[QUOTE=cccritical;25029610]no don't say that it completely breaks all of the factual evidence we've presented him
if you insult him in any way it's confirmation that he's right and the government's behind everything :tinfoil:[/QUOTE]
well insulting someone i dont think ever makes them change there mind on anything. we never hear Richard Dawkins calling a christain a retard because that would just strangethen there belief
"whole milk caused the twin towers to collapse. you know why? because I [i]read it on a website.[/i]"
[editline]08:47PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=imasillypiggys;25029692]well insulting someone i dont think ever makes them change there mind on anything. we never hear Richard Dawkins calling a christain a retard because that would just strangethen there belief[/QUOTE]
shut the fuck up
get the fuck out
Again, tell me why a trade centre would contain secret service documents related to killing 5000 New Yorkers inside the building they were planning to destroy for admin staff to accidentally view?
Again, tell me why a building that consists of the same materials, similar build structure collapsing is not evidence. The parts of this building made of the same material and similar construction of the WTC collapsed. It's clear on the photograph I showed you. This is proof that it's possible the WTC can collapse when it's fireproofing failed. The only reason the Madrid building did not collapse, and I quote from firefighters at the time, because 'of the concrete core'. WTC did not have a concrete core.
[QUOTE=cccritical;25029705]"whole milk caused the twin towers to collapse. you know why? because I [i]read it on a website.[/i]"
[editline]08:47PM[/editline]
shut the fuck up
get the fuck out[/QUOTE]
im sorry i was just making a point that calling the person you are bedaiting with a names will not change anything, i take it your angry that im not flinging insults like you to prove a point
snip
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;25029619]Source? All I've seen in the NIST report is that there was severe fire damage on multiple floors that lead to a collapse. There are multiple thousands of engineers and architects who say that couldn't happen without something helping the building go down. They probably know a lot more about structural building integrity than most of facepunch.[/QUOTE]
Its on the wikipedia WTC7 page, and has been posted through out the thread. If you managed to "miss it", then you aren't defending your point properly by not taking in all counter claims. That's not debating, that's some twisted distortion that makes you arguemnent look really bad
Here it is again
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTC7[/url]
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5f/Wtc7_collapse_progression.png[/img]
[QUOTE=imasillypiggys;25029726]im sorry i was just making a point that calling the person you are bedaiting with a names will not change anything, i take it your angry that im not flinging insults like you to prove a point[/QUOTE]
haha I'm not "RRR SO MAD HULK CRUSH" angry, it's somewhere between a mix of pity that he won't ever get his head out of his ass and frustration that no matter what undeniable evidence is presented he won't ever get his head out of his ass
Is this thread still happening? Jeez.
You analyze the faulty evidence presented by a monolithic bureaucratic government instead of analyzing the reason behind the attacks.
The government's official story on that [i]has[/i] been disproven.
A bunch of pissed off Terrorists blew up some buildings because the CIA ruined their countries, toppled governments and allied with Israel.
Well documented, makes our government look bad and frankly I'm sure the government is pleased you are blaming them in such a stupid way instead of making the real truth more mainstream.
[QUOTE=teeheeV2;25029745]
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5f/Wtc7_collapse_progression.png[/img][/QUOTE]
quoting so he can't conveniently ignore it again
[QUOTE=cccritical;25029755]haha I'm not "RRR SO MAD HULK CRUSH" angry, it's somewhere between a mix of pity that he won't ever get his head out of his ass and frustration that no matter what undeniable evidence is presented he won't ever get his head out of his ass[/QUOTE]
Keep chill bro. Don't bother doing it for his sake, I'm just pointing him out as a moron for the benefit of others, and that's all we can do.
He is a very good troll, I'll give him that.
[editline]02:53AM[/editline]
[quote=s0beit;25029762]a bunch of pissed off terrorists blew up some buildings because the cia ruined their countries, toppled governments and allied with israel.
Well documented, makes our government look bad and frankly i'm sure the government is pleased you are blaming them in such a stupid way instead of making the real truth more mainstream.[/quote]
qft
[QUOTE=cccritical;25029755]haha I'm not "RRR SO MAD HULK CRUSH" angry, it's somewhere between a mix of pity that he won't ever get his head out of his ass and frustration that no matter what undeniable evidence is presented he won't ever get his head out of his ass[/QUOTE]
your not angry but at the end of this you know he will think " what a barbarian all he can do is call me names. this proves i am right hahaha everyone else is stupid" it is possible to change someones views its just that there is a special way of doing it and if you see the op is just going to not listen to logic then you can just give up
is it bad that I'm not entirely sure he's trolling? I mean it's obvious he's purposely ignoring bulletproof evidence but I can't decide whether it's because he actually can't debate it or because he wants to see how long he can troll
[editline]08:56PM[/editline]
piggy I swear to god if I have to put you in my ignore list a third time I will rape a cat
i dont think he is a troll, he just soemone that really wants to prove hes right
posting this in case shukaido's already forgotten he conveniently didn't notice them:
[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;24976412]To be quite frank with you, your argument deserves nothing more than absolute ridicule, but i'm getting rather annoyed by your persistence.
:sigh:
You haven't refuted anything, you haven't posted proper evidence; but if you want me to go in-depth as to how it's bullshit, then let's do that. Got nothing else better to do today apart from masturbate, and that just kinda becomes a chore after a while, just something I do to prevent wet dreams as it makes such a mess.
I'll be going through your posts in this thread, but before I waste my time in order to increase the size of my e-penis: the final NIST report on the collapse of WTC 7. Their site seems to be down at the moment (conspiracy? :tinfoil:), so here's it re-uploaded. It's 130 pages but don't start crying, if my caffeine-addled self can read it all, so can you.
[url]http://filesmelt.com/dl/NIST_report_WTC_7_collapse.pdf[/url]
Implosions are not unique to controlled demolitions.
According to the NIST report, interior column 79 on the northeast side was the first to give way due to fire damage on the lateral supports on floor 13 causing the floor to collapse between columns 79, 80 and 81 all the way down to floor 5 (which was the stronger floor due to the unusual necessities of building WTC 7 over the Con Edison substation) leaving it unsupported over 9 stories and allowing it to buckle eastward.
Floor failures followed all the way up to the east penthouse. Columns 80 and 81 followed due to debris damage from falling floors and load redistribution from column 79. East to west interior column failure resulted as lateral supports failed. The first exterior columns to give way were on the southern face, falling inwards naturally as the interior columns had given way. The north face followed last and thus lay to rest on top of the pile.
The important things to note are:
[list][*]The fires were ignited by debris from WTC 1 at the southwestern face where the debris caused damage to floors 5-17. They were fed by the materials one would find in an office setting, the diesel in the backup generator fuel tanks played no role.
[*]The sprinkler systems for floors 1-20 were supplied by the water mains of the city. These having been damaged by the collapse of the towers, no water got to these floors. Floors 21 and above were fed water from tanks on the roof and so they controlled the fires on the floors between 21-30.
[*]In accordance with the 1968 New York Building code, the fireproofing material used for the supports was rated for 2 hours. They opted for 3 hour spray-applied fire resistant material on the vertical columns, and the 2 hour for floor supports. Obviously inadequate for 6 hours of continuous fires.
[*]The same building code took no account of lateral load increase due to expansion of those supports by heat, which was ultimately the cause of collapse.
[/list]
One thing you might find interesting is in page 68 of the report, in which they refute the use of explosives.
You are right about one thing, though; it did collapse inwards.
[list][*]McCormick Place
[*]Kader Toy Factory
[*]The outer steel supports of the uppermost 11 floors of Windsor Tower which were not encased in concrete did in fact collapse.[/list]
The other WTC buildings were 9 stories tall or less, wide and flat essentially and the usual stable web of steel design. That, and there was in fact partial collapse of some supports due to fire damage. The Marriott World Trade Center, 22 stories tall, was entirely destroyed by debris from the collapsing towers. And no matter how many times you keep repeating "Steel structured buildings have never collapsed from fire", it won't become true.
Link us to these sources.
Read the report. Give us a link to the statement changing stuff.
Usual load of arse i've come to expect from you. I've already been through the mechanics of WTC 7's collapse. Although, give me a link to this renovation of floor 23, and the claim the entire building was built to withstand terrorist attacks, i'm intrigued. That floor contained the NYC Mayor's Office of Emergency Management.
Controlled by firefighters and sprinkler systems, admittedly rather ineffectually at first. Different design, more evenly distributed as it hadn't a Con Edison substation to contend with. You can read the report for that incident in the following pdf, which also contains floor plans.
[URL=http://filesmelt.com/dl/Tr-049.pdf]Tr-049.pdf[/URL]
Also, link to this alleged research please.
