Building 7 ???

Duke Leonal Felmet · 11-09-2011 07:25PM

caseyann wrote: »

Is that a riddle?

Everything they say is.

11-09-2011 07:42PM

weisses wrote: »

Why couldn't you when i asked you the first time from that other video just have said: Yes, it's probable that the files do exist

But I did. But then you don't read what I post, so It might be expecting too much for you to know that.

weisses wrote: »

instead of responding like this in the architects and engineers thread

our discussion post 52, 58, 60, 61

Why make it so difficult when the answer is so simple ??

Because the answer isn't that simple, as I explained, which you ignored.

weisses wrote: »

Are you not curious why they maybe withheld those apparently 3370 pages .. hey they could have a perfectly normal reason not to release them who knows

But you see I'm not curious because experience tells me that there is not likely anything important. Conspiracy theorists often exaggerate little things like these and distort them to make them sound sinister.
If there something important about it, then you should be able to provide the context, or at least explain how they might debunk the official story.

But the guy in the video don't explain this, because he's either an idiot or is being dishonest.

weisses wrote: »

Anything else you don't like about that video ?

No, cause I gave up on the video after the briefest of viewings show the dishonesty and distortions he's willing to go to.
Watching any more just to find all of the instances just for you to ignore and distort what I do post up is frankly a waste of time.

weisses · 11-09-2011 08:16PM

King Mob wrote: »

But I did. But then you don't read what I post, so It might be expecting too much for you to know that.

really ... Is this the best you can do

King Mob wrote: »

Because the answer isn't that simple, as I explained, which you ignored.

YES it is ... here it comes again Yes, it's probable that the files do exist all i asked for the first time nothing more no hidden agenda nothing

King Mob wrote: »

But you see I'm not curious because experience tells me that there is not likely anything important. Conspiracy theorists often exaggerate little things like these and distort them to make them sound sinister.

If there something important about it, then you should be able to provide the context, or at least explain how they might debunk the official story.[/QUOTE]

So when I'm reading this right you had me labelled as an Conspiracy theorist from the word go ... and based all your devious questioning after that on yet another assumption ?

King Mob wrote: »

But the guy in the video don't explain this, because he's either an idiot or is being dishonest.

He is stating that there are files being witheld, you stated yourself that they probably exist ... But it doesn't make any sense the way you disqualify him .. but your good at it

King Mob wrote: »

No, cause I gave up on the video after the briefest of viewings show the dishonesty and distortions he's willing to go to.
Watching any more just to find all of the instances just for you to ignore and distort what I do post up is frankly a waste of time.

See more assumptions you are just as bad as any CT nut i talked to ... only you are on the other end showing the same attitude you loath from the truthers and CT folks

lebowski11 · 11-09-2011 10:50PM

From reading a 23 page thread, the only partially unexplained evidence I've seen that might support claims that structural damage and fire did not bring down WTC 7 is a passport and uncurroborated reports of molten steel.

There really does not seem to be any another irrefutable evidence that points to anything other than what's already been presented in the official report.

weisses · 11-09-2011 11:14PM

lebowski11 wrote: »

From reading a 23 page thread, the only partially unexplained evidence I've seen that might support claims that structural damage and fire did not bring down WTC 7 is a passport and uncurroborated reports of molten steel.

There really does not seem to be any another irrefutable evidence that points to anything other than what's already been presented in the official report.

Wasn't the passport story related to the twin towers?

lebowski11 · 11-09-2011 11:39PM

weisses wrote: »

Wasn't the passport story related to the twin towers?

I'm not sure, I suppose it is. Which makes it all the more baffling that it would come up in a thread about the collapse of building 7.

I guess my point is that I haven't seen any evidence that supports any other possible theory outside of the official one.

Duke Leonal Felmet · 12-09-2011 12:18AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UULUQfEQFuU

12-09-2011 12:29AM

That video ends with the best analogy ever.

Brown Bomber · 12-09-2011 12:46AM

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UULUQfEQFuU

Was that video directed at weisess? (s)He has already stated numerous times that he is not a conspiracy theorist.

Duke Leonal Felmet · 12-09-2011 12:58AM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Was that video directed at weisess? (s)He has already stated numerous times that he is not a conspiracy theorist.

No, i was messing around on YT and I saw it and felt it would fit this thread.

Brown Bomber · 12-09-2011 01:01AM

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

No, i was messing around on YT and I saw it and felt it would fit this thread.

Why...?

12-09-2011 01:08AM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Why...?

Because it illustrates several of the points that were made before in a clear, concise and amusing way?
Plus it's a continuation of sorts by the maker of a video posted earlier?

Duke Leonal Felmet · 12-09-2011 01:15AM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Why...?

Why should I be obliged to answer your question?

Brown Bomber · 12-09-2011 01:16AM

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

Why should I be obliged to answer your question?

From the charter

This is not your personal blog. If you're not interested in discussing what it is that you post, then you probably shouldn't be posting it.

So again, why did you post it?

Duke Leonal Felmet · 12-09-2011 01:24AM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

From the charter

So again, why did you post it?

Report away, BB. Report away.

Duke Leonal Felmet · 12-09-2011 01:29AM

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

No, i was messing around on YT and I saw it and felt it would fit this thread.

