Mr. Sausages Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 All it really suggests is that you make stuff up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Crabster Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 I hope to goodness some poor MI5 worker is not reading all this stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pod Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 But then again, he did need to ask someone else didn't he? So he wasn't that sure was he? Which suggests for a moment he thought it might just be possible didn't he? Don't be retarded. Of course I thought it might be possible (on some forums it is!). It might have been possible that WTC7 was bombed. But in the end the evidence said otherwise and all the intelligent people dismissed it. You made a claim and I used the best possible course of action available to me to validate it one way or another. (I'm a games programmer, my knowledge of how web forums work is limited, let alone how this individual one is set up!) The similarities here are actually quite amusing. Here is a statment that could be true or false (ip address owning/wtc7 bombs) To prove this I didn't attempt to use my knowledge as it is lacking (me/you) so went to the most likely person who had that info (a mod/NIST, eyewitness reports, physics). Thus came to the facts (you were lying/WTC7 didn't fall over due to a conspiracy) You just seem to lack the intelligence to perform these simple steps. Pod Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Dave Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 The trouble with these things is that they rapidly descend into name calling and IP address shenanigans. In an effort to get this back on track I'll try to summarise the "official explaination". Albert, would you be so kind as to identify which of the following parts you disagree with/doubt/have an alternative explaination for? (I know you're mostly talking about WTC7, but it helps to start from the beginning of what is really combined event, just to establish what you do and don't believe) WTC Collapse - Two 767s out of Boston with jet fuel capacities of ~65 tonnes struck the two towers, one approximately 15 minutes after the other. (Evidence: video footage) - The WTC buildings had been designed to withstand the impact of a jet liner lost in fog, specifically a 707 with a flight speed of 180 mph (Evidence: World Trade Center performance study) - The hijacked flights hit with speeds between 490 and 580 mph (7 times the modelled kinetic energy of the 707) severing light support columns in the structure of the WTC and dislodging flame retardant foam from steel trusses (Evidence: NIST FAQs, images of significant structural damage) - Fires ignited by the crashes (on the 93-99th floors of the north tower, 78-84th floors of the south tower) burned through the structure of the buildings at around 1000 degrees celsius (Evidence: NIST FAQ, many images of towers on fire, properties of jet fuel) - Steel loses 90% of its strength when exposed to 1000 degree celsius heat (Evidence: NIST FAQ) - After burning for 102 minutes and 56 minutes, the north and south towers respectively collapsed from the point of impact down (Evidence: videos of the collapse) - South tower does not fall straight downwards, but the top "shears off" above the point of impact indicating that one side of the steel trusses had given way (Evidence: image) - During the collapse, significant structural damage is done to the structure of WTC7 (Evidence: NIST report, many images) - Following the collapse, fires are ignited in WTC7, most noteably on the fifth floor fed by the pressurised diesel supply from the tanks in the basement (Evidence: many images) - WTC Collapses, first the penthouses go, then the north wall goes. Collapse takes 18 seconds and is entirely inconsistent with a controlled demolition (Evidence: Sequence of images, building collapsing assymetrically) I don't know. It all seems fairly straightforward and well documented to me. Maybe you can shed some light on what I've overlooked, or point me to some evidence I haven't seen? Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
When Skies Are Grey Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 Regarding the "collapse" of WTC7 Larry Silverstein, the controller of the destroyed WTC complex, stated plainly in a PBS documentary that he and the FDNY decided jointly to demolish the Solomon Bros. building, or WTC 7, late in the afternoon of Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2001. This admission appeared in a PBS documentary originally aired in Sept. of 2002 entitled "America Rebuilds". In the documentary Silverstein makes the following statement; "I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse." Im no conspiracy nut but there is clearly some contradictory evidence whatever the truth may be..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Git Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 Just wondering out loud here... Do the fire department normally demolish buildings in such circumstances, after a brief chat with the building controller, or would they be referring to pulling out, pulling back, etc? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Dave Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 Just wondering out loud here... Do the fire department normally demolish buildings in such circumstances, after a brief chat with the building controller, or would they be referring to pulling out, pulling back, etc? More to the point, do participants in multi-billion dollar conspiracies go on TV and admit what they've done? Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
