment on the first 12 floors and faulty structural support. Once you get beyond that obvious research, think about how many people such a conspiracy would have involved across a dozen government layers and how silent (or dead) each of the thousands have been over the past 15 years.
Justice Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 Yes, look at the flawed design as a start. A building that spanned two city blocks, with a huge atrium, very heavy equipment on the first 12 floors and faulty structural support. Once you get beyond that obvious research, think about how many people such a conspiracy would have involved across a dozen government layers and how silent (or dead) each of the thousands have been over the past 15 years. I think you're overly exaggerating how many people it takes to execute such a plan.
Chef Jim Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 Sorry bro. I'm not buying it. It isn't logical. Fire doesn't burn hot enough to bring down a steel structured building. Now the twin towers I understand. Two high speed airplanes fully loaded with fuel crashing into the buildings can probably take it down, but debris from the planes??? No way. Not possible. Plus we all saw the impact of those planes and the fire ball that can from it. I didn't see fire raining all the way down to the sixth floor of the building behind it. But you'll buy the conspiracy that some team was able to sneak in under the cover of darkness (or whatever) and rig WTC7 to collapse? Why would they have to go to that extra step? Wouldn't bringing down WTC's 1&2 be sufficient? Quite a risk to blow the whole !@#$ing thing? Can't you see how stupid that sounds?
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 I have no dog in this particular fight -- but the building in Dubai was built with an entirely different set of materials and design than the WTC. If it was apples to apples, it'd be a great point. But it's not. I'm no structural engineer, but I did stay at holiday inn express.
Chef Jim Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 I think you're overly exaggerating how many people it takes to execute such a plan. Ok how many and detail what and how they could have rigged it up.
GG Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 I think you're overly exaggerating how many people it takes to execute such a plan. I am? 7WTC housed many Federal, State & NYC security agencies, along with HQ for Solomon Brothers. After 1993, WTC was among the most watched places in NYC. You think someone rigged the entire building with explosives, drilled into the concrete cores, and not have anyone notice? If that's the only building that you're doubting, how did the illuminati just happen to blow it up on the day that two planes hit the two towers?
Chef Jim Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 I am? 7WTC housed many Federal, State & NYC security agencies, along with HQ for Solomon Brothers. After 1993, WTC was among the most watched places in NYC. You think someone rigged the entire building with explosives, drilled into the concrete cores, and not have anyone notice? If that's the only building that you're doubting, how did the illuminati just happen to blow it up on the day that two planes hit the two towers? Someone has been watching too many movies I think. That's one of the positives of me not being a movie guy. I'm grounded in reality.
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 (edited) Sorry bro. I'm not buying it. It isn't logical. Fire doesn't burn hot enough to bring down a steel structured building. Now the twin towers I understand. Two high speed airplanes fully loaded with fuel crashing into the buildings can probably take it down, but debris from the planes??? No way. Not possible. Plus we all saw the impact of those planes and the fire ball that can from it. I didn't see fire raining all the way down to the sixth floor of the building behind it. You're right, totally implausible that a loaded 767 travelling at about 400mph would have had enough inertia to propel aircraft components that were on fire from impact a few hundred feet to a neighboring building ignitng a slowly growing fire on a lower floor, while everyone is focused on the towers it goes in noticed for some time and continues to grow. Explain how heat can't weaken steel enough to cause a collapse and how the building was designed. In not a structural engineer, you must be please explain. And again, what would said conspiracy stand to gain by taking out wtc7 Edited March 7, 2016 by drinkTHEkoolaid
Recommended Posts