[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;24948588]well of cource a film about how 9/11 is staged is going to try to tell you that 9/11 is staged[/QUOTE]
but they should at least use real evidence, like the video in the post I linked
although I know I should only expect lies from truthers
well did you watch the video? you cant really judge until you do (i did not watch the video either though
The problem with you critical is that evidence is irrelevant to you. The notion that someone other than terrorist took down WTC 7 is so disturbing that you will ignore facts. Yes, there have been conspiracist who have brought whitewash to the table, as much as the debunking 9/11 idiots have. A good deal of both sides who are arguing are zealots, but there is some truth among both sides.
WTC 7 was 47 floors high and had fires spreading through the building for 5 hours. It received structural damage at one corner. This resulted in free fall of the building for the first roughly 2 1/4 seconds, and the rest of it's fall was extremely close to free fall speeds. We don't have visibility of the bottom floors, but from then on, the entire outer facade stayed intact while it fell.
[QUOTE=Hostel;24948937]The problem with you critical is that evidence is irrelevant to you. The notion that someone other than terrorist took down WTC 7 is so disturbing that you will ignore facts. Yes, there have been conspiracist who have brought whitewash to the table, as much as the debunking 9/11 idiots have. A good deal of both sides who are arguing are zealots, but there is some truth among both sides.[/QUOTE]
i would agree that both sides are just trying to protect the memes they have by being jerks to each other
[QUOTE=Hostel;24948937]The problem with you critical is that evidence is irrelevant to you. The notion that someone other than terrorist took down WTC 7 is so disturbing that you will ignore facts. Yes, there have been conspiracist who have brought whitewash to the table, as much as the debunking 9/11 idiots have. A good deal of both sides who are arguing are zealots, but there is some truth among both sides.
WTC 7 was 47 floors high and had fires spreading through the building for 5 hours. It received structural damage at one corner. This resulted in free fall of the building for the first roughly 2 1/4 seconds, and the rest of it's fall was extremely close to free fall speeds. We don't have visibility of the bottom floors, but from then on, the entire outer facade stayed intact while it fell.[/QUOTE]
so you didn't watch my video then
What I find funny is that both sides of the argument claim that the other side doesn't have evidence. When in actuality both sides have evidence. The only thing is that only one side has the facts, and proof.
This conspiracy is full of lies and half truths that will never get solved.
[QUOTE=mogul20478;24949094]This conspiracy is full of lies and half truths that will never get solved.[/QUOTE]
That's why it's a conspiracy.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;24846123]cause it gives rich people money
[editline]01:31PM[/editline]
like i said alot of people made money off of the war[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;24855752][QUOTE=SoaringScout;24851422]The idea of a planned explosion makes no sense. What the hell does Bush or whoever people claim bombed it gain from doing so?[/QUOTE]
money, people like that[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;24871347]the businesses still make money, why do you think oil is making so much money now
[editline]06:00PM[/editline]
it caused a war and war= money for the rich guys[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;24872035]well bankers make alot of money when people get poor[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;24882922]its called faking scarcity
they have the oil but they just want to make it seem that they dont[/QUOTE]
posting this for future use, I'm off to Bad Company 2 for a while
[editline]07:19PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=JesterUK;24949132]That's why it's a conspiracy.[/QUOTE]
zing
A good example today of overzealous 9/11 debunkers, in their latest news post they claim that nutty conspiracy theorists use this certain photo to display the extent of WTC 7's damage. I actually hadn't ever seen the photo before, I've seen ones that really show how big the hole was and it's pretty big, but in comparison to the building not so.
These are the same debunkers who believe that in 5 hours, every floor of WTC 7 was on fire.
[QUOTE=Hostel;24949182]A good example today of overzealous 9/11 debunkers, in their latest news post they claim that nutty conspiracy theorists use this certain photo to display the extent of WTC 7's damage. I actually hadn't ever seen the photo before, I've seen ones that really show how big the hole was and it's pretty big, but in comparison to the building not so.
These are the same debunkers who believe that in 5 hours, every floor of WTC 7 was on fire.[/QUOTE]
What?
[img]http://www.debunking911.com/Bankers.jpg[/img]
That damage in the image lines up with the heating oil distribution piping in the building. It's also 13 stories of damage to structural components of the building.
[QUOTE=Hostel;24948429]Can anyone explain why there was about 2 1/4 seconds of free fall time in the beginning when WTC 7 fell? Thereafter, the rate at which the building fell was incredibly close to the rate of gravity.
