Building 7 ???

pa4 · 16-09-2011 06:10PM

Here is a short video with a logical explanation on the collapse of building 7.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFJa9WUy5QI

It seems conspiracy theorists havent done their research!

iPlop · 16-09-2011 06:13PM

Here's the most interesting WTC 7 video I've seen to date , looks pretty damning , I mean those flashes look like charges going off tbh.

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

Duke Leonal Felmet · 16-09-2011 06:18PM

Sink The Banana wrote: »

Here's the most interesting WTC 7 video I've seen to date , looks pretty damning , I mean those flashes look like charges going off tbh.

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

Just as a test of your open-mindedness. How do you know this video was not doctored? Flashes and bangs could easily be added with modern video tools.

Duke Leonal Felmet · 16-09-2011 06:19PM

jackiebaron has fallen silent...

meglome · 16-09-2011 06:21PM

Sink The Banana wrote: »

Here's the most interesting WTC 7 video I've seen to date , looks pretty damning , I mean those flashes look like charges going off tbh.

The only issue is it's fake and provably fake.

There are several other videos from that same side of the building and none of them show the flashes or have the sounds. Not only that but who ever faked it didn't get how controlled demolition works. Charges go off, flashes are seen and sounds heard, then building collapses. In this there is one flash and the whole lot is coming down.

It fascinates me that CT'ers will rule out the NIST report but will accept a video that with five minutes of checking could be shown to be faked.

Duke Leonal Felmet · 16-09-2011 06:42PM

This took me two mins on Picnik. Imagine what you could do with proper video editing software and some knowledge.

enno99 · 19-09-2011 02:18AM

King Mob wrote: »

But Leslie Robertson didn't say anything. He clearly said that he didn't recall making that quote and said he wasn't in a position to make such a statement.

This has been pointed out by Diogenes:
http://www.911myths.com/html/leslie_robertson.html
So we can strike that one straight off.

As for the second, what precisely does she say she used to identified the molten metal as steel?

And you're right there are plenty of other metals, like aluminium, copper, tin and zinc as well as stuff like glass and certain plastics.
No need to go for uncommon stuff like lithium and boron.

Yet another who misremembered ?

0.40 - 1.00 a little river of steel flowing

19-09-2011 02:52AM

enno99 wrote: »

Yet another who misremembered ?

0.40 - 1.00 a little river of steel flowing

Or is embellishing to make for an interesting talk.
Or misidentified another metal or combinations that was molten.
Or it was steel that being cut during the clean up operation.
Or a combination of all of the above.

There's a ton of other explanations that are far more likely and do not point to or require a conspiracy to back them up.

But do you know what doesn't explain the molten metal?
Any conspiracy theories.

Explosive demolition does not leave molten metal as it relies on the shock force of explosives to break the supports. There would be nothing at all in an explosive demolition to account for this.

Using the fantasy thermite runs into the same problem.
Thermite burns very quickly and cuts through steel without melt much of it.
Once the thermite is used up, there's nothing to keep the steel from cooling down, so there's no way (even with absurd amounts of thermite) to melt enough steel to form pools or streams and to keep them hot and running for days and weeks.

So what do you think caused this molten metal and why does it point to a conspiracy or inside job?

davoxx · 19-09-2011 12:14PM

King Mob wrote: »

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.

maybe several thousand tons of explosives and lasers helped?
i can provide a link if you want ... you know where you said it would take thousand of tons of explosives to demolish wtc7

Di0genes · 19-09-2011 12:33PM

davoxx wrote: »

maybe several thousand tons of explosives and lasers helped?
i can provide a link if you want ... you know where you said it would take thousand of tons of explosives to demolish wtc7

I imagine 4kg of explosives could have done the job :rolleyes:

I'd lay off the sarcasm. Sauce for the goose etc...

davoxx · 19-09-2011 12:46PM

Di0genes wrote: »

I imagine 4kg of explosives could have done the job :rolleyes:

I'd lay off the sarcasm. Sauce for the goose etc...

no you are right you'd need logic for them needing thousands of tons for explosives and lasers

i'd not reply to other posts without answering my own ... Sauce for the goose etc...

enno99 · 19-09-2011 09:03PM

King Mob wrote: »

Or is embellishing to make for an interesting talk.
Or misidentified another metal or combinations that was molten.
Or it was steel that being cut during the clean up operation.
Or a combination of all of the above.

There's a ton of other explanations that are far more likely and do not point to or require a conspiracy to back them up.

But do you know what doesn't explain the molten metal?
Any conspiracy theories.

Explosive demolition does not leave molten metal as it relies on the shock force of explosives to break the supports. There would be nothing at all in an explosive demolition to account for this.

Using the fantasy thermite runs into the same problem.
Thermite burns very quickly and cuts through steel without melt much of it.
Once the thermite is used up, there's nothing to keep the steel from cooling down, so there's no way (even with absurd amounts of thermite) to melt enough steel to form pools or streams and to keep them hot and running for days and weeks.

So what do you think caused this molten metal and why does it point to a conspiracy or inside job?

Sure But there is no need for you and Diogenes to invoke that 911myths
link in the future as its clearly wrong

19-09-2011 09:33PM

enno99 wrote: »

Sure But there is no need for you and Diogenes to invoke that 911myths
link in the future as its clearly wrong

So then when he also says "I was in no position to make such a claim" he was lying then?

What about the other points I've brought up?

Do you have any plausible explanation for the molten metal that indicates a conspiracy?

davoxx · 25-09-2011 12:18PM

King Mob wrote: »

What about the other points I've brought up?

waiting for the evidence to back them up ...

