WTC-7 Was Taken Down Using Controlled Demolition

Welcome!

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

Pages:
1
2
3

WTC-7 Was Taken Down Using Controlled Demolition; The Evidence Is Truly Overwhelming
Topic Started: Feb 2 2008, 12:05 PM (2,294 Views)
RKOwens4	Feb 6 2008, 03:01 PM Post #51
Posts: 66 Group: Skeptics Member #260 Joined: 02/02/08	"What would it take to get it to drop the way it did? Besides explosives." One word: Gravity. The only similarity to a controlled demolition is that the building fell down rather than up. I've shown that the building did not fall symetrically (it leaned to the south and began breaking up a few seconds into collapse, before breaking up completely halfway into its collapse), it didn't fall at free-fall speed, and didn't fall into its footprint. So what "way" are you referring to which would indicate the use of explosives?
Posts: 66 Group: Skeptics Member #260 Joined: 02/02/08


NK-44	Feb 6 2008, 04:43 PM Post #52
Posts: 160 Group: Members Member #16 Joined: 01/14/08	Quote: "Furthermore, people have presented here more arguments than 'just look at how it fell'" And I've debunked them, have I not? See my original response to the "evidence" that Terral brought up. The discussion over the damage to the building is still ongoing, but neither Terral nor anyone else has even bothered to attept an argument against any of the facts I presented. If you feel I haven't provided satisfactory evidence, let me know on which issue, but don't just reference old pieces of evidence that have been disproven. It honors you that you come to defend your debunker colleague HL, whose troll tactic has been revealed. And I have no doubt that you think you debunked the claim that WTC 7 was a demolition. But guess what, you didn't convince me in any way. The points you adressed regarding symmetry, speed, footprint, etc. have been adressed and debunked several times here by members. We went over this again and again, look into the old forum. So I won't waste time with endless discussion with people who under no circumstances will ever concede even the possibility that the official version could be false. Why don't you 'debunkers' make a movie proving the official version? How's that? And I make a screw movie out of it? (I really would love to do that...) Of course that is not as easy and not as funny as making infantile movies like 'Ground Zeros' (what's the age of the tour guide? Is he sixteen? Now I could take a cam, going to the Bundestag (German parliament), where they recently made the decision to bring in more soldiers to Afghanistan in a war which started due to 9/11, and make them looking stupid by asking simple questions. I bet none of them could even name the names of five of the alleged 9/11hijackers. Then I post it in the net with some condescending comment, proving what a bunch of uninformed, stupid clowns the official version defenders are. But I won't, and not because I have to prove to myself that I'm not sixteen anymore (no offense intended to those on this board being 16 or under, you know what I mean :-) , but making a comedy out of that issue is in my eyes shameful to do. But everyone has his own priorities, and there are people who seem to need such performance for their ego. I asked here several times for debunkers to not prove a conspiracy theory wrong, but to prove the official version. Because proving an alternative version wrong does not prove the original version. So why should I spent my time discuss this issue with you? Instead I prefer to spent my time showing people the contradictions in the official version, and once they recognized that the official version holds no water(boarding), then this brings us closer to a new, independent investigation. I know that 'debunkers' (aka pseudo-sceptics) are afraid of such an investigation, that's why they spend so much time fighting those demanding an investiagtion (why afraid of it at all?), because (at least) subconsciously, most 'debunkers' know that an independent investigation holds the risk that what they defended for years, breaks apart and adds to the already alarming state of cognitive dissonance. RKO, you can continue wasting your time here, but believe me, you haven't convinced anyone here regarding WTC 7. And from experience I can tell you, that there's no way you debunkers will ever make the people believe that WTC 7 wasn't a demolition. The problem for us sceptics is only that most people are completely unaware of building 7. For example, on the anniversary last year, the collapse of building 7 was shown in German television for the first time, in a documentary intended to debunk conspiracy theories. So when they showed building 7, they introduced the usual 'experts' from PM and such, giving their bullshit propaganda explanations. Guess what happened, when I spoke with people (and that's also the experience of others) who denied the possibility that WTC was demolished (but were unaware of 7), all of them agreed, despite the 'debunking' given by the experts, that it was demolished. Some of them engineers who dismissed every WTC CD-theory as conspiracy nonsense. But once they saw the building fell and heared the official explanation, they figured out that two plus two still equals four. The best thing for you official version defenders would be to avoid the issue of WTC 7 collapse where ever it is possible. Because you can't debunk it (but you're free in your delusions to believe that), and if you (RKO) think that people who for the first time watched LCFC and watched building 7 collapse will go here and will then be convinced by your brilliant debunking arguments, then you're quite more delusional than I thought. All you debunkers would serve yourself better when finally starting proving the official version to be true, instead of 'debunking' theories of people you consider to be nuts. What does that tell about people spending so much time debunking nuts? But I know, there's no way to prove the official version. And with the destruction of the CIA-interrogation-tapes (never heared a JREFer to be sceptical about that), there is just no evidence left. Besides red bandanas, some flight planes and boxcutters, a farewell-letter and some other apparently fabricated 'evidence'. Or you could take As-Sahab's Azzam The Gringo as evidence, but I doubt most people would follow you on that path. Edited by NK-44, Feb 6 2008, 04:48 PM.
Posts: 160 Group: Members Member #16 Joined: 01/14/08