[URL="http://www.facepunch.com/#"]View YouTUBE video[/URL]
[URL]http://youtube.com/watch?v=Z6ntA6IHhzI[/URL]
[URL="http://www.facepunch.com/#"]View YouTUBE video[/URL]
[URL]http://youtube.com/watch?v=C2OnrPE8rYM[/URL]
Yes, he said to "pull it", but most just say he was referring to the firemen. I didn't know firemen were referred to as "it".[/QUOTE]
Exactly, he meant the building. But then it's still awkward since controlled demolitions require weeks, if not months of planning alone.
Also, "debunker" is a cool word since it's almost debeuker.
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;24948147]Damn 09'ers think they know everything.[/QUOTE]
Damn 07 elitists not knowing how to read.
[editline]10:44AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Hostel;24948937]The problem with you critical is that evidence is irrelevant to you. The notion that someone other than terrorist took down WTC 7 is so disturbing that you will ignore facts. Yes, there have been conspiracist who have brought whitewash to the table, as much as the debunking 9/11 idiots have. A good deal of both sides who are arguing are zealots, but there is some truth among both sides.
WTC 7 was 47 floors high and had fires spreading through the building for 5 hours. It received structural damage at one corner. This resulted in free fall of the building for the first roughly 2 1/4 seconds, and the rest of it's fall was extremely close to free fall speeds. We don't have visibility of the bottom floors, but from then on, the entire outer facade stayed intact while it fell.[/QUOTE]
My good sir, there was extensive damage to the south face, not just 1 corner.
Your post proves it, theorists have outdated and debunked evidence and just day NO U LIEZ to our side.
I have not seen anything that other than that, which side is more logical for me, the un informed guy who does his research, to follow.
I've seen the damage to the south side. Even the best pictures shown at debunking 9/11 show scattered points of damage that practically look like cosmetic changes, none of it is anything like the north corner.
I'll take a step back say that even if you could guess at the building in it's worst imaginable condition on that day, a worst case scenario, the bias data from NIST telling how fast it fell would not even agree.
The final NIST report on WTC 7's collapse:
[url]http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf[/url]
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;24948147]Damn 09'ers think they know everything.[/QUOTE]Your joindate makes you no less of a moron.
[QUOTE=Hostel;24948937]The problem with you critical is that evidence is irrelevant to you. The notion that someone other than terrorist took down WTC 7 is so disturbing that you will ignore facts. Yes, there have been conspiracist who have brought whitewash to the table, as much as the debunking 9/11 idiots have. A good deal of both sides who are arguing are zealots, but there is some truth among both sides.
WTC 7 was 47 floors high and had fires spreading through the building for 5 hours. It received structural damage at one corner. This resulted in free fall of the building for the first roughly 2 1/4 seconds, and the rest of it's fall was extremely close to free fall speeds. We don't have visibility of the bottom floors, but from then on, the entire outer facade stayed intact while it fell.[/QUOTE]There is no truth to the 9/11 "truthers". Don't try and cop out by saying "Oh both sides have merit", it just shows you're incapable of, and scared of trying, logical reasoning and thus having to choose a side.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;24948987]i would agree that both sides are just trying to protect the memes they have by being jerks to each other[/QUOTE]Protecting memes? Is there anything in that skull of yours apart from cotton wool?
[QUOTE=Hostel;24949757]I've seen the damage to the south side. Even the best pictures shown at debunking 9/11 show scattered points of damage that practically look like cosmetic changes, none of it is anything like the north corner.
I'll take a step back say that even if you could guess at the building in it's worst imaginable condition on that day, a worst case scenario, the bias data from NIST telling how fast it fell would not even agree.[/QUOTE]
Listen man
This is a subject on which you have no expertise or familiarity whatsoever. Shit, you don't even know that "biased" is a word. NIST is a group of trained professionals who have made careers out of the expert analysis of this sort of thing
Your layman's observations of "pff it looks like cosmetic damage" are no more of a GOTCHA than a creationist saying "if we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?"
[QUOTE=Hostel;24949757]I've seen the damage to the south side. Even the best pictures shown at debunking 9/11 show scattered points of damage that practically look like cosmetic changes, none of it is anything like the north corner.
I'll take a step back say that even if you could guess at the building in it's worst imaginable condition on that day, a worst case scenario, the bias data from NIST telling how fast it fell would not even agree.[/QUOTE]
Cosmetic fucking changes?
The south face was so engulfed in smoke from the fires you couldn't see the building itself. It's not "A few little fires" Because there were MANY MASSIVE fires.
Can we close and ban the OPs of all threads like these. It just ends up with one guy getting his shot slapped, another guy saying the same thing over and ignoring anything logical for 20 pages. Then the posters like hostel who post stuff out of their arse and can't make up their mind. Then we get some other guy who hasn't read the thread post old debunked crap, before ignoring everyone.
If you don't like the discussion then :frog:
This is an actual discussion about a serious topic, if you don't like being a part of it then [I]get out.[/I] We have threads like 'sossidge arms' for posters like you to take part in.
