zIFBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.

Learn More · Register for Free
Welcome to Loose Change Forum. We hope you enjoy your visit.


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!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Name:   Password:


Pages: (14) [1] 2 3 ... Last » ( Go to first unread post )

 Wtc7 Still Up For Debate?
Reggie_perrin
Posted: Oct 18 2006, 04:00 PM


Advanced Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,302
Member No.: 6
Joined: 18-October 06



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??.
Top
George Hayduke
Posted: Oct 19 2006, 07:08 AM


Advanced Member


Group: Members
Posts: 759
Member No.: 4
Joined: 18-October 06



I agree: Case closed!

Nonetheless, there are important issues about WTC 7 that should be discussed.
Top
Popeholden
Posted: Oct 19 2006, 08:15 AM


Advanced Member


Group: Gone
Posts: 234
Member No.: 160
Joined: 18-October 06



many people still disagree.
Top
dylan avery
Posted: Oct 19 2006, 10:06 AM


I am whatever you say I am


Group: Admin
Posts: 2,811
Member No.: 2
Joined: 17-October 06



QUOTE (Popeholden @ Oct 19 2006, 01:15 PM)
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.
Top
Popeholden
Posted: Oct 19 2006, 10:22 AM


Advanced Member


Group: Gone
Posts: 234
Member No.: 160
Joined: 18-October 06



two out of how many? have you read gravy's newest document on the subject dylan?
Top
Popeholden
Posted: Oct 19 2006, 10:33 AM


Advanced Member


Group: Gone
Posts: 234
Member No.: 160
Joined: 18-October 06



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
Top
Roxdog
Posted: Oct 19 2006, 10:43 AM


Why is Al Gore's House Bigger Than Everyone Else's?


Group: Members
Posts: 5,428
Member No.: 34
Joined: 18-October 06



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
Top
Popeholden
Posted: Oct 19 2006, 10:44 AM


Advanced Member


Group: Gone
Posts: 234
Member No.: 160
Joined: 18-October 06



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.
Top
Roxdog
Posted: Oct 19 2006, 12:38 PM


Why is Al Gore's House Bigger Than Everyone Else's?


Group: Members
Posts: 5,428
Member No.: 34
Joined: 18-October 06



Which ones?
Top
Quad4_72
Posted: Oct 19 2006, 04:30 PM


Advanced Member


Group: Gone
Posts: 120
Member No.: 217
Joined: 19-October 06



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
Top
Jayne
Posted: Oct 20 2006, 06:10 AM


Advanced Member


Group: Members
Posts: 50
Member No.: 262
Joined: 19-October 06



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?docid=...silverstein+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.
Top
Graham
Posted: Oct 20 2006, 01:47 PM


Advanced Member


Group: Members
Posts: 100
Member No.: 355
Joined: 20-October 06



QUOTE (Jayne @ Oct 20 2006, 11:10 AM)
  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?
Top
Jayne
Posted: Oct 20 2006, 02:03 PM


Advanced Member


Group: Members
Posts: 50
Member No.: 262
Joined: 19-October 06



QUOTE (Graham @ Oct 20 2006, 06:47 PM)

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.
Top
Roxdog
Posted: Oct 20 2006, 02:08 PM


Why is Al Gore's House Bigger Than Everyone Else's?


Group: Members
Posts: 5,428
Member No.: 34
Joined: 18-October 06



QUOTE (Quad4_72 @ Oct 19 2006, 09:30 PM)
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/septe...bunksitself.htm
Top
Graham
Posted: Oct 20 2006, 02:13 PM


Advanced Member


Group: Members
Posts: 100
Member No.: 355
Joined: 20-October 06



QUOTE (Popeholden @ Oct 19 2006, 03:33 PM)
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?
Top
Tenacious E
Posted: Oct 20 2006, 07:18 PM


Advanced Member


Group: Members
Posts: 870
Member No.: 125
Joined: 18-October 06



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...
Top
Graham
Posted: Oct 21 2006, 05:38 AM


Advanced Member


Group: Members
Posts: 100
Member No.: 355
Joined: 20-October 06



QUOTE (Graham @ Oct 20 2006, 07:13 PM)
QUOTE (Popeholden @ Oct 19 2006, 03:33 PM)
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?
Top
Quad4_72
Posted: Oct 21 2006, 10:19 AM


Advanced Member


Group: Gone
Posts: 120
Member No.: 217
Joined: 19-October 06



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.
Top
Graham
Posted: Oct 22 2006, 05:26 AM


Advanced Member


Group: Members
Posts: 100
Member No.: 355
Joined: 20-October 06



QUOTE (Graham @ Oct 20 2006, 07:13 PM)
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?......
Top
Reggie_perrin
Posted: Oct 22 2006, 10:07 AM


Advanced Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,302
Member No.: 6
Joined: 18-October 06



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.
Top
0 User(s) are reading this topic (0 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
« Next Oldest | WTC 7 | Next Newest »
zIFBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Fully Featured & Customizable Free Forums
Learn More · Sign-up for Free

Topic OptionsPages: (14) [1] 2 3 ... Last »



Hosted for free by zIFBoards* (Terms of Use: Updated 2/10/2010) | Powered by Invision Power Board v1.3 Final © 2003 IPS, Inc.
Page creation time: 0.0346 seconds · Archive