sap-guy	Feb 6 2008, 05:36 PM Post #53
Posts: 152 Group: Skeptics Member #133 Joined: 01/19/08	NK-44 Feb 6 2008, 04:43 PM ... I asked here several times for debunkers to not prove a conspiracy theory wrong, but to prove the official version. Because proving an alternative version wrong does not prove the original version. That is one scary statement. It's a statement that shows the author has no understanding of the logical process. Proving the "alternative theory" wrong destroys the "alternative theory". Which leaves us with the original theory, or some hitherto undiscovered theory that might prove superior to the original theory. This is how science works. Better theories take over by virtue of being better supported by available evidence. When a weaker theory is demonstrated to be weaker, the currently accepted theory remains at the top of the heap, by default. It remains there because the evidence supporting it has proved strongest. Edited by sap-guy, Feb 6 2008, 05:39 PM.
Posts: 152 Group: Skeptics Member #133 Joined: 01/19/08


NK-44	Feb 6 2008, 06:43 PM Post #54
Posts: 160 Group: Members Member #16 Joined: 01/14/08	sap-guy Feb 6 2008, 05:36 PM NK-44 Feb 6 2008, 04:43 PM ... I asked here several times for debunkers to not prove a conspiracy theory wrong, but to prove the official version. Because proving an alternative version wrong does not prove the original version. That is one scary statement. It's a statement that shows the author has no understanding of the logical process. Proving the "alternative theory" wrong destroys the "alternative theory". Which leaves us with the original theory, or some hitherto undiscovered theory that might prove superior to the original theory. This is how science works. Better theories take over by virtue of being better supported by available evidence. When a weaker theory is demonstrated to be weaker, the currently accepted theory remains at the top of the heap, by default. It remains there because the evidence supporting it has proved strongest. Do you mean this seriously? The only scary thing here is your complet lack of understanding logic, but no surprise, as this is usual for a 'debunker'. Quote: Proving the "alternative theory" wrong destroys the "alternative theory". Which leaves us with the original theory So proving that WTC wasn't demolished proves that 19 muslim fanatics hijacked four planes and crashed them in WTC and Pentagon? And you want to give me lessons in logic? What a joke you are, LMAO. Quote: This is how science works. This is how a delusional mind works, suffering from cognitive dissonance. You should spend more time visiting a doctor then visiting this forum. When I ask you pseudo-sceptics to present the evidence for the official version then you come with such shit. Is that everything you got? Or are you a truther in disguise to make 'debunkers' looking stupid? I'm not quite sure....
Posts: 160 Group: Members Member #16 Joined: 01/14/08


