• What Happened to WTC Building 7 on 9/11?
    1,009 replies, posted
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;25022555]Apparently you don't understand what that means to the entirety of the official 9/11 story. Let me spell it out to you: If on 9/11 that something that [B]has never happened before[/B] occurred, wouldn't you cry foul play? It's obvious from what they've deduced that there had to be some outside force helping the building collapse.[/QUOTE] Conveniently ignoring the evidence, as usual.
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;25022555]Apparently you don't understand what that means to the entirety of the official 9/11 story. Let me spell it out to you: If on 9/11 that something that [B]has never happened before[/B] occurred, wouldn't you cry foul play? It's obvious from what they've deduced that there had to be some outside force helping the building collapse.[/QUOTE] The US was never attacked by terrorists before. Is that foul play too?
[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyAlt;25022847]The US was never attacked by terrorists before. Is that foul play too?[/QUOTE]Uh, it was. 1993 WTC bombing, for example.
[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;25022889]Uh, it was. 1993 WTC bombing, for example.[/QUOTE] Well, on such such a scale as this, I should have specified, in the way it happened.
[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;25022647]Conveniently ignoring the evidence, as usual.[/QUOTE] Conveniently ignoring the[URL="http://www.facepunch.com/showpost.php?p=25022318&postcount=777"] evidence[/URL] to back up my claims... and then claiming I ignored you? That's ironic.
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;25022978]Conveniently ignoring the evidence to back up my claims... and then claiming I ignored you? That's ironic.[/QUOTE]Your evidence is a pile of steaming bullshit. Don't make me come over there and beat you over the head with a hardcopy of the NIST report, just read the goddamn thing.
[URL="http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm"]My claims are based off of the NIST website. [/URL]Sorry pal, your evidence is my evidence.
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;25023049][URL="http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm"]My claims are based off of the NIST website. [/URL]Sorry pal, your evidence is my evidence.[/QUOTE]I'm confused now. How does the NIST report support your claim that explosives were used?
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;25022555]If on 9/11 that something that [B]has never happened before[/B] occurred, wouldn't you cry foul play? It's obvious from what they've deduced that there had to be some outside force helping the building collapse.[/QUOTE]
So by that statement, you're saying that the first woman to fly around the world solo would be foul play? A MAN HAD TO HAVE HELPED HER. Or that, the first army to conquer Asia HAD TO BE HELPED BY GOD. Assumptions are worthless statements. Just because a first happened, it doesn't mean anything dubious happened.
Find me a steel-framed, 40+ storey building, whose steel columns are not coated in concrete, with the same structural design as WTC 7, built on top of another building with provisions made only for a 20 storey building, struck by debris from another building, sustaining fire for over 6 hours with no firefighting effort made; if it doesn't collapse, you'll have a point. On top of being completely incorrect, it is also irrelevant. You also still haven't refuted the report's specific debunking of the use of explosives.
All very true statements which bring up valid points. But consider everything the Bush administration has done since then, and how he looked for an in-to the war in Iraq before it even started. The fact that what happened did is just extremely suspicious, and the fact that the building that would have held the documents to persecute/leak/whistle blow these actions had been destroyed on the very same day makes this situation highly questionable. [editline]08:05PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Sgt Doom;25023285]Find me a steel-framed, 40+ storey building, whose steel columns are not coated in concrete, with the same structural design as WTC 7, built on top of another building with provisions made only for a 20 storey building, struck by debris from another building, sustaining fire for over 6 hours with no firefighting effort made; if it doesn't collapse, you'll have a point.[/QUOTE] [Quote]Philadelphia's One Meridian Plaza, a 38-story skyscraper that burned for 18 hours in 1991, did not collapse[/Quote]Straight from my earlier quote... wasn't very hard to find.
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;25021368]It's simply interesting information surrounding the day WTC 7 went down. If they conspired to hoax some sort of false-flag attack (as they have done in the past, and we all know history repeats), then this would be a part of it.[/QUOTE] if you're saying pearl harbor was set up you really need to retake fourth-grade history and on
You do realize that there were events that got us into wars [I]prior [/I]to WW2 right? :downs: [editline]08:07PM[/editline] Even after as well, for fucks sake.
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;25023292]All very true statements which bring up valid points. But consider everything the Bush administration has done since then, and how he looked for an in-to the war in Iraq before it even started. The fact that what happened did is just extremely suspicious, [B]and the fact that the building that would have held the documents to persecute/leak/whistle blow these actions had been destroyed on the very same day makes this situation highly questionable.[/B][/QUOTE]Know what the word for that is? [B]Coincidence.[/B] The use of explosives in WTC 7 has been completely ruled out.
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;25023292]All very true statements which bring up valid points. But consider everything the Bush administration has done since then, and how he looked for an in-to the war in Iraq before it even started. The fact that what happened did is just extremely suspicious, and the fact that the building that would have held the documents to persecute/leak/whistle blow these actions has been destroyed on the very same day makes this situation highly questionable.[/QUOTE] He didn't start a war with Iraq over 9/11, he started the war with AFGHANISTAN. On the very same day? What the fuck are you talking about now? Oh yes I forgot, we went to war on the same day 9/11 happened. Right. Funny how nobody remembers that. Also, remember all those thousands that were evacuated before the towers collapsed? Yeah, not everybody who worked there died... real good way of killing whistle blowers if you have no guarantee you will. Also, why would ALL the documents be within the VERY BUILDING THEY KNEW THEY WERE GOING TO DESTROY? Do you think people are that retarded? "Hey, we have information that they're going to destroy these buildings... lets hide all the clues and files IN THIS BUILDING FOR SAFE KEEPING" [editline]09:10PM[/editline] [QUOTE=ShukaidoX;25023360]You do realize that there were events that got us into wars [I]prior [/I]to WW2 right? :downs:[/QUOTE] There have been no false-flags in American history that involved murdering thousands of your own countrymen, or from any nation as a matter of fact. Oooh, oh right. OBAMA SECRET POLIZEE
it's funny, I've noticed Shukaido hasn't even mentioned explosives used in his last ~8 posts, now instead of debating his original point he's rambling about how there's never a first for anything
anybody who thinks 9/11 was a controlled demolition has no idea what a building demolition looks like or how it's set up.
