Dohnjoe wrote: » Yeah perhaps instead of repeatedly telling people to watch videos
Tipsy McSwagger wrote: » I’ve researched a lot of conspiracy theories in my time and this has to be the funniest thing I’ve ever read. It’s beyong bonkers to think like this.
storker wrote: » I gave up watching "truther" videos as soon as I'd seen enough to know that they are never what the headline trumpets them to be ("Proof!", "Smoking Gun!", "Whistle Blower!"), and are instead all sizzle and no steak, put together by people who either don't know how critical thinking and logic work, or who do, but hope the viewer doesn't.
Dohnjoe wrote: » Yeah perhaps instead of repeatedly telling people to watch videos you could spend some time coming up with a shred of credible evidence for your personal theory that some unknown people blew up a building in front of the world's media 12 pages of diversions and deflections
Cheerful Spring wrote: » You may not know this but no modern steel framed building had collapsed due to fire pre 9/11.
Three steel framed buildings collapsed and fell on 9/11. The people who believe WTC7 collapsed to fire are people who are not thinking logically.
storker wrote: » This proves nothing; there is a first time for everything. By the way, how many of the buildings that failed to collapse due to fire had also been impacted by airliners moving at high speed? OK, so we're agreed that only one building collapsed due to fire alone. Except that WTC7 was also hit by a large amount of debris from the collapse of the North and South towers. Aerial photos of the collapsing towers show a large debris cloud surrounding WTC7, and considerable damage to the southwest corner of that building. NIST determined later that the most likely scenario was that the south face of WTC was severely damaged by falling debris, and that it was this, combined with the the fires, that brought the building down. Eye-witness reports by firefighters on the scene give support to this view:Lt Rudy Weindler, Ladder Co, 40: "So we left 7 World Trade Center, back down to the street, where I ran into Chief Coloe from the 1st Division, Captain Varriale, Engine 24, and Captain Varriale told Chief Coloe and myself that 7 World Trade Center was badly damaged on the south side and definitely in danger of collapse. Chief Coloe said we were going to evacuate the collapse zone around 7 World Trade Center, which we did."Fire Captain Chris Boyle: "Then we received an order from Fellini, we're going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn't look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn't really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I'm standing next to said, that building doesn't look straight. So I'm standing there. I'm looking at the building. It didn't look right, but, well, we'll go in, we'll see. [...]And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it,nobody's going into 7, there's creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped." Deputy Chief Peter Hayden: "Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o'clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse." So the eyewitness accounts indicate a weakened building that was suffering a very serious, very large, and that it was no surprise to those on the scene that it collapsed. Indeed To go against that, some pretty compelling evidence would be required: Evidence confirming who wired the building for demolition, or who ordered it to be done. Evidence confirming the reason for the demolition. Evidence confirming where the charges were placed. Evidence explaining how the charges placed without anyone noticing. If you have any of this evidence, I would be interested in seeing it, and by "evidence", I mean real evidence and not innuendo...the kind of evidence that would be likely to result in charges (legal, not explosive ) being brought...the kind of evidence that would support someone being to 100% positive as "truthers" tend to be, that skulduggery was indeed afoot. (Oh, and no videos please, and if citing a website or publication, please make it precise - direct me straight to the money quotes - my reading time is limited.)
Ipso wrote: » Obviously false flag agents.
storker wrote: » This proves nothing; there is a first time for everything. By the way, how many of the buildings that failed to collapse due to fire had also been impacted by airliners moving at high speed? OK, so we're agreed that only one building collapsed due to fire alone. Except that WTC7 was also hit by a large amount of debris from the collapse of the North and South towers. Aerial photos of the collapsing towers show a large debris cloud surrounding WTC7, and considerable damage to the southwest corner of that building. NIST determined later that the most likely scenario was that the south face of WTC was severely damaged by falling debris, and that it was this, combined with the the fires, that brought the building down. Eye-witness reports by firefighters on the scene give support to this view: Lt Rudy Weindler, Ladder Co, 40: "So we left 7 World Trade Center, back down to the street, where I ran into Chief Coloe from the 1st Division, Captain Varriale, Engine 24, and Captain Varriale told Chief Coloe and myself that 7 World Trade Center was badly damaged on the south side and definitely in danger of collapse. Chief Coloe said we were going to evacuate the collapse zone around 7 World Trade Center, which we did." Fire Captain Chris Boyle: "Then we received an order from Fellini, we're going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn't look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn't really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I'm standing next to said, that building doesn't look straight. So I'm standing there. I'm looking at the building. It didn't look right, but, well, we'll go in, we'll see. [...]And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it,nobody's going into 7, there's creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped." Deputy Chief Peter Hayden: "Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o'clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse." So the eyewitness accounts indicate a weakened building that was suffering a very serious, very large, and that it was no surprise to those on the scene that it collapsed. Indeed To go against that, some pretty compelling evidence would be required: Evidence confirming who wired the building for demolition, or who ordered it to be done. Evidence confirming the reason for the demolition. Evidence confirming where the charges were placed. Evidence explaining how the charges placed without anyone noticing. If you have any of this evidence, I would be interested in seeing it, and by "evidence", I mean real evidence and not innuendo...the kind of evidence that would be likely to result in charges (legal, not explosive ) being brought...the kind of evidence that would support someone being to 100% positive as "truthers" tend to be, that skulduggery was indeed afoot. (Oh, and no videos please, and if citing a website or publication, please make it precise - direct me straight to the money quotes - my reading time is limited.)