Avenger	Feb 6 2008, 09:42 PM Post #55
Posts: 574 Group: Members Member #17 Joined: 01/14/08	Quote: "What would it take to get it to drop the way it did? Besides explosives." One word: Gravity. Don't CDs use gravity to help it along? I was kinda hoping you could explain the mechanics of this building's collapse? Quote: I've shown that the building did not fall symetrically (it leaned to the south and began breaking up a few seconds into collapse, before breaking up completely halfway into its collapse), it didn't fall at free-fall speed, and didn't fall into its footprint. So what "way" are you referring to which would indicate the use of explosives? All Cds are perfectly symmetrical? What about the Landmark Tower? That was a controlled demo, right? WTC7 fell WAY straighter than the Landmark Tower did. Why was the Landmark's collapse not nearly as symmetrical as WTC7's? Edit: Here's a video of the Landmark implosion. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIOgpxyzqq4 Compare that to the WTC7 collapse. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A Edited by Avenger, Feb 6 2008, 10:17 PM.
Posts: 574 Group: Members Member #17 Joined: 01/14/08


Chris Sarns	Feb 6 2008, 11:57 PM Post #56
Posts: 173 Group: Members Member #116 Joined: 01/17/08	The official hypothesis is a farce. See "Flaw in NIST hypothesis" Disproving one theory does not validate another. As for the CD theory, see my sig.
Posts: 173 Group: Members Member #116 Joined: 01/17/08


einsteen	Feb 7 2008, 02:53 AM Post #57
Posts: 54 Group: Members Member #110 Joined: 01/17/08	I thought I provided even some screendumps for him but he didn't (want to) see it I think. No CD on world falls with free-fall.
Posts: 54 Group: Members Member #110 Joined: 01/17/08


Miragememories	Feb 7 2008, 08:04 AM Post #58
Posts: 756 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08	einsteen Feb 7 2008, 02:53 AM I thought I provided even some screendumps for him but he didn't (want to) see it I think. No CD on world falls with free-fall. There are those who are blind who wish to see. There are those who are blind that think it is normal. MM
Posts: 756 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08


Terral	Feb 7 2008, 12:45 PM Post #59
911Truther Posts: 87 Group: BANNED! Member #142 Joined: 01/20/08	Hi Chris with MM and RK mentioned: First of all, please allow me to thank Chris and MM for holding down the WTC-7 fort, while I continue to focus my time on the Pentagon case. For me, this WTC-7 Demolition is almost as ‘slam dunk’ as the Flight 93 case where all we see is picture after picture of the empty 20-feet diameter hole. This RK guy is going to see 100-Ton Jetliners where none ever crashed, if we show him the pictures of the empty hole a thousand thousand times, just like for this WTC-7 case where he is obviously mistaken . . . You wrote, Quote: Chris >> The damage in this photo is west of column 6, not east of it. A 10 story gouge indicated by the white box in the graphic you posted would look like this: None of the “gouge” testimony means anything. Zero! The reason is that we are dealing with a ‘symmetrical collapse’ like for the Twin Towers. If RK’s assertions are correct (and they are not), then his side of WTC-7 should have fallen down ‘ahead’ of the rest of the building. However, this picture from this Webpage shows WTC-7 falling ‘symmetrically’ straight down into its own footprint. Do you see any building fires through the unbroken windows? No! Why? The reason is because building fires had NOTHING to do with this Controlled Demolition. We can see the telltale ‘kink’ in the roofline, as the middle section of WTC-7 is collapsing ‘faster’ than the two sides; which we know points to the CD explanation. Therefore, RK’s ‘gouge’ argument is working to forward ‘our’ CD explanation and not any “Building Fires Did It” explanation at all. This RK guy has another motive for being here besides seeking the 911Truth, so pander to his nonsense if that makes you guys happy . . . GL, Terral Edited by Terral, Feb 7 2008, 12:47 PM.