When Skies Are Grey Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 Just wondering out loud here... Do the fire department normally demolish buildings in such circumstances, after a brief chat with the building controller, or would they be referring to pulling out, pulling back, etc? More to the point, do participants in multi-billion dollar conspiracies go on TV and admit what they've done? Dave Not saying it was a consipiracy but he said what he said.....problem with conspiracy theories is that they are often conveyed by radicals and nut jobs, whilst what they are trying to say my often be valid (we have the same problem with MCB on here ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Dave Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 Not saying it was a consipiracy but he said what he said.....problem with conspiracy theories is that they are often conveyed by radicals and nut jobs, whilst what they are trying to say my often be valid (we have the same problem with MCB on here ) The interesting thing is that one quote is the cornerstone for the entire WTC7 controlled explosion theory - and probably for the entire WTC controlled explosion idea. You have one non-demolition expert talking to another non-demolition expert, he happens to use the word "pull" which is also demolition jargon, and you have the birth of a cult. It's far less interesting to assume that he just meant to "pull everyone out", even though it would make more sense. Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
When Skies Are Grey Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 And thereby hangs the whole problem with this...those who beleive it was Bush's Reichstag will believe it...and those who dont, wont. Interesting topic for debate though!! Still a large number of anamolies though...much better than the grassy gnoll debate!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Git Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 The interesting thing is that one quote is the cornerstone for the entire WTC7 controlled explosion theory Also, continuing wondering out loud... Do the fire department normally carry and use explosives to demolish a multi storey building? Would they do it in the heat of the moment, or wait until the dust had literally settled? I'm not even convinced that the fire department routinely demolish buildings. Why should they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Dave Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 And thereby hangs the whole problem with this...those who beleive it was Bush's Reichstag will believe it...and those who dont, wont. Interesting topic for debate though!! Still a large number of anamolies though...much better than the grassy gnoll debate!! There's anomalies in pretty much everything if you look close enough. What amuses me is how much of the conspiracy is built around initial media reports and testimony. For example, there's a large part of the movement that believes that the state department was hit by a car bomb which was then covered up for some reason. This all comes from a single report about one hour after the attacks in which someone had heard an explosion that sounded like a car bomb, that was then subsequently withdrawn and never mentioned again. What people fail to realise is that the media will report whatever they hear during big events just to cover all bases. Another example is a witness that said, regarding the Pentagon crash, something like: "I saw something scream over my head like a missile, then an explosion". From this, you can either assume she was talking about an actual missile, or that she didn't get a good enough look and was using inaccurate language. I remember driving to a course in Reading on the morning of that train crash in Selby (the one where the van ploughed off the motorway into the path of a commuter train). I was listening to the coverage on Radio 5 and the first interview they had was with a farmer who'd seen a number of cows running away from the crash site. He speculated that maybe the train had hit a herd. For the next ten minutes, Radio 5 ran with the headline that a train had encountered a herd of cows, until more information arose. Were I of a certain frame of mind, I would take the initial testimony as the absolute truth and wonder exactly why the government was covering up the truth about the cows. What were the cows doing there? Were they planted by shadowy cartel of dairy farmers as an insurance scam? Maybe I should set up a webpage... Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bastard Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 "I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse." Where in that statement does it talk about demolishing the building ? "Pull" is not a term for explosive demolition. Nor were Silverstein or the NY Fire Department demolition contractors, or in charge of demolition explosives. Check out 911myths page on WTC7 conspiracy theories for a tidy-up of some of the nutty theories on this quote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Git Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 Check out 911myths page on WTC7 conspiracy theories for a tidy-up of some of the nutty theories on this quote. Thanks for the URL, it would seem to confirm my wonderings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
When Skies Are Grey Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 So its just one persons comments/"professional opinion" debunking someone elses comments/"profession opinion".....interesting read either way though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.