Who cares what happened to building 7?
The pentagon business is way more interesting.
[QUOTE=pipodebeuker;24949539]Also, "debunker" is a cool word since it's almost debeuker.[/QUOTE]
i still fail to see how people think the government did it. How was it logical in the slightest that the US goverment would waste millions upon millions of dollars and also kill thousands of trained workers for pretty much no reason whatsoever. It's been almost 10 years since it happened, surely if it WAS a government conspiracy there would be some solid proof that they did it instead of a bunch of videos showing the same thing.
Terrorists did it [sp]I lie the government did it[/sp]
Didn't like loads of engineers prove it was an inside job?
[QUOTE=Gareth;24963140]i still fail to see how people think the government did it. How was it logical in the slightest that the US goverment would waste millions upon millions of dollars and also kill thousands of trained workers for pretty much no reason whatsoever. It's been almost 10 years since it happened, surely if it WAS a government conspiracy there would be some solid proof that they did it instead of a bunch of videos showing the same thing.[/QUOTE]
the fact you think it was done 'for pretty much no reason whatsoever' shows you know less about what you're talking about then you let on. I recommend you do some research.
[editline]07:46PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=TH89;24956194]
This is a subject on which you have no expertise or familiarity whatsoever. Shit, you don't even know that "biased" is a word. NIST is a group of trained professionals who have made careers out of the expert analysis of this sort of thing[/QUOTE]
On the subject of NIST:
[quote]NIST's WTC 7 inquiry appears to have been motivated by the need to supply additional causative factors to make the collapse of this building without controlled demolition seem more plausible. Hence, it created a scenario of severe structure damage that cannot be easily confirmed or refuted. [/quote]Here's a couple of slides released with NIST's inquiry.
[IMG]http://wtc7.net/docs/theory/June2004WTC7_Page_31_m.png[/IMG]
[IMG]http://wtc7.net/docs/theory/June2004WTC7_Page_37_m.png[/IMG]
NIST would have us believe that the failure of a single column near ground level led, first to a vertical progression of failures, causing the collapse of the East Penthouse, followed by a horizontal progression of failures leading the collapse of all of the building's 27 core columns, precipitating a total collapse.
Basically, they're telling us it collapsed like a house of cards. :colbert:
Also, keep in mind FEMA previously had blamed the collapse entirely on fires, raising the obvious question of how fires could have induced the total collapse of this steel-framed building when fires have never caused the total collapse of a steel-framed building. When NIST released their inquiry, they changed their story.
"NIST would have us believe that their so-called "physics" and precious "facts" would lead to a building falling down. How can anyone be stupid enough to believe them? The only way a building could ever be taken down is with explosions, has nobody seen Transformers?"
[QUOTE=gtaftw;24963166]Terrorists did it [sp]I lie the government did it[/sp]
Didn't like loads of engineers prove it was an inside job?[/QUOTE]
No.
"experts" were interviewed, and said it didn't seem right.
I would not be surprised in the slightest if the PATRIOT act papers were written before the attacks with blanks in it for the place, event, and time the offending incident occurred. Just like Vietnam all over again.
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;24963478]Also, keep in mind FEMA previously had blamed the collapse entirely on fires, raising the obvious question of how fires could have induced the total collapse of this steel-framed building when fires have never caused the total collapse of a steel-framed building. When NIST released their inquiry, they changed their story.[/QUOTE]
OMFG really, that is all you can dig up is the same tired, incorrect argument that we have debunked multiple times in this thread?
Fire has throughout history repeatedly caused the collapse of steel structures.
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;24963478]Also, keep in mind FEMA previously had blamed the collapse entirely on fires, raising the obvious question of how fires could have induced the total collapse of this steel-framed building when fires have never caused the total collapse of a steel-framed building.[/QUOTE]
Because if something has never happened before in the past, it is physically incapable of [I]ever [/I]happening, right? (Despite the fact that, like mentioned above me, steel buildings HAVE collapsed from fires)
For the third time, I direct you to this simulation of the building's collapse. Generally when something is weakened to a dangerous level, then part of that thing gives out, the rest tends to go with it.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntBb02XtcvI&feature=related[/media]
it's like playing jenga except instead of pulling the pieces out you're lighting them on fire
what do you expect to happen
[QUOTE=cccritical;24972809]it's like playing jenga except instead of pulling the pieces out you're lighting them on fire
what do you expect to happen[/QUOTE]
just saying that kinda is a bad way of putting it
[QUOTE=The Vman;24971063] (Despite the fact that, like mentioned above me, steel buildings HAVE collapsed from fires)
[/QUOTE]
You guys sure love saying this. Still waiting for a source... :10bux: says you can't find 3 instances of it occuring [I]ever.[/I]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.