RKOwens4	Feb 7 2008, 03:48 PM Post #60
Posts: 66 Group: Skeptics Member #260 Joined: 02/02/08	"Why don't you 'debunkers' make a movie proving the official version? How's that? And I make a screw movie out of it?" What about the 2-hour History Channel program "9/11 Conspiracies: Fact or Fiction" debunking every major conspiracy theory and "proving" the official version? What about the BBC program "9/11 Conspiracy Files"? What about my own "9/11 Debunked" series of 50 or so videos addressing each theory individually? It wasn't made for a fancy budget, but the facts speak for themselves and cost nothing. Can you disprove a single fact or piece of evidence presented in any of these? "I asked here several times for debunkers to not prove a conspiracy theory wrong, but to prove the official version. Because proving an alternative version wrong does not prove the original version." It doesn't work that way. The burden of proof, whether in science or in a court case or with conspiracy theories, is always on the person making the claim. In this case, for a 9/11 "truther" to prove that, say, the Pentagon was hit by a missile, it's up to him/her to PROVIDE PROOF. Find an eyewitness, a piece of missile debris, anything. The official version has been proven. 104 eyewitnesses physically saw the plane hit the Pentagon. 0 saw a missile. There are hundreds of photos of debris. The black boxes were recovered, the DNA of all passengers but one (a baby) was recovered, there's video showing the plane hit (albeit blurry). In order for you to prove that a missile hit, the burden of proof is on you to not only prove that the evidence just mentioned is invalid, but to then provide evidence OF your claim. You're asking debunkers to prove the official version, but this has already been done. Even so, I've provided you pictures throughout this thread showing the extent of the fires, massive damage to nearby buildings proving WTC7 didn't fall into its footprint, eyewitness quotes, and so on. The burden of proof is entirely not on me, but I've done it anyway! And you're saying this isn't enough? "I know that 'debunkers' (aka pseudo-sceptics) are afraid of such an investigation" Who said debunkers are afraid of a new investigation? And what's with the name calling? Every single conspiracy theory has been proven wrong a thousand times over, as outlined in my 9/11 Debunked videos. Not only that, but it would interesting to see how conspiracists' method of trying to put their burden of proof on someone else would play out in a courtroom. By the way, can you name a single thing which you believe was wrong with the 9/11 Commission's investigation? The number one claim I hear (asbolute number one) about how the original investigation was supposedly mishandled is how investigators were not given access to the WTC's steel, which "was a felony!!!" (as shouted on bullhorns). In fact, Gene Corley of NIST said his team was given FULL access to Ground Zero in October (fires made it too dangerous before then) and was allowed to save whatever pieces he wanted. So anyone making this claim (I'm not saying you are) has no idea what he's talking about. "alarming state of cognitive dissonance" Take a psychology class in college. That doesn't mean what you think it does. "Because you can't debunk it (but you're free in your delusions to believe that" Here we go again. Like Terral, you completely ignore the thorough evidence I've handed you, failed to provide an argument against it, and claim that I'm delusional for believing the evidence. Ignoring the evidence doesn't make it go away! You have to disprove it, which is something you haven't done, and with every additional post it becomes more and more clear that you can't. So you can resort to name-calling all you want, it still doesn't disprove the facts.
Posts: 66 Group: Skeptics Member #260 Joined: 02/02/08


