Wtc7 Still Up For Debate?

Wtc7 Still Up For Debate?

Reggie_perrin
Advanced Member
Reggie_perrin
Advanced Member
Joined: Oct 18 2006, 04:15 PM

Oct 18 2006, 09:00 PM #1

Is the collapse of WTC7 still up for debate? i think we all know by now why wtc7 fell, even if you take away Silversteins freudian slip, the evidence for controlled demolition far out ways evidence of damage and fire.

It's physically impossible for the building to fall like that from fire and damage, case closed??.
Quote
Like
Share

George Hayduke
Advanced Member
George Hayduke
Advanced Member
Joined: Oct 18 2006, 04:08 PM

Oct 19 2006, 12:08 PM #2

I agree: Case closed!

Nonetheless, there are important issues about WTC 7 that should be discussed.
Quote
Like
Share

Popeholden
Advanced Member
Popeholden
Advanced Member
Joined: Oct 19 2006, 04:34 AM

Oct 19 2006, 01:15 PM #3

many people still disagree.
Quote
Like
Share

dylan avery
Advanced Member
dylan avery
Advanced Member
Joined: Oct 17 2006, 11:25 PM

Oct 19 2006, 03:06 PM #4

Popeholden @ Oct 19 2006, 01:15 PM wrote: many people still disagree.
how about the people that ran from it as they collapsed? I know two off-hand that would say controlled demolition, case closed.
"No one said the air at Ground Zero was safe to breathe."
-Mark Roberts, 11/5/2007

"I am glad to reassure the people of New York and Washington, D.C. that their air is safe to breathe and their water is safe to drink."
-Christie Todd Whitman, EPA Press Release, 9/18/2001
Quote
Like
Share

Popeholden
Advanced Member
Popeholden
Advanced Member
Joined: Oct 19 2006, 04:34 AM

Oct 19 2006, 03:22 PM #5

two out of how many? have you read gravy's newest document on the subject dylan?
Quote
Like
Share

Popeholden
Advanced Member
Popeholden
Advanced Member
Joined: Oct 19 2006, 04:34 AM

Oct 19 2006, 03:33 PM #6

well here it is in PDF form if you haven't, i've been told some of the links don't work

http://911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.pdf
Quote
Like
Share

Roxdog
Advanced Member
Roxdog
Advanced Member
Joined: Oct 18 2006, 06:13 PM

Oct 19 2006, 03:43 PM #7

Listen to Gravy. Not nuclear physicists. Hey, why aren't Gravy and that drugged girl Abbie working for NIST? Maybe they could help get that report out a little quicker. :P

Call Revere Radio: 1-(877)- REVERE-0 (Click To Listen Live!!!)

"There will be, in the next generation or so, a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude, and producing dictatorship without tears, so to speak, producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them, but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda or brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods. And this seems to be the final revolution."
-Aldous Huxley, Tavistock Group, California Medical School, 1961


"Stay on your toes. We don't know how many other Brett Darrows there are out there..."
Quote
Like
Share

Popeholden
Advanced Member
Popeholden
Advanced Member
Joined: Oct 19 2006, 04:34 AM

Oct 19 2006, 03:44 PM #8

actually i trust the numerous firefighters gravy quotes much more than gravy himself.

i mean, these guys were actually on the scene when it happened.
Quote
Like
Share

Roxdog
Advanced Member
Roxdog
Advanced Member
Joined: Oct 18 2006, 06:13 PM

Oct 19 2006, 05:38 PM #9

Which ones?

Call Revere Radio: 1-(877)- REVERE-0 (Click To Listen Live!!!)

"There will be, in the next generation or so, a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude, and producing dictatorship without tears, so to speak, producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them, but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda or brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods. And this seems to be the final revolution."
-Aldous Huxley, Tavistock Group, California Medical School, 1961


"Stay on your toes. We don't know how many other Brett Darrows there are out there..."
Quote
Like
Share

Quad4_72
Advanced Member
Quad4_72
Advanced Member
Joined: Oct 19 2006, 02:23 PM

Oct 19 2006, 09:30 PM #10

Well I say before a bunch of people who post on internet forums and have no history in demolitions, investigations, physics, and chemistry start deciding when a case is closed, maybe they should read a bit closer into the case. Look at popholdens link. It has some good stuff in it. Here it is in .doc format.

http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.doc
Quote
Like
Share

Jayne
Advanced Member
Jayne
Advanced Member
Joined: Oct 19 2006, 07:29 PM

Oct 20 2006, 11:10 AM #11

Over the Silverstein quote, he says:

"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, uh, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."

(emphasis mine)

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?doc ... rstein+wtc

So, he says the FDNY decides to pull it. He doesn't make that decision, they do.

I don't for one moment believe that the FDNY would evacuate - and in doing so stop looking for survivors, their friends and collegues - in order to blow up a building. It makes far more sense if 'pull it' refers to the firefighting operation in WTC 7, which is another argument I've read.
Quote
Like
Share

Graham
Advanced Member
Graham
Advanced Member
Joined: Oct 20 2006, 01:09 PM

Oct 20 2006, 06:47 PM #12

Jayne @ Oct 20 2006, 11:10 AM wrote:  and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."

Did he not suggest it in the first place? Would the FDNY have suggested it if he hadn't of mentioned it?
Quote
Like
Share

Jayne
Advanced Member
Jayne
Advanced Member
Joined: Oct 19 2006, 07:29 PM

Oct 20 2006, 07:03 PM #13

Graham @ Oct 20 2006, 06:47 PM wrote:
Did he not suggest it in the first place?
He might have done, without knowing the whole conversation in its entirity it's hard to tell. But he seems to have been giving his oppinion on what "maybe" should happen.