I'll deal with the political aspects later, quite frankly I am really bored right now. I'll instead leave you with this quote for the time being.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=TH89;24983957]Here's why: politically, you are no factor. The only people who take you seriously are other conspiracy theorists. The things that are worth arguing over are real issues, like the death penalty, climate change, religion in schools. Issues that ordinary people have differences of opinion over. Refuting all the conspiracy theories you've run across is as pointless as arguing with a flat-earther. Even if we win (and we won't because you're suffering from a severe case of confirmation bias) who cares? What difference does it make?
Second, there is no reason to refute every minor quibble with NIST reports, every official slip of the tongue recorded during that chaotic event, because there's no logical endpoint to it all.
-Let's say you're right, and WTC 7 was destroyed in a controlled demolition. Why? You make such a big deal out of how it "conveniently" collapsed inwards. In a massive disaster with debris from other buildings, airliners, and bodies spread over several city blocks, who gives a damn if one building made a slightly smaller mess? How is this worth the incredible risk of somehow setting up a controlled demolition in a populated building without anyone noticing?
-You claim there's no precedent for a steel building collapsing due to fire. There's sure as hell no precedent for someone planting demolition charges all throughout a building and demolishing that building WHILE PEOPLE WORK THERE, WITHOUT THEM NOTICING. Which of these scenarios is more likely?
-Why have there been no information leaks? In a world of whistleblowers and Wikileaks, a conspiracy that would have to have had hundreds if not thousands of people in on it has perfect security?
-Not only that, but you don't have the experts on your side. You can cite Bob the Builder in Buttfuck Ohio all you want, but if your claims really held water, if the NIST report and other reports were really BS, the real experts would be all over it. En masse. It would be all over the news.
Oh wait, it wouldn't be all over the news because the media's part of the conspiracy, right? There's a few thousand more people right there--many of them involved for no reason, even. For example, lots of WTC7 conspiracists like to cite that some TV station reported the WTC7 as collapsing before it actually happened. This clearly proves that the station knew it was supposed to collapse because they were part of the conspiracy. They obviously needed to be given the Terror Attack Itinerary beforehand. Because, you know, they wouldn't have just reported it anyway.
-Or maybe all the experts on physics and building support and demolition are part of the conspiracy, and that's why they haven't said anything. There's thousands more right there.
It's a good thing all these thousands of people all over the country are universally willing to take part in this morally abhorrent plot, execute their roles with perfect competence, and remain silent about it for a decade afterward. I wonder, is every structural expert in the US some kind of CIA plant, trained at a secret base? Or are they ordinary citizens who have been brainwashed with some kind of conspiracy ray? This warrants further study.
-If a small cabal of conspirators wanted to simulate a terrorist attack on the United States, they would have stolen some planes, and crashed them into the WTC and the Pentagon. They could probably do that with less than 20 people.
They would NOT orchestrate an insanely complex plot involving sneaking into occupied buildings, tearing apart the walls and planting hundreds of demolition charges, then leaving without a trace, then preventing the media and demolition experts, not to mention NIST and the scores of other independent investigators, from uttering a word against the official story, which, according to you, holds no water.
They would NOT do that, because that would be STUPID. It would be so stupid it would never work. Even if it could work, it would still be stupid because there are a hundred simpler, less risky ways of achieving the same result (blown up buildings).
What you are doing (and by you I mean the conspiracy theorists who are feeding you your opinions) is desperately searching the rubble of 9/11 for discrepancies, holes in the official story. Most of these discrepancies are based on misunderstandings, dodgy fact-finding, or are just plain wrong. But even if they weren't, it still wouldn't matter because the picture you have built from them is so phenomenally stupid it doesn't even warrant consideration.
That is why your conspiracy theory is dumb.[/QUOTE]
[editline]08:59PM[/editline]
please refute all of those points if you're oh so sure you're right and we're all sheep shukaido
people will almost automatically forget (that is even if they look at) proof that is not good for there belief system
almost all epople do this on some leves and figuring out when you or someone else does this is a great way to think logically
Nuh Uh Critical. He is a Sgt so he is obviously in the army which is owned by the government of the US :patriot:
[QUOTE=imasillypiggys;25029849]i dont think he is a troll, he just soemone that really wants to prove hes right[/QUOTE]
:quagmire:
[url]http://www.facepunch.com/showpost.php?p=25029891&postcount=325[/url]
Hopefully a perma. He is really annoying.
