|
|
|
SilentKoala
New Member
15 Posts |
 Posted - 05/07/2007 : 20:07:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by j911ob
So where is the evidence it was a collapse due to fire? Please present some.
I never made any such claim, so why should I present evidence for it? Oh, I know: to distract away from the fact that you can provide no evidence for your claim that "every building collapse that displays the characteristics of 7 has been a controlled demolition."
The government claims it was brought down by the office fires, and you believe the official story, so you indirectly claim that building 7 was brought down by office fires. |
 |
|
|
dmayer76
New Member
17 Posts |
Posted - 05/07/2007 : 20:20:04 [Permalink]
|
wtc 7 collapsed due to fires caused by damage due to falling debrees from the wtc towers. wtc 5 and 6 were very short buildings, unable to block the collapsing debrees from hitting wtc 7.
but you knew that..didnt you?
funny how you deliberately withhold information that counters your theories. what kind of "truther" does such a thing? |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 05/07/2007 : 20:24:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by j911ob
So you have no position on building 7 then?
I never said that, either.quote:
Right well our discourse is over. I have no desire to play childish games with a troll who wont has no stance and just says back up that claim.
You refuse to provide evidence for your most-substantive claims, refuse to even acknowledge evidence that contradicts your claims, demand that I leap over imaginary hurdles of your design, and then put words in my mouth, yet I'm the childish one? Wow! The hypocrisy is strong in you.
Well, since you continue to dodge your responsibility to back up these claims of yours regarding the physical characteristics of the WTC 7 collapse, I have better things to do. I would have been extremely interested in hard evidence showing that the WTC 7 collapse was symmetrical or "too fast," and would have examined such evidence vigorously, indeed. But you've got none, and instead expect me to dance for you. Too bad, but site administration trumps toying with you any longer. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
SilentKoala
New Member
15 Posts |
Posted - 05/07/2007 : 20:26:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dmayer76
wtc 7 collapsed due to fires caused by damage due to falling debrees from the wtc towers. wtc 5 and 6 were very short buildings, unable to block the collapsing debrees from hitting wtc 7.
but you knew that..didnt you?
funny how you deliberately withhold information that counters your theories. what kind of "truther" does such a thing?
All you've done was reiterated the official story. You haven't actually explained WHY anything I've said in the OP is wrong. I didn't withhold any relevant information, I never said the buildings shielded building 7 completely, I said they should have suffered a lot more debris damage than building 7 since they were closer to the twin towers and since they were directly in the path between the twin towers and building 7. Since building 7 fell, buildings 5 and 6 should've fallen also. And that's only one agruement in my long list of arguements in the OP explaining why the collapse was an inside job. Please state your refutations to all of my other statements, otherwise I will take your continued silence as a concession. |
|
|
|
dmayer76
New Member
17 Posts |
Posted - 05/07/2007 : 20:32:51 [Permalink]
|
Im sorry....did I read you right? WTC 5 and 6 should have collapsed because wtc 1,2, and 7 collapsed? how exactly does that make any sense?
each building was damaged differently. wtc 5 and 6 were very small compared to the others. they were completaly gutted. so collapse or not...they were a total loss.
the deutsche bank building was also damaged by dust beyong use. it is being slowly demolished. how exactly did silverstein profit from that?
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 05/07/2007 : 20:46:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by SilentKoala
The government claims it was brought down by the office fires, and you believe the official story, so you indirectly claim that building 7 was brought down by office fires.
Where is your evidence that I believe the official story? Why is it that you haven't responded to my first post in this thread? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
j911ob
Skeptic Friend
223 Posts |
Posted - 05/07/2007 : 20:48:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by SilentKoala
The government claims it was brought down by the office fires, and you believe the official story, so you indirectly claim that building 7 was brought down by office fires.
Where is your evidence that I believe the official story? Why is it that you haven't responded to my first post in this thread?
Do you believe the official story?
You are doing what any 7 year old can do. Asking questions. Thats easy. Tell us what you believe. |
"Any pressurized can exposed to heat will explode like a grenade. Even a sealed bag of potato chips, if not melted by direct flame, can 'pop' with quite a report." - Kookbreaker at JREF, responding to reports of explosions in the towers. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 05/07/2007 : 21:09:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by j911ob
Do you believe the official story?
You are doing what any 7 year old can do. Asking questions. Thats easy. Tell us what you believe.
