ExiledInIllinois Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 (edited) It was built by unionized contractors? Hey! That simply is a low blow. It is usually the opposite. Did you see where they shut an elevator down in China and left a lady in it to die? I am pretty sure they are VERY anti-union in China! That would never happen in an union shop of maintenance workers in the US... They would have waited for a few more Republicans to file in before shutting down the elevator... :-P Edited March 7, 2016 by ExiledInIllinois
Justice Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 (edited) What speed are buildings supposed to collapse at?The fact that it collapsed perfectly at free fall speed is the concern. It didn't collapse from one side to the other. It collapse in the fire damages section only. It came down all at once as if it was demolished. Once again. Fire alone can not cause this to happen. Edited March 7, 2016 by Justice
DC Tom Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 The fact that it collapsed perfectly at free fall speed is the concern. It didn't collapse from one side to the other. It collapse in the fire damages section only. It came down all at once as if it was demolished. Once again. Fire alone can not cause this to happen. That's just foolishness. How did you measure the speed? How do you know fire can't do that? How does a collapse limit itself to "fire damaged sections" only? This, that you're doing here, is a fallacy. You're filling in gaps in your knowledge based on a preconceived notion of the outcome and a misguided belief that unprecedented events are impossible because they're unprecedented. AND you're doing so with the certainty of absolute statements, which are the hallmark of a crackpot theory (e.g. "There's a consensus!") You quite simply don't know what you don't know. You just can't admit it.
Justice Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 (edited) That's just foolishness. How did you measure the speed? How do you know fire can't do that? How does a collapse limit itself to "fire damaged sections" only? This, that you're doing here, is a fallacy. You're filling in gaps in your knowledge based on a preconceived notion of the outcome and a misguided belief that unprecedented events are impossible because they're unprecedented. AND you're doing so with the certainty of absolute statements, which are the hallmark of a crackpot theory (e.g. "There's a consensus!") You quite simply don't know what you don't know. You just can't admit it. "You're filling in gaps in your knowledge based on a preconceived notion of the outcome and a misguided belief that unprecedented events are impossible because they're unprecedented." Ain't that grand? Three unprecedented events in one day huh? Defies all logic and physics. Never mind the fact the owner of the building used a demolition term and the building went down in unison. Newsflash, genius, steel structured buildings have been on fire much longer than WTC 7 and haven't collapsed. No airplane hit this building. Most of the fuel from those planes burnt away shortly after impact. How did building 7 even catch fire on the 6th floor? Why not the top? If you ask me, foolishness is believing a 50 story building can collapse solely from debris and fire damage over the course of 8 to 9 hours. Edited March 7, 2016 by Justice
Justice Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 Don't you guys ever wonder why and how each building came down. Both towers burnt away quickly from top to bottom. WTC 7's collapse started from the bottom and the top collapsed on top of it. Crushed by its own weight. The Pentagon, well that never collapsed at all, but we didn't see much debris on the grounds surrounding it. Of course all 4 buildings are structurally different, but you can not ignore the differences in NY.
DC Tom Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 "You're filling in gaps in your knowledge based on a preconceived notion of the outcome and a misguided belief that unprecedented events are impossible because they're unprecedented." Ain't that grand? Three unprecedented events in one day huh? Defies all logic and physics. Never mind the fact the owner of the building used a demolition term and the building went down in unison. Newsflash, genius, steel structured buildings have been on fire much longer than WTC 7 and haven't collapsed. No airplane hit this building. Most of the fuel from those planes burnt away shortly after impact. How did building 7 even catch fire on the 6th floor? Why not the top? If you ask me, foolishness is believing a 50 story building can collapse solely from debris and fire damage over the course of 8 to 9 hours. And yet, all the evidence - the compromise of the internal structure from the North Tower debris (which is how the fires got to the 6th floor - the debris fell through the buliding), the bulge in the southwest wall growing through the afternoon, the creaking sounds emergency responders heard all afternoon that prompted pulling them back from the building, the progressive collapse of the structure (in four different stages, over the course of more than a minute, significantly slower than "free-fall") - points to an uncontrolled collapse due to damage from the North Tower collapse. Don't you guys ever wonder why and how each building came down. Both towers burnt away quickly from top to bottom. WTC 7's collapse started from the bottom and the top collapsed on top of it. Crushed by its own weight. The Pentagon, well that never collapsed at all, but we didn't see much debris on the grounds surrounding it. Of course all 4 buildings are structurally different, but you can not ignore the differences in NY. None of that is actually correct. I was at the Pentagon. I saw the debris. And the collapse.
meazza Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 And yet, all the evidence - the compromise of the internal structure from the North Tower debris (which is how the fires got to the 6th floor - the debris fell through the buliding), the bulge in the southwest wall growing through the afternoon, the creaking sounds emergency responders heard all afternoon that prompted pulling them back from the building, the progressive collapse of the structure (in four different stages, over the course of more than a minute, significantly slower than "free-fall") - points to an uncontrolled collapse due to damage from the North Tower collapse. None of that is actually correct. I was at the Pentagon. I saw the debris. And the collapse. Yes but you're part of the conspiracy. Did two men in black approach you?