Tipsy McSwagger wrote: » Or robots
Cheerful Spring wrote: » The photos I think you saw are misleading. There was dust from the towers falling. Sceptics claim it's smoke, in reality, it mostly dust rising from the ground up. Emergency vehicles were coming in and out of there all day and dust was blown up everywhere. Yes WTC7 was hit by falling debris, but only on the Southside and near the West corner wall. There was a gash on that side. Yet not what caused the building to fall down. The collapse initiated near the east wall You wrong on this NIST states the structural damage played no part in WTC7 falling down. NIST theory is fire heated up a steel girder on floor 13 at column 79 and it expanded and slid off its seat and fell down. Floors on the eastside lost lateral support. The floors underneath 13 collapsed, then floors above 14 collapsed to the very top of the Penthouse. Then when the Penthouse fell in, floors across the width of the building started collapsing. WTC 5 and 6 burned all day and had suffered more structural damage they never collapsed. You have to remember it was a crazy day firefighters were reacting to things they witnessed. Any building that had a fire they probably would have thought it was going to come down! There is no evidence of a bulge in WTC7 there was a gash a number of floors were taken out on the Southwest side. You want me to speculate about who was involved in destroying the building? Why is this more important than the science right now? NIST claims building 7 did not come down symmetrically? Are you not aware of why thats important?
Ipso wrote: » Should a building come down symmetrically if it wasn't damaged symmetrically?
Tipsy McSwagger wrote: » https://youtu.be/_kSq663m0G8 Nice short video that shows how and why Building 7 collapsed.
Cheerful Spring wrote: » The video is out of date. Most of that information has been debunked a long time ago. Mostly by NIST by the way, not truthers. Diesel theory was debunked by NIST. You miss this tipy on the video you posted PLEASE NOTE: This video was made in September 2007. The official investigation into the collapse of WTC7 at this time was still ongoing and did its final report was not released until more than a year later, in December 2008
Tipsy McSwagger wrote: » Why put explosives in Building 7?
Cheerful Spring wrote: » Good question, I like to know that too? The reality is that's how it went down. NIST could not repeat the actual collapse conditions is proof that's what happened.
Tipsy McSwagger wrote: » The reality is there is zero proof of explosives been used. The whole plan would rely on a diversion anyway, and a big one at that, the South Tower collapsing on top of Building 7. So the plan to bring down Building 7 would rely on a plane hitting the South Tower and then the South Tower collapsing on top of Building 7 and badly damaging it enough to set off multiple explosives. Why not just fly the plane into Building 7?
Tipsy McSwagger wrote: » The reality is there is zero proof of explosives been used. The whole plan would rely on a diversion anyway, and a big one at that, the South Tower collapsing on top of Building 7. So the plan to bring down Building 7 would rely on a plane hitting the South Tower and then the South Tower collapsing on top of Building 7 and badly damaging it enough to use as cover to set off multiple explosives. Why not just fly the plane into Building 7?
weisses wrote: » An hour ago you you put up an inaccurate video wrongly claiming how and why building 7 collapsed That is the reality
Cheerful Spring wrote: » The terrorist attack was the diversion. Stage 1 My opinion and the evidence is very strong for this Saudi Arabia was working with the terrorists to carry out the 9/11 attack? Saudi officials with Wahhabism religious beliefs helped and funded and planned the attacks with Al Qaeda. Stage 2 What I not sure of is were they in contact with a rogue group inside the United States? Did they plan this together in secret? The other possibility the rogue group knew this was going to happen on Sep 11. So used that day to get rid of the evidence of financial crimes? Even if explosives were found the terrorists will be blamed? The plan only required the planes to hit the towers. That was guaranteed because the defence network was in shambles from the military drill taking place that day. That terrorists were able to pick a day where US military was doing multiple war drills is a smoking gun that terrorists had inside information. These drills were secret at the time.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w8.vanillicon.com/v2/867a9f20e705add43a3ada2e4f4480cc.svg)