King Mob wrote: »

Do you have any plausible explanation for the molten metal that indicates a conspiracy?

other than space lasers? ...

but seriously, there can be other explanations (not that you'd understand) which would not indicate a conspiracy ...

see you need to separate understanding what happened from there being a conspiracy ...

then and only then will you be able to understand what happened.

but sure believe that anyone who asks questions without coming to a conclusion first is a CT.

snafuk35 · 27-09-2011 11:31PM

Who set up the controlled demolition?
Specifically who did it and how was it done.
Give us names of suspects.
Who does this kind of work and who do you suspect did the job on behalf of the US government.
Any individual suspects on the radar?

Nation 98 · 04-10-2011 12:57AM

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

Just as a test of your open-mindedness. How do you know this video was not doctored? .

You could literally say that about any picture or video thats ever been seen.

weisses · 04-10-2011 12:14PM

Nation 98 wrote: »

You could literally say that about any picture or video thats ever been seen.

Selective use of footage is done one both sides ... totally ignoring the fact it could be doctored

davoxx · 04-10-2011 12:17PM

Nation 98 wrote: »

You could literally say that about any picture or video thats ever been seen.

true, but you can't say that about ones that have not been released.

some pictures are easier to fake than others, so can not be faked.

hence all evidence is examined and evaluated.

meglome · 04-10-2011 08:13PM

weisses wrote: »

Selective use of footage is done one both sides ... totally ignoring the fact it could be doctored

Not really. The CT sites are past masters at leaving important information out. A site like 911myths.com gives you their sources and actively encourages you to check. It's why that site is often used as reference.

davoxx · 04-10-2011 09:29PM

meglome wrote: »

Not really. The CT sites are past masters at leaving important information out. A site like 911myths.com gives you their sources and actively encourages you to check. It's why that site is often used as reference.

have you any evidence of this? or are you speculating based on emotions?

meglome · 05-10-2011 07:16AM

davoxx wrote: »

have you any evidence of this? or are you speculating based on emotions?

I truly have no idea what you're on about most of the time.

It's a ****ing website you or anyone can go look.

weisses · 05-10-2011 10:27AM

meglome wrote: »

Not really. The CT sites are past masters at leaving important information out. A site like 911myths.com gives you their sources and actively encourages you to check. It's why that site is often used as reference.

Just checked that site ..... Can you give me the link to building 7 on that site ? ...can't seem to find it

davoxx · 05-10-2011 10:29AM

meglome wrote: »

I truly have no idea what you're on about most of the time.

It's a ****ing website you or anyone can go look.

don't worry about not having no idea what i'm on about most of the time, if you did you would be asking better questions and use similes and metaphors.

just worry about this time, where you claimed that 911myths did not leave important information out.

and yes it is a website, like google, where anyone can look at to figure out how many tons of explosives would be needed to take down a building, you can even search on how incendiaries can be used.

last time i looked, incendiaries did not mention on 911myths, it was to complicated for their readers.

911myths is fluffy site full of disinformation and deliberate omissions .. just like your arguments.

Di0genes · 05-10-2011 10:32AM

davoxx wrote: »

911myths is fluffy site full of disinformation and deliberate omissions .. just like your arguments.

Please list a specific example of disinformation on 911 myths.

And then please show how any information missing from the site was deliberately omitted.

davoxx · 05-10-2011 10:37AM

Di0genes wrote: »

<stuff>

ahh you are back ... again.

did you still not find the search function? coz i told you before that if you can't find it you just have to ask.

Di0genes · 05-10-2011 10:41AM

davoxx wrote: »

ahh you are back ... again.

did you still not find the search function? coz i told you before that if you can't find it you just have to ask.

So that means you're incapable of backing up your claim that the 911myths site is full of disinformation and deliberate omissions.

Good stuff carry on as you were. I know you won't address the above, but will have a compulsion to get the last word in, no doubt on some tangent irrelevant to the above.

davoxx · 05-10-2011 11:07AM

Di0genes wrote: »

<stuff>

can you come back when you can answer the questions i asked of you?

i know that you're incapable of backing up any of your claims.
but you just won't admit it.

as i know you can't use the search function, do you need me to link you the post?

I know you will never address the above, but will have a compulsion to get jump in trying to seem smart or something, no doubt misunderstanding and making up facts that are stated elsewhere but you just can use the search function to find it.

if you want to debate properly, you know what you have to do.
in case you don't i'll say it again:
answer the questions that were asked of you before that you avoided.
provide the post "which i can't find via search but you can"

other than that, sure i won't be inclined to provide evidence to someone who won't provide theirs and then whines.

weisses · 05-10-2011 11:09AM

911myths.com/index.php/

After reading a few pages i just have to say that They are making assumptions as well to make "their case"

humanji · 05-10-2011 11:13AM

Everyone, stop taking swipes at each other.

davoxx · 05-10-2011 11:16AM

weisses wrote: »

911myths.com/index.php/

After reading a few pages i just have to say that They are making assumptions as well to make "their case"

blasphemy!!!! you DARE question their bible/koran/holy scriptures?

the assumptions in 911myths are facts for CTs.

don't tear down their fragile world, what would life be like once they realise that their government lies to them on a daily basis, that certain people made huge amounts of money from a seemingly unpredictable attack?

i think for them (CTs) unbiased assumptions only apply to factual logical derived arguments, while anything they use to counter it is factual assumptions .. or something like that.

but seriously why do people still mention 911myths as a reference?

Building 7 ???

Comments