Sigh. You really don't get it, do you? Allow me to explain:
What I believe is irrelevant to the question of whether SilentKoala's theory is both valid and sound. Like any good theory, it has to stand on its own, be consistent with both itself and what's known in the world independent of the events it describes, and it has to be testable. So what I believe is of no consequence as to whether SilentKoala's post explains things better than even just the null hypothesis of "we don't know what happened."
You would prefer, however, to frame this as his theory versus the "official story," mostly because "you're just parroting the official story" is an easy way to dismiss anything that anyone might say (as SilentKoala has already done). But his theory either stands on its own, independent of the "official story," or else it fails to be a good theory.
And so asking questions is a necessity. It's the hardest thing anyone has to do regarding their own beliefs. If you're not up to the task of questioning yourself (and you don't appear to be), then let SilentKoala take a stab at defending his beliefs. He's not in a competition with my beliefs, his job is to make his case valid and sound, regardless of what I believe. To do that, he needs to explain why the speed of the collapse and the symmetricality of it are even relevant. His OP just assumes that his audience will think that they are. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 05/07/2007 : 21:37:26 [Permalink]
|
You guys kill me. You come to our site and call one of our administrators a troll. And yet, without getting into your assertions about 9/11, your whole demeanor is that of a couple trolls.
Came together did you? Coincidence?
What has being an atheist to do with anything you have brought up about 9/11 SilentKoala? Nothing? I thought so...
After you guys get done patting each other on the back, consider this. We have heard this all before. I will be amazed if you come up with anything beyond speculation about what occurred on 9/11 because speculation is what we usually get from conspiracy theorists. But hey, I'm all ears.
Just so you know, from where I sit, your opinion is that the halfwits who are in office could pull such a thing off is in itself an extraordinary claim. So far everything they have touched has turned to shit. And I am supposed to believe that that group of incompetents could pull off bringing those buildings down and keep several hundred people silent about it? Okay. Whatever.
Your job, since a conspiracy is your claim, is to come up with rock solid evidence for that. Not speculation based on a few anomalies. Confirmation bias and cherry picking do not play well here. You are making an extraordinary claim, and with that you will need to provide extraordinary evidence. Evidence equal to the claim you are making…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 05/07/2007 : 22:02:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by SilentKoala
In this thread I will use the anomalies surrounding the collapse of WTC Building 7 to draw my conclusion that 9/11 was undeniably an inside job.
Oh, so it's going to be a scientific, logical discussion then is it?
You aren't planning to use this thread to draw your conclusion, it's quite obvious that you already have one, and it is dishonest to insinuate otherwise.
As you claim that it's undeniably an inside job, you're not interested in much of a discussion either, but are just here to preach. You go girl.
|
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 05/07/2007 : 22:44:12 [Permalink]
|
I get more than a sneaking impression that really it's anti-Semitism these guys are pushing. That's at least an explanation for all these weird lies. Anti-Semites have been doing nothing but lie for centuries. From the Blood Libel to the Protocols of Zion, anti-Semites just make shit up.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 05/07/2007 22:45:31 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/07/2007 : 23:48:12 [Permalink]
|
silentkoala said:
quote:
All you've done was reiterated the official story. You haven't actually explained WHY anything I've said in the OP is wrong.
You have some things wrong. Most importantly you don't understand basic logic or this thing called burden of proof.
When you make a claim you are required to support that claim with evidence and then explain your evidence in a logical manner that leads to your conclusion.
When you make a claim, you have to support it. You don't get to say stuff and then dare people to prove you wrong, and then claim that because they can't prove you wrong that you are right!
Kinda like this: I am a powerful telepath who can control your mind. I am making you believe retarded conspiracy theories about 9/11 because it entertains me.
Don't believe me? Well, prove me wrong! You can't possibly prove that statement false, so therefore it must be true!
All that aside... you completely refute all your nonsense claims, yourself, in your OP.
quote:
A controlled demolition takes weeks, sometimes even months, to plan, and simply cannot be carried out on a day's notice. Even after all the blueprint planning is done, it can take days to actually place all the charges correctly. This is compounded more by the fact that logisitally speaking it would have been much more difficult to carry out the demolition while the whole area was blocked off and in rubble.