He's just been told the fire can't be contained, it makes sense that he'd think it wasn't a good idea for the firefighters to carry on.
Quote
Like
Share

Roxdog
Advanced Member
Roxdog
Advanced Member
Joined: Oct 18 2006, 06:13 PM

Oct 20 2006, 07:08 PM #14

Quad4_72 @ Oct 19 2006, 09:30 PM wrote: Well I say before a bunch of people who post on internet forums and have no history in demolitions, investigations, physics, and chemistry start deciding when a case is closed, maybe they should read a bit closer into the case.  Look at popholdens link. It has some good stuff in it. Here it is in .doc format.

http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.doc
Posting that pathetic link over and over accomplishes absolutely nothing.

Here, follow your own advice...

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/se ... itself.htm

Call Revere Radio: 1-(877)- REVERE-0 (Click To Listen Live!!!)

"There will be, in the next generation or so, a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude, and producing dictatorship without tears, so to speak, producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them, but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda or brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods. And this seems to be the final revolution."
-Aldous Huxley, Tavistock Group, California Medical School, 1961


"Stay on your toes. We don't know how many other Brett Darrows there are out there..."
Quote
Like
Share

Graham
Advanced Member
Graham
Advanced Member
Joined: Oct 20 2006, 01:09 PM

Oct 20 2006, 07:13 PM #15

Popeholden @ Oct 19 2006, 03:33 PM wrote: well here it is in PDF form if you haven't, i've been told some of the links don't work

http://911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.pdf
from that link.

it is claimed there, the collapse time of 6.5 seconds, is not right due to the penthouse and top section, extending the time to 13.5 seconds.

for the outside (rest of the 44 floors) to collapse in 6.5 seconds, all resistance and support would have to be removed simultaneously, and instantly. so that statement answers it's own question.

the question then should be, surely, is it possible for fire and falling rubble to remove all support and resistance instantly and simultaneously?
Quote
Like
Share

Tenacious E
Advanced Member
Tenacious E
Advanced Member
Joined: Oct 19 2006, 01:11 AM

Oct 21 2006, 12:18 AM #16

f!ckin eh. its most definately NOT possible. but these tools will still argue pathetically about silverstiens comments yet theyw ont even look at HOW IN THE HELL that building uniformly imploded from just a few small fires on one side of the building.....honestly these idiots want us to believe these building are made out of playing cards...
"FOX pimps Hillary. FOX pimps socialism." - Roxdog's utterly astounding ignorance.
Quote
Like
Share

Graham
Advanced Member
Graham
Advanced Member
Joined: Oct 20 2006, 01:09 PM

Oct 21 2006, 10:38 AM #17

Graham @ Oct 20 2006, 07:13 PM wrote:
Popeholden @ Oct 19 2006, 03:33 PM wrote: well here it is in PDF form if you haven't, i've been told some of the links don't work

http://911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.pdf
from that link.

it is claimed there, the collapse time of 6.5 seconds, is not right due to the penthouse and top section, extending the time to 13.5 seconds.

for the outside (rest of the 44 floors) to collapse in 6.5 seconds, all resistance and support would have to be removed simultaneously, and instantly. so that statement answers it's own question.

the question then should be, surely, is it possible for fire and falling rubble to remove all support and resistance instantly and simultaneously?

Pope? Jayne?
Quote
Like
Share

Quad4_72
Advanced Member
Quad4_72
Advanced Member
Joined: Oct 19 2006, 02:23 PM

Oct 21 2006, 03:19 PM #18

First of all, Roxdog that link you gave me just completely reafirmed everything that I was saying. Mr. Watson takes everything completely out of context and in the process makes himself and every other CTer out there look like a complete idiot. This guy seems to think that just because there were firemen in the building that means that they were aggresively fighting the fires. They were PULLED OUT. That is why there was no firefighting going on in there! They were pulled out before they had a chance to! How completely blind can you guys be? Everyone here realizes that conspiracy theorists are a complete joke in the real world right? You guys have been pitching this crap for like 5 years now. NOBODY who is in even the smallest position of power takes you guys seriously. ANd if the government is as corrupt as you say it is, why are people like Dr. Jones and Dylan Avery alive right now? If the government can pull off the most intricate, complicated, and devastating conspiracy the world has ever known do you really think that they would let themselves be exposed so easily? Grow up people. Do something useful for your country instead of posting on internet forums thinking that somehow you are making a difference.

And Roxdog I would LOVE to see you try and prove that link wrong that I have posted. You can't, and you won't.
Quote
Like
Share

Graham
Advanced Member
Graham
Advanced Member
Joined: Oct 20 2006, 01:09 PM

Oct 22 2006, 10:26 AM #19

Graham @ Oct 20 2006, 07:13 PM wrote: the question then should be, surely, is it possible for fire and falling rubble to remove all support and resistance instantly and simultaneously?
anyone? Bueller?..... Bueller?......
Quote
Like
Share

Reggie_perrin
Advanced Member
Reggie_perrin
Advanced Member
Joined: Oct 18 2006, 04:15 PM

Oct 22 2006, 03:07 PM #20

I can't believe people can't see whats right in front of them, comon, this was a fucking strong building, it had to be because of what it housed, it was a well built building that was apparently over desinged. I don't care if i don't have a degree in physics, that building was bought down by contrlled demolition, how can it just magically fall symetrically in 6.5/7 seconds, and don't deny it didn't because it did, it's plainly obvious.When building fall because of structural damage they fall toward the part thats damaged, this building fell straight down.

I don't know if the people denying con dem are being paid to spout this crap, but please give over, other buildings took way more damage from falling debria and still stood up.

For some reason they felt this particular building had to come down that day.
Quote
Like
Share


Confirmation of reply: