Proof to put the 9/11 Truthers to bed in less than 2 mins

#376
#376
Regarding all things WTC7 there's this:

Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - World Trade Center 7, Building 7

I like that at the bottom of this quote there's no claim of omniscience on the matter. The point is that Friar Occam's requirements for how WTC7 came down are wholly satisfied with the "at face value" story.

As for Building 7 and the evidence for Controlled Demolition, let's review the evidence...
What we do have for sure.

1) Fireman saying there was "a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors." "I would say it was probably about a third of it".

2) A laymen officer the fireman was standing next to said, "that building doesn’t look straight." He then says "It didn’t look right".

3) They put a transit on it and afterward were "pretty sure she was going to collapse."

4) They "saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13".

5) Photographic evidence of a fire directly under the penthouse which collapsed first.

6) The penthouse fell first, followed by the rest of the building shortly after.

7) The collapse happened from the bottom.

8) Photographic evidence of large smoke plumes against the back of B7. Plumes of smoke so large you can't see the entire rear of the 47 story office building.

 9) Silverstein is not a demolition expert and was talking to a fire fighter and not a demolition expert. Why would he use the word "Pull" to describe the demolition to a fire fighter?

10) Silverstein denies "Pull" means "Controlled demolition". He said it means "Pull" the teams out of the building.

 11) Silverstein did not make the decision to "Pull". (Whatever that means) "they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse"

12) Another fire fighter used "Pull" to describe the decision made to get him out of the building.

 What we don't have...

1) Clear view of the large hole

2) Number of columns and location of columns taken out by the tower impact

3) Clear view of all the fires seen on the south side

4) Any sign of an actual explosive.

 Maybe none of these things by themselves mean anything but together it means there is no case. The person who said "Pull" and started this cascade later clarified. Fireman use the word "Pull" to describe getting out of a building and the person who made the order was not Silverstein according to the same first interview.
9/11 conspiracy sites are being dishonest. You have to ask yourself why?
​
There is no doubt "Pull" means pull the firemen out.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#377
#377
Ever noticed that some 9-11 Truthers are the same loons that believe aliens helped construct the Pyramids?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#378
#378
MG1968 said:
Ever noticed that some 9-11 Truthers are the same loons that believe aliens helped construct the Pyramids?
Click to expand...

No moon landing, JFK was killed because he found out about the lizard people, Ron Paul had a chance at getting elected President, tin foil beanies, Illuminati, white guys are just as good at basketball....ya know, all the craziest stuff imaginable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#379
#379
LouderVol said:
considering that I am close to being one of those "experts" I would say my opinion, or if one felt inclined, my professional opinion gives me some weight in this area. While dismiss might be the wrong word, my background allows me to discount their opinion based on the numbers I have run. they may have ran different numbers, they might have made a mistake, I might have made a mistake, they may just have the fingers in their ears. there is enough information out there where anyone of the engineers or architects should be able to run some darn quick calculations to come up with some pretty conclusive proof on the collapse.

and again my whole point is the collapse isn't bull. that happened exactly as it should have. and that is what the original video brought up. then the retort video brought in other areas and the argument evolved from there. the OP is correct. and while it doesn't dispense any 9/11 theory it goes a long way speaking towards the collapse.

because I apparently have to repeat myself I am waving off the governments lack of intervention and action.
Click to expand...

This is kind of my point in all of this. There shouldnt be any dissenting opinions on the subject right? As you said there is enough info out there to make simple calculations to figure it out. Yet, there are skilled, qualified and respected egineers, architects and other professionals that still question the official collapse theory.

All I am saying is they could be wrong. But so could you, the NIST report and every other explanation the government has given. As I have said nobody has access to every piece of info, so the absolute truth can never be known.
 
#381
#381
Yet, there are skilled, qualified and respected egineers, architects and other professionals that still question the official collapse theory.
Click to expand...

I disagree with your characterization of "skilled" and none of whom I'd hire to design or oversee a building I wanted built.
 
#384
#384
You know guys, it's Christmas Eve. You think we could give it a cease fire for 24 hours or so?

Even in wartime we can set aside our differences enough to be civil for a short period of time.
 
#385
#385
Grand Vol said:
You know guys, it's Christmas Eve. You think we could give it a cease fire for 24 hours or so?

Even in wartime we can set aside our differences enough to be civil for a short period of time.
Click to expand...

I appreciate the "its Xmas" can't we all be friends"??

Sorry Grand.... My attitude is squashing idiocy every where I see it......

2 + 2 never = 5......
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#386
#386
GhostVol said:
I appreciate the "its Xmas" can't we all be friends"??