A controlled demolition of a building the size of WTC7 (say nothing of buildings the size of WTC1&2) does indeed take months to plan. It also requires several other things:
1. Thousands of pounds of explosives would be needed.
2. Significant alteration to the building interior to expose the hundreds of blast points.
3. A few miles of blast cord running through the building. (rf detonators are ruled out because of the size of the building. It is impossible to guarantee a signal reaching every one of the hundreds of charges in the exact timing needed for controlled demo. It also poses to high a risk of premature detonation of a charge)
4. Weeks worth of work are required just to set the charges after the interior is cleared to the points on the support structures.
5. A crew of a couple of hundred people just to do the work.
The entire proposition is blatantly absurd. You are talking about a conspiracy involving at least 500 people. On that alone this nonsense can be confidently dismissed. Where are you going to find 500 people willing commit murder against their fellow citizens, all of whom have to be in possession of very specific skill sets, and how do you then keep them all silent after the deed is done?
If you could find enough cold blooded killers with experience in controlled demolition who you could trust to keep silent, then how do you explain that no one in WTC7 noticed the alterations to the building?
The things you have to do for controlled demolition of a building that size are extremely un-subtle and have to happen on nearly every floor of the building. We are talking about hundreds of people with construction equipment busting the shit out of the interior of this building, for weeks, and then hauling in several tons of explosives, and then stringing blast cord from each charge to a detonation control box that would have to be on the exterior of the building. And all done while the usual business was being conducted in the months prior to 9/11.
That is what you need, at a minimum, to create an implosion style controlled demolition of WTC7.
If you are one of the freaks who insists that 1&2 were also imploded via controlled demolition, you have to magnify everything by a factor of 10, more or less, to achieve the desired effect.
quote:
Larry Silverstein, the owner of the building, and the person who made the most money off of the 9/11 attacks, is on tape saying that he and the fire department agreed to "pull it" - a term used in the demolition field to denote the demolition of a building. Skeptics often try to use the ridiculous argument that he was referring to "pulling the firefighters out of the building" which makes no sense since people don't use the pronoun "it" to refer to something plural such as firefighters. A tape of him saying this is here:
Lets see some evidence that Silverstein made any money "off of the 9/11 attacks". A reference to an article in the Wall Street Journal, or other business magazine/paper, would be acceptable. Something that clearly demonstrates he made money off the 9/11 attacks.
Do you have some source (none of your retarded prisonplanet or 911truth garbage) that supports your assertion that "pull it" is "a term used in the demolition field to denote the demolition of a building"?
Certainly "pull it" could be in reference to rescue or attempted salvage operations on WTC7? As in "pull the plug" on the attempt to extinguish the fire and/or rescue people, because the building was deemed to unsafe to be near?
quote:
Perhaps the biggest smoking gun of all, the fact that the BBC reported the building's collapse 26 minutes in advance, while the building was still standing. You can see a recording of this here:
And now you try to turn this into a global conspiracy! This, at least for me, is something new from the 9/11 conspiracy nuts.
Do you comprehend the sheer magnitude (and stupidity) of what you are suggesting? The US stages an attack on itself for some still unexplained reason, then these powerful and secretive types manipulate the global media's response, also for some unknown reason. How many thousands (or tens of thousands) of people would it actually take to manipulate the global media in the way you suggest, down to the level of providing them scripts! Everyone from the camera man and producers to the editors and anchors of every news show would have to be in on it!
quote:
It is an absolutely ridiculous assertion that a few small fires in isolated parts of the building were enough to cause it to completely collapse,
Well, good thing no one has ever suggested such a thing.
You should do yourself the favor of going to these two sites and reading them thoroughly.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html
http://www.debunking911.com/index.html
debunking911.com destroys all of your ridiculous assertions and conspiracy nonsense.
Seriously, pick up what little self respect you have left and go read those two sites.
(spelling edit) |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
| Edited by - Dude on 05/07/2007 23:50:29 |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 05/08/2007 : 00:21:53 [Permalink]
|
BTW, broad hints dropped by these guys of their underlying anti-Semitic motivation are here and here. Nazi bastards.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/08/2007 : 00:34:38 [Permalink]
|
Half, that guy is (rather incoherently) taunting our new 9/11 conspiracy people.
He isn't, that I can tell, actually advocating any 9/11 conspiracy or anti-semitism.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 05/08/2007 : 02:20:09 [Permalink]
|
Thanks to your input, Dude, my mind is presently open about this. See also here.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Building 7: The Smoking Gun of the 9/11 Inside Job