[QUOTE=teeheeV2;25029989][url]http://www.facepunch.com/showpost.php?p=25029891&postcount=325[/url]
Hopefully a perma. He is really annoying.[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't care less if it were a day and he were told to stay the flying fuck away from politics, religion, general debates, sharp objects and fire
[QUOTE=cccritical;25029872]posting this in case shukaido's already forgotten he conveniently didn't notice them:
[editline]08:59PM[/editline]
please refute all of those points if you're oh so sure you're right and we're all sheep shukaido[/QUOTE]
Do you think your clever quoting other peoples posts without the ones I refuted them with?
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;25029393][B]Why did WTC 7 collapse, while no other known building in history has collapsed due to fires alone?[/B]
The collapse of WTC 7 is the first known instance of a tall building brought down primarily by uncontrolled fires. The fires in WTC 7 were similar to those that have occurred in several tall buildings where the automatic sprinklers did not function or were not present. These other buildings, including Philadelphia's One Meridian Plaza, a 38-story skyscraper that burned for 18 hours in 1991, did not collapse due to [B][I]differences in the design of the structural system.[/I][/B]
They literally themselves acknowledge that it was the first known building to collapse from fires alone.All you facepunchers who continue to try and debunk this point, please, please tell me why the NIST say the same exact thing?[/QUOTE]
bold/italicized what you seem to be missing.
[QUOTE=MrEndangered;25029721]Again, tell me why a trade centre would contain secret service documents related to killing 5000 New Yorkers inside the building they were planning to destroy for admin staff to accidentally view?
Again, tell me why a building that consists of the same materials, similar build structure collapsing is not evidence. The parts of this building made of the same material and similar construction of the WTC collapsed. It's clear on the photograph I showed you. This is proof that it's possible the WTC can collapse when it's fireproofing failed. The only reason the Madrid building did not collapse, and I quote from firefighters at the time, because 'of the concrete core'. WTC did not have a concrete core.[/QUOTE]
I responded to both of these multiple times throughout the thread and it would be redudant to do so again.
man that imasillypiggy is a jerk always not cursing and always not getting angry, we should teach that jerk
[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyAlt;25030087]bold/italicized what you seem to be missing.[/QUOTE]
Yes, the same can be said for the building referenced by a previous poster. However, neither of them count because unlike the WTC 7, those buildings were still standing after the fires were put out.
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;25030073]Do you think your clever quoting other peoples posts without the ones I refuted them with?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;24982841]I like this post most of all. Atleast he took the time to carefully refute my claims (the ones he could). I have carefully rebutted every point made against me, if you missed one go back to read it. I'll continue to address any and all counterpoints to the best of my ability. As of yet however, I am not convinced there was not foul play involved in the destruction of the building.
[editline]07:19PM[/editline]
I'm about to show you how right I really am.
Firstly, McCormick Place, really?
[IMG]http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/docs/mccormick_fire.jpg[/IMG]
The first fact that should be noted in regard to any such comparison is that the McCormick Place incident was not a total building collapse -- it was only a roof collapse. Much less was it the total collapse of a high-rise building. Any comparison of it to the Twin Towers is limited to the Towers' floor diaphragms. FEMA blamed the heat-induced failure of the Towers' floor diaphragms, but failed to provide a convincing explanation of how floor failures could have led to total building collapse.
And the toy factory fire...
There were no fire extinguishers, no alarms, no sprinkler systems and the elevated walkways between the buildings were either locked or used as storage areas. The buildings themselves were death traps, constructed from [I]un-insulated steel girders that buckled and gave way in less than 15 minutes.[/I] You're trying to compare that to a skyscraper with EXTENSIVE heat insulation?
Even your last 'building collapse from fire' is not anything close to such. Thermal weakening of structural steel is a crucial element of the official theory of the collapse of the Twin Towers and Building 7. Since there are no examples of steel-framed buildings [I][B]totally [/B][/I]collapsing due to fire stress (outside of these three alleged examples I just debunked) that just makes this all the more strange.
[editline]07:39PM[/editline]
Here's the important stuff out of FEMA's report:
[LIST]
[*]At 9:59 AM (after the south tower collapse), electrical power to the substations in WTC 7 was shut off.
[*]Due to a design flaw, generators in WTC 7 started up by themselves.
[*]Debris from the collapsing North Tower breached a fuel oil pipe in a room in the north side of the building. (This means the debris had to travel across WTC 6 and Vesey Street -- a distance of at least 355 feet -- penetrate the outer wall of WTC 6, and smash through about 50 feet of the building, including a concrete masonry wall.)