I thought I would repeat this for the short-sighted among us.

Brown Bomber · 12-09-2011 01:29AM

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

Report away, BB. Report away.

So if I have this straight your going to post a random video of some random baldy ****er playing comedian in his random living room because it somehow randomly "fits" ? [Embedded Image Removed] And no explanation is necessary?

Duke Leonal Felmet · 12-09-2011 01:29AM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

So if I have this straight your going to post a random video of some random baldy ****er playing comedian in his random living room because it somehow randomly "fits" ? [Embedded Image Removed] And no explanation is necessary?

I did explain. End of conspiracy.

Duke Leonal Felmet · 12-09-2011 01:33AM

I wonder, what was it that offended you so much in that video?

Brown Bomber · 12-09-2011 01:34AM

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

I did explain. End of conspiracy.

Nope. You said it fits. That's not an explanation ffs.

man A - Building 7 was taken down by king kong

man B - really? how do you know?

Man A - It fits

Man B - Oh, that is a satisfactory explanation.

see?

Duke Leonal Felmet · 12-09-2011 01:36AM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Nope. You said it fits. That's not an explanation ffs.

man A - Building 7 was taken down by king kong

man B - really? how do you know?

Man A - It fits

Man B - Oh, that is a satisfactory explanation.

see?

Par for course here, it would seem.

Brown Bomber · 12-09-2011 02:04AM

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

I wonder, what was it that offended you so much in that video?

Offended? What ever gave you that idea? You posted a video that isn't obviously relevant. I've asked you why. I assume you were conscious when you posted it so there must have been some thought process involved. That is all.

Par for course here, it would seem.

So now you want to accuse other people of what you've done yourself??? For the sake of the thread & others we're done. Thanks for the memories.

weisses · 12-09-2011 05:46AM

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UULUQfEQFuU

And yet the quality of any random CT video is questioned here !!

The Irony

trying to master trolling ?

humanji · 12-09-2011 09:04AM

Duke Leonal Felmet, don't post video clips on the forum if you're not going to bother discussing them. There's no point getting sarky when someone asks you why you posted it.

jackiebaron · 13-09-2011 01:20PM

King Mob wrote: »

But none of them collapsed into there own foot print.

Also demolition crews do all that work to prevent damage to surrounding buildings, leave the remains of building in an easily manageable condition and prevent anyone from getting killed.

But they did collapse into their own footprints. The only way for this to be done is for all the supports to be breached at the same time. Now in the case of WTC7 I can't see how this was possible since there was damage to only one side of the building.
Also WTC 2 didn't have its central core breached by the impact of the plane. It's plain to see. How did this building fall then?

Duke Leonal Felmet · 13-09-2011 02:24PM

jackiebaron wrote: »

King Mob wrote: »

But none of them collapsed into there own foot print.

Also demolition crews do all that work to prevent damage to surrounding buildings, leave the remains of building in an easily manageable condition and prevent anyone from getting killed.

But they did collapse into their own footprints. The only way for this to be done is for all the supports to be breached at the same time. Now in the case of WTC7 I can't see how this was possible since there was damage to only one side of the building.
Also WTC 2 didn't have its central core breached by the impact of the plane. It's plain to see. How did this building fall then?

How is this plane flying? It clearly is heavier than air!

Those two buildings did not collapse into their own footprint. debris flies out in every direction as they collapse. There are a million videos and pictures of this occuring.

13-09-2011 03:24PM

jackiebaron wrote: »

But they did collapse into their own footprints. The only way for this to be done is for all the supports to be breached at the same time. Now in the case of WTC7 I can't see how this was possible since there was damage to only one side of the building.
Also WTC 2 didn't have its central core breached by the impact of the plane. It's plain to see. How did this building fall then?

If they fell into their own footprint, how do you explain this?:

And in the case of WTC7, this?:

The reason WTC7 fell despite only having damage to one side (which I'd love to see you explain since you think WTC1 fell into it's own foot print) is because fire spreads.

Duke Leonal Felmet · 13-09-2011 10:35PM

Hell of a footprint.

Guy:Incognito · 13-09-2011 11:03PM

Spacedog wrote: »

Overall I can make this assertion:

EITHER
1) There were explosives planted in the buildings following the planes hitting them.
OR
2) The lucrative profession of all demolition explosive engineers is fraudulent as their complex job can be done simply by applying a huge side impact to a building (e.g an airplane, or even a random pile of rubble) and achieve the same result.

.

Would A not also mean that "The lucrative profession of all demolition explosive engineers is fraudulent " because it can be thrown together in a couple of hours when they tell us it takes weeks and months to set up properly?

Also, I actually meant ot put this in this thread but put it in the Architects & engineers one instead:

Not sure if it was discussed already , only making my way through the thread but somethign I never thought of before watching the edward current video. If it was dropped in a controlled explosion, how come the fires that burned for 7 hours didnt damage the explosives or the cabling to them?

meglome · 16-09-2011 03:11PM

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

If it was dropped in a controlled explosion, how come the fires that burned for 7 hours didnt damage the explosives or the cabling to them?

Lots of people have been asking that for years, myself included. I believe the CT line is there were hardly any fires. Unfortunately even from the pictures in this thread that can be shown to be completely wrong.

Building 7 ???

Comments