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;25023292]All very true statements which bring up valid points. But consider everything the Bush administration has done since then, and how he looked for an in-to the war in Iraq before it even started. The fact that what happened did is just extremely suspicious, and the fact that the building that would have held the documents to persecute/leak/whistle blow these actions had been destroyed on the very same day makes this situation highly questionable. [editline]08:05PM[/editline] Straight from my earlier quote... wasn't very hard to find.[/QUOTE] Way to misquote the NIST. "Philadelphia's One Meridian Plaza, a 38-story skyscraper that burned for 18 hours in 1991, did not collapse[B] due to differences in the design of the structural system.[/B]" [editline]08:25PM[/editline] So right now you're basically saying that this was a conspiracy because : A building like WTC7 has never collapsed due to fires before And that that building held a lot of files. There is a word for that, I believe it's called speculation. And it's also incredibly weak speculation.
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;25021368]It's simply interesting information surrounding the day WTC 7 went down. If they conspired to hoax some sort of false-flag attack (as they have done in the past, and we all know history repeats), then this would be a part of it.[/QUOTE] Wait, 9/11 didn't happen? [editline]09:25PM[/editline] [QUOTE=ShukaidoX;25022555]Apparently you don't understand what that means to the entirety of the official 9/11 story. Let me spell it out to you: If on 9/11 that something that [B]has never happened before[/B] occurred, wouldn't you cry foul play? It's obvious from what they've deduced that there had to be some outside force helping the building collapse.[/QUOTE] Pearl Harbour? First WTC bombing?
[QUOTE=cccritical;25023351]if you're saying pearl harbor was set up you really need to retake fourth-grade history and on[/QUOTE] Some think Pearl Harbor was allowed to happen to gain public support to enter the war... [url]http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/pearl/www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/pearl.html?q=pearl/www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/pearl.html[/url]
[QUOTE=Warhol;25023677]Wait, 9/11 didn't happen? [editline]09:25PM[/editline] Pearl Harbour? First WTC bombing?[/QUOTE] He said if something that has never happened before happened on something like 9/11.
[QUOTE=jbright;25023698][B]Some think[/B] Pearl Harbor was allowed to happen to gain public support to enter the war...[/QUOTE] Bolded the important part for you. I'm sure the Americans were more than willing to lose millions of dollars in military hardware, and millions of dollars in training and... Oh Jesus why am I even arguing something so stupid.
I want to bring up again, there's never been a consensus on what there is to gain from masterminding or allowing shit like 9/11 or pearl harbor to happen a few tards said "some people somewhere got rich off of it but I can't really think of anyone right now" and thought it was a concrete argument but honestly ~3000 civilians and millions of dollars in the government, possibly billions of dollars in civilian life plus government losses, all so that we could start a ten-year war "for oil" or "because" what is wrong with conspiracy theori[i]oh wait[/i]
[QUOTE=cccritical;25024033]I want to bring up again, there's never been a consensus on what there is to gain from masterminding or allowing shit like 9/11 or pearl harbor to happen a few tards said "some people somewhere got rich off of it but I can't really think of anyone right now" and thought it was a concrete argument but honestly ~3000 civilians and millions of dollars in the government, possibly billions of dollars in civilian life plus government losses, all so that we could start a ten-year war "for oil" or "because" what is wrong with conspiracy theori[i]oh wait[/i][/QUOTE]
My opinion is that it was a facility that had been storing a child infected by an alien disease. The goverment did it as a coverup.
[QUOTE=Regorc's Chest;25024396]My opinion is that it was a facility that had been storing a child infected by an alien disease. The goverment did it as a coverup.[/QUOTE] most plausable theory here
[QUOTE=Warhol;25023677]Wait, 9/11 didn't happen? [editline]09:25PM[/editline] Pearl Harbour? First WTC bombing?[/QUOTE] Apparently I wasn't clear enough. What happened on 9/11 that has [I]never [/I]happened before was that[B] no other known building in history has collapsed entirely due to fires alone. The NIST says that [URL="http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm"]on their own website.[/URL] [/B]Any other incorrect assumptions I need to clear up?
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;25024990]Apparently I wasn't clear enough. What happened on 9/11 that has [I]never [/I]happened before was that[B] no other known building in history has collapsed entirely due to fires alone. The NIST says that [URL="http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm"]on their own website.[/URL] [/B]Any other incorrect assumptions I need to clear up?[/QUOTE] and this proves what again
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;25024990][/B]Any other incorrect assumptions I need to clear up?[/QUOTE] As we've said before, a 'first' doesn't make anything automatically suspicious. (The Titanic was the first 'unsinkable' ship to sink, does that mean it was destroyed on purpose?) For one, the fire that gutted the Madrid tower caused the building to 'be on the risk of collapse'. So the fact that WTC 7 DID collapse when it's been proven that these types of buildings can 'nearly collapse' is really nothing all that special. I got that information from a news report, but here is another take on the information, including photographic evidence. [url]http://www.911myths.com/html/madrid_windsor_tower.html[/url]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.