NK-44	Feb 8 2008, 12:00 AM Post #61
Posts: 160 Group: Members Member #16 Joined: 01/14/08	Quote: Can you disprove a single fact or piece of evidence presented in any of these? Are you joking? Quote: It doesn't work that way. The burden of proof, whether in science or in a court case or with conspiracy theories, is always on the person making the claim. I don't know in which world you live in. But in the world I live in the guilt of someone has to be proved, not the innocence. But maybe you live already in the New World others here have not arrived yet. Quote: In this case, for a 9/11 "truther" to prove that, say, the Pentagon was hit by a missile, it's up to him/her to PROVIDE PROOF. I'm not talking about missiles at the Pentagon. I'm talking about the official version. Is that so hard to understand? Does the disproving of a missile prove that Hani Hanjour flew Flight 77 into the Pentagon? Hamburg cell? Let's talk about Mohammed Atta, Mounir al Motassadeq or Mamoun Darkazanli. THIS is the official version. Quote: Who said debunkers are afraid of a new investigation? And what's with the name calling? Every single conspiracy theory has been proven wrong a thousand times over, as outlined in my 9/11 Debunked videos. Not only that, but it would interesting to see how conspiracists' method of trying to put their burden of proof on someone else would play out in a courtroom. You are aware that six years after 9/11 there's no courtroom in the world where the official version, or parts of it, have been proven? Or do you mean KSM-Schauprozess? What's your evidence? Where's your evidence? Show us what no courtroom has seen yet, and the FBI regarding OBL still doesn't know. OBL behind 9/11, THAT is the official version. Prove it! Quote: Here we go again. Like Terral, you completely ignore the thorough evidence I've handed you, failed to provide an argument against it, and claim that I'm delusional for believing the evidence. Ignoring the evidence doesn't make it go away! You have to disprove it, which is something you haven't done, and with every additional post it becomes more and more clear that you can't. So you can resort to name-calling all you want, it still doesn't disprove the facts. Others have disproved you in this thread! You're talking about facts? Bring in the facts that hold water(boarding). And besides that: Quote: In fact, Gene Corley of NIST said his team was given FULL access to Ground Zero in October (fires made it too dangerous before then) and was allowed to save whatever pieces he wanted. So anyone making this claim (I'm not saying you are) has no idea what he's talking about. Yes, I make this claim. Gene Corley is a liar! Now you can accuse me of accusing Corley to be a liar. But I'm not afraid of accountability! There are a lot of people in the 9/11 truth movement who know my identity, so if you want to tell Corley about the fact that I'm accusing him to be a liar in public, please do, because I'm not afraid to be sued by him, instead I hope this will hapen because this will only result in further public for the case of the 9/11 sceptic-movement. You know, the real ones. So get in contact with him and maybe we can figure out in front of a court if they had FULL access! Quote: "alarming state of cognitive dissonance" Take a psychology class in college. That doesn't mean what you think it does. It means you. Quote: Here we go again. Like Terral, you completely ignore the thorough evidence I've handed you, failed to provide an argument against it, and claim that I'm delusional for believing the evidence. Ignoring the evidence doesn't make it go away! You have to disprove it, which is something you haven't done, and with every additional post it becomes more and more clear that you can't. So you can resort to name-calling all you want, it still doesn't disprove the facts. Keep your illusions, you have already been disproven here. Edited by NK-44, Feb 10 2008, 12:29 AM.
Posts: 160 Group: Members Member #16 Joined: 01/14/08


Ferric Oxide	Mar 26 2008, 04:16 PM Post #62
Posts: 91 Group: Members Member #153 Joined: 01/20/08	Astaneh-Asl, who received money from the National Science Foundation to investigate the collapse, insisted most New York skyscrapers built with traditional designs would survive such an impact and prevent the kind of fires that brought down the twin towers. Listen to Dr. Astaneh-Asl's comments on NPR's Fresh Air on October 16, 2001 regarding BUILDING 7: Listen: http://www.soundupload.com/pop_audio.php?key=9xvsujfg3315s2p Download: http://www.soundupload.com/audio/9xvsujfg3315s2p
Posts: 91 Group: Members Member #153 Joined: 01/20/08


einsteen	Apr 17 2008, 06:30 AM Post #63
Posts: 54 Group: Members Member #110 Joined: 01/17/08	Gideon just posted this video, I've never seen it http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/single/?p=61872&t=28644 May I conclude that the building was one big torch of uncontrolled raging fires that was expected to come down (some debunkers even mention a skyscraper falling on it) but during those 7 hours of towering inferno there where still people around except at the moment of collapse because they got a warning about a collapse, one or two minutes before. Uhm...
Posts: 54 Group: Members Member #110 Joined: 01/17/08


1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


« Previous Topic · WTC 7 · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2
3