Sorry Grand.... My attitude is squashing idiocy every where I see it......

2 + 2 never = 5......
Click to expand...

Using that logic, then why did that iron worker in the opening video of this thread use jet fuel as the foundation of his argument when jet fuel wasn't even invovled with WTC 7?

If you are going to be crushing idiocy every where you see it, how about starting right there in the first damn video?
 
#387
#387
Rasputin_Vol said:
Using that logic, then why did that iron worker in the opening video of this thread use jet fuel as the foundation of his argument when jet fuel wasn't even invovled with WTC 7?

If you are going to be crushing idiocy every where you see it, how about starting right there in the first damn video?
Click to expand...

So your argument is "Why was WTC 7 demolished"...

Well, damn..... The only way to go about about that was to destroy the World Trade Center..... Both buildings....... 3000+ people because in WTC 7 there are some incriminating records....

Haven't any of those people heard of shredders?
 
#388
#388
GhostVol said:
I appreciate the "its Xmas" can't we all be friends"??

Sorry Grand.... My attitude is squashing idiocy every where I see it......

2 + 2 never = 5......
Click to expand...

Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. George Carlin.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#389
#389
GhostVol said:
So your argument is "Why was WTC 7 demolished"...
Click to expand...

No, stick to what I specifically asked you. Why don't you address the fact that jet fuel was not present in WTC 7, yet this is used as a reason as to why it fell by the the iron worker. At the very least, you should be able to dismiss this theory.
 
#393
#393
Carl Pickens said:
This structural damage
Click to expand...

Asymmetrical and superficial. It should have fallen in the direction of the weakened side, assuming it was enough to cause catastrophic failure.

So we have 3 different asymmetrical events that miraculously cause 3 buildings to collapse in the normal direction?
 
#395
#395
Rasputin_Vol said:
No, stick to what I specifically asked you. Why don't you address the fact that jet fuel was not present in WTC 7, yet this is used as a reason as to why it fell by the the iron worker. At the very least, you should be able to dismiss this theory.
Click to expand...

What I find to be infinitely more likely is that during a time of great stress and massive confusion some one misspoke.

Rasputin_Vol said:
Asymmetrical and superficial. It should have fallen in the direction of the weakened side, assuming it was enough to cause catastrophic failure.

So we have 3 different asymmetrical events that miraculously cause 3 buildings to collapse in the normal direction?
Click to expand...

Exactly!!! I'd even go so far as to call it a triumph of design and engineering that these buildings all failed exactly as they were meant to in the event of catastrophe, asymmetrical or not. After all, the designers and engineers of these buildings couldn't guarantee a symmetrical event so they designed for both symmetrical and NOT symmetrical events.

What I can't understand is why you et. al. refuse to acknowledge the fact that what happened was what was supposed to happen.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#396
#396
Rasputin_Vol said:
Asymmetrical and superficial. It should have fallen in the direction of the weakened side, assuming it was enough to cause catastrophic failure.

So we have 3 different asymmetrical events that miraculously cause 3 buildings to collapse in the normal direction?
Click to expand...

Do you see the marks on the building from all the debris? Do you honestly think the U.S. brought down the buildings? If so, why?
Could they not have achieved their goal of war by more simple and less expensive means?
 
#397
#397
Carl Pickens said:
Could they not have achieved their goal of war by more simple and less expensive means?
Click to expand...

Probably. But it still would have required the loss of life, I'm afraid. Obama got political traction or public support for going into Syria back in the late Summer of 2013... not even when Assad (allegedly) gassed his own people. However, fast forward to now after Charlie Hebdo, Chattanooga, San Bernadino, latest Paris attacks and now you've got people falling all over themselves ready to go to Syria. Unless it hits home, most Americans don't care... and TPTB know this, that is why they have to fabricate a condition to generate the support needed to go to war.

Honestly, if the WTC attacks idea would have been shelved, we may have seen another USS Cole type attack.
 
#398
#398
Rasputin_Vol said:
Probably. But it still would have required the loss of life, I'm afraid. Obama got political traction or public support for going into Syria back in the late Summer of 2013... not even when Assad (allegedly) gassed his own people. However, fast forward to now after Charlie Hebdo, Chattanooga, San Bernadino, latest Paris attacks and now you've got people falling all over themselves ready to go to Syria. Unless it hits home, most Americans don't care... and TPTB know this, that is why they have to fabricate a condition to generate the support needed to go to war.

Honestly, if the WTC attacks idea would have been shelved, we may have seen another USS Cole type attack.
Click to expand...

So now the government was in on the USS Cole attack too?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top