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 Yes but you're part of the conspiracy. Did two men in black approach you? What makes you think he Isn't one of the guys in black....
meazza Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 What makes you think he Isn't one of the guys in black.... What's that red light on your forehead?
Chef Jim Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 Don't you guys ever wonder why and how each building came down. Both towers burnt away quickly from top to bottom. WTC 7's collapse started from the bottom and the top collapsed on top of it. Crushed by its own weight. The Pentagon, well that never collapsed at all, but we didn't see much debris on the grounds surrounding it. Of course all 4 buildings are structurally different, but you can not ignore the differences in NY. And yes crushed by it's own weight. Gravity brought 1&2 down.
Justice Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 And yes crushed by it's own weight. Gravity brought 1&2 down. I'm not debating that. And yet, all the evidence - the compromise of the internal structure from the North Tower debris (which is how the fires got to the 6th floor - the debris fell through the buliding), the bulge in the southwest wall growing through the afternoon, the creaking sounds emergency responders heard all afternoon that prompted pulling them back from the building, the progressive collapse of the structure (in four different stages, over the course of more than a minute, significantly slower than "free-fall") - points to an uncontrolled collapse due to damage from the North Tower collapse. None of that is actually correct. I was at the Pentagon. I saw the debris. And the collapse. I assure you. There's no difference between controlled demolition and what happened to WTC 7. I compared videos of both. They're identical.
....lybob Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 What makes you think he Isn't one of the guys in black.... Actually DCTom was the inspiration for X-Files "Smoking man" much of it is very accurate except in reality he never smoked instead he was always sucking the fillings out of Twinkies, Ho Hos and other pastries - TV executives just changed the activity because focus groups thought it generated more physical disgust than ominous tension.
Chef Jim Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 (edited) I'm not debating that. I assure you. There's no difference between controlled demolition and what happened to WTC 7. I compared videos of both. They're identical. There's a huge difference. Controlled demolition takes weeks to set up. You really think this was a controlled demolition that no one....I mean not a !@#$ing soul saw set up? Please explain how that is even remotely possible. Edited March 8, 2016 by Chef Jim
Justice Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 There's a huge difference. Controlled demolition takes weeks to set up. You really think this was a controlled demolition that no one....I mean not a !@#$ing soul saw set up? Please explain how that is even remotely possible. Yeah. I think it's possible. More possible than fire and debris bringing down a 50 story building demolition style.
Chef Jim Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 Yeah. I think it's possible. More possible than fire and debris bringing down a 50 story building demolition style. Watch this. With all the cameras rolling on 911 did any capture this sound? You don't need to watch the whole thing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaBQ3AkRetI
GG Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 Yeah. I think it's possible. More possible than fire and debris bringing down a 50 story building demolition style.Even if it's rhetorically possible, it is practically impossible. There is no way in the world this conspiracy would have stayed quiet for so long. Already you've implicated a dozen federal, state and nyc agencies, never mind many more in the private sector, and you think there's not one soul who had the human decency to come clean with the plot, especially considering that at least one of the conspirators probably lost a close friend on that day? How much did they get paid for staying quiet? What was their incentive to carry out the plot? Did that incentive change when 3,500 died a gruesome death? Does logic even enter your moron minds?
....lybob Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 There's a huge difference. Controlled demolition takes weeks to set up. You really think this was a controlled demolition that no one....I mean not a !@#$ing soul saw set up? Please explain how that is even remotely possible. Controlled demolition was set up in World Trade Center buildings after the 1993 bombing attempt by the blind sheikh - They couldn't afford the Towers falling like dominoes, the liability was too great and after the attack you couldn't claim it was an unforeseeable event.
Justice Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 (edited) Watch this. With all the cameras rolling on 911 did any capture this sound? You don't need to watch the whole thing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaBQ3AkRetI I see your point but the explosive sounds were greatly reported that day. Plus this video footage isn't the same as WTC 7's in regards to proximity and other factors. Besides, there's more than one way to skin a cat. Many people speculate thermite was used. How much noise does that make? Edited March 8, 2016 by Justice
Chef Jim Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 Controlled demolition was set up in World Trade Center buildings after the 1993 bombing attempt by the blind sheikh - They couldn't afford the Towers falling like dominoes, the liability was too great and after the attack you couldn't claim it was an unforeseeable event. Oh that's a new angle.
Justice Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 (edited) Controlled demolition was set up in World Trade Center buildings after the 1993 bombing attempt by the blind sheikh - They couldn't afford the Towers falling like dominoes, the liability was too great and after the attack you couldn't claim it was an unforeseeable event. Who are they and why couldn't they? This if for the other guys: How about this? If fire can bring down buildings then why in the hell do you waste months and God knows how many dollars setting up demolition?? Fire is cheap. Now run tell that! Imagine that. After all these years we could've just light the B word on fire and wait a few hours. Stupid us. Edited March 8, 2016 by Justice
Recommended Posts