[*]This, and other debris (that also made the journey across Building 6 and Vesey Street), managed to start numerous fires in the building. (Unfortunately, this event did not prompt anyone to turn off the generators.)
[*]The backup mechanism (that should have shut off the fuel oil pumps when a breach occurred) failed to work, and the fuel oil (diesel) was pumped from the tanks on the ground floor to the fifth floor where it ignited. The pumps emptied the tanks of all 12,000 gallons of fuel.
[*]The extant fires raised the temperature of the spilled fuel oil to the 140 degrees F required for it to ignite.
[*]The sprinkler system malfunctioned and failed to extinguish the fire.
[*]The burning diesel fuel heated trusses to the point where they lost most of their strength, precipitating a total collapse of Building 7.
[/LIST]
The last point is the greatest stretch, since it asks us to believe that an event that would be expected only to cause the sagging of a floor instead led not only to total collapse, but to such a tidy collapse that directly adjacent buildings were scarcely even damaged. This is surprising behavior for a steel-framed skyscraper designed to survive fires, hurricanes, and earthquakes. [I]After laying out this highly improbable scenario, the FEMA report authors conclude: [/I]
[I] The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time.[/I] Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy,[B] the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence[/B]. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue.
[I][B]
Unfortunately for investigators hoping to resolve this issue, nearly all of the evidence had already been destroyed by the time the FEMA report was published. [/B][/I]
If we wanted to use Occam's Razor right now... I'd say controlled demolition sounds a lot more plausible.[/QUOTE]
and
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;24984348]This was a really good post. Although we share differing view points, I respect your desire to rebuke them legitimately, and will therefore do the same (to the best of my ability).
These are a few plausible reasons behind why there aren't more whistle blowers.
[LIST]
[*]The likely number of "insider" conspirators in a position to blow the whistle and their relevant personal characteristics
[*]How the government and media have treated whistleblowers who have revealed weaknesses in the handling of national security threats, without claiming any inside knowledge of how 9/11 was carried out (or even challenging the official story)
[*]The motivations and concerns of whistleblowers
[*]Attitudes and other filtering mechanisms evident in the major media
[/LIST]
This concludes that the probability of an insider coming forward and being offered widespread media coverage is quite low because of their small numbers, risk/opportunity balance considerations, and media filtering mechanisms. Not to mention, would you think that the lackeys doing the lowly work (ie: covertly planting explosives, etc) would have any knowledge of their grand scheme? If anything, they probably didn't even know what it was they were told to carry. You think guys like that could just blow the whistle without having a huge backlash (not unlike seen in this thread?).[/QUOTE]
they were basically shitposts, a mass of speculation and devoid of fact
[editline]09:20PM[/editline]
I was about to continue insulting you but I'm going to go watch a movie
not sure if I'll be back later tonight, but you can be damn sure I'll be back tomorrow
[i]come for the nutjobs, stay for their shitposts[/i]
can someone explain exactly how you place a few hundred pounds of explosives to level a building in a building in downtown new york without anyone noticing and leaving pretty much no explosive ordinance remaining.
and why WTC 7 didn't light up like building demolitions do.
[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyAlt;25030240]can someone explain exactly how you place a few hundred pounds of explosives to level a building in a building in downtown new york without anyone noticing and leaving pretty much no explosive ordinance remaining.
and why WTC 7 didn't light up like building demolitions do.[/QUOTE]
Because it was not an explosion.
[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyAlt;25030240]can someone explain exactly how you place a few hundred pounds of explosives to level a building in a building in downtown new york without anyone noticing and leaving pretty much no explosive ordinance remaining.
and why WTC 7 didn't light up like building demolitions do.[/QUOTE]
You see, they knew that when the building would collapse that thermite would be formed in a chemical reaction. That's how they got it without anyone knowing.
:downs:
[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyAlt;25030240]can someone explain exactly how you place a few hundred pounds of explosives to level a building in a building in downtown new york without anyone noticing and leaving pretty much no explosive ordinance remaining.
and why WTC 7 didn't light up like building demolitions do.[/QUOTE]
idk they could have hid it in a many many briefcases or had it on the plain (i dont know how they would not get caught putting that on a plain though) hey op because you are the one that thinks they hid it in the building, how do you think they hid all of it in there?
-Won't even bother with above-
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.