zIFBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Fully Featured & Customizable Free Forums

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] 4 5 ... Last » ( Go to first unread post )

 Wtc7 Still Up For Debate?
IVXX
Posted: Oct 25 2006, 04:55 PM


MDCCLXXVI


Group: Admin
Posts: 5,109
Member No.: 378
Joined: 20-October 06



Am I the only one who noticed that good points are brought up in this thread and with that the debunkers disappear and the thread goes untouched for days?? The debunkers cry "Do you have evidence??" Buildings 4, 5 & 6 are strong evidence when asking why Building 7 collapse. You present the evidence and the debunkers disappear. I was hoping Straw Man....... I mean Quad would respond. Maybe he's checking with Gravy for his answer.
Top
Reggie_perrin
Posted: Oct 25 2006, 05:06 PM


Advanced Member


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



People who think this building collapsed naturally make me wanna scream, it has ALL the classic characteristics of a controlled demolition and looks anything but a natural collapse from damage, for a start it doesn't even fall towards the damage, it frops straight down symetrically into it's own footprint in 6.5/7 seconds.

ANYONE who can't see is simply kidding themselves and doesn't want to say, ok i was wrong.
Top
IVXX
Posted: Oct 25 2006, 05:23 PM


MDCCLXXVI


Group: Admin
Posts: 5,109
Member No.: 378
Joined: 20-October 06



QUOTE (Reggie_perrin @ Oct 25 2006, 10:06 PM)
People who think this building collapsed naturally make me wanna scream, it has ALL the classic characteristics of a controlled demolition and looks anything but a natural collapse from damage, for a start it doesn't even fall towards the damage, it frops straight down symetrically into it's own footprint in 6.5/7 seconds.

ANYONE who can't see is simply kidding themselves and doesn't want to say, ok i was wrong.

Hell I'd be happy if one would just admit something doesn't seem right.

Buildings 4, 5 & 6 take way more of a beating than building 7 and remain standing but 7 was a house of cards and went down so easily. OOOOOOOKay.
Top
chris sarns
Posted: Oct 26 2006, 01:23 AM


Advanced Member


Group: Members
Posts: 491
Member No.: 691
Joined: 26-October 06



For what it's worth:

THERE WAS NO 10 OR 20 STORY HOLE IN THE SOUTH SIDE OF WTC7!

*********************************

pg 18 NIST report on WTC7

At 12:10 to 12:15 p.m.:
* Firefighters found individuals on floors 7 & 8 and led them out of the building
*
*
* No heavy debris was observed in the lobby area as the building was exited, primarily white dust coating and black wires hanging from ceiling areas were observed"

pg 8 of NIST report confirms that the lobby was in the front center of wtc7

*********************************

The 10 story hole would have destroyed the lobby and left heavy debris.

*********************************

Chief Frank Fellini:
".....building number seven, which had taken a big hit from the tower. When it fell it ripped steel out from between the third and the sixth floors across the facade on Vesy street."

FIMA
According to the account of a firefighter who walked the 9th floor along the south side following the collapse of WTC1, the only damage to the 9th floor facade occured at the southwest corner

Boyle's statement about "a hole 20 stories tall in the building" is in conflict with
"No heavy debris was observed in the lobby"
Chief Fellinis' statement and
FEMA report ...only damage to the 9th floor facade occured at the southwest corner.
He must have been referring to the south west corner.

Momoka: There was NO insane damage to the south side of WTC 7
Top
Graham
Posted: Oct 26 2006, 08:53 AM


Advanced Member


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



hellooooooo. debunkers? where are yooouuuu?
Top
Momoka
Posted: Oct 26 2006, 11:22 AM


Advanced Member


Group: Gone
Posts: 546
Member No.: 454
Joined: 21-October 06



We're not allowed to talk here.

QUOTE
Which brings us right back to where we started. Now without quoting the official lie since we've shown that it don't hold water and without quoting Gravy since a lot of his paper depends on the official lie, explain how build 4, 5 & 6 remained standing weeks after 9/11 yet building 7 that was nowhere near damaged as bad as the other 3 buildings goes down in 7-8 hours.


I'm not allowed to mention/explain the official explanation, (or "Gravy") and I'm not about to pull something out of my ass.
Top
IVXX
Posted: Oct 26 2006, 11:47 AM


MDCCLXXVI


Group: Admin
Posts: 5,109
Member No.: 378
Joined: 20-October 06



QUOTE (Momoka @ Oct 26 2006, 04:22 PM)
We're not allowed to talk here.

QUOTE
Which brings us right back to where we started. Now without quoting the official lie since we've shown that it don't hold water and without quoting Gravy since a lot of his paper depends on the official lie, explain how build 4, 5 & 6 remained standing weeks after 9/11 yet building 7 that was nowhere near damaged as bad as the other 3 buildings goes down in 7-8 hours.


I'm not allowed to mention/explain the official explanation, (or "Gravy") and I'm not about to pull something out of my ass.

I'm asking for your opinion on why those 3 buildings didn't go down. The 9/11 Commission doesn't even touch Building 7 and nothing in Gravy's paper is his own. I want to hear someone's opinion on why these 3 buildings did not fall. I do not buy the official story of what happen to building 7 so therefore it is not evidence to me. Show me some good evidence that explains why 7 went down yet the other stood for weeks after 9/11.
Top
Popeholden
Posted: Oct 26 2006, 11:50 AM


Advanced Member


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



QUOTE
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.


it would not have to be removed simultaneously. the fall of the penthouse indicates that structural elements inside the building are failing. it would take a few seconds for those forces to overwhelm other structural elements and cause them to fail. eventually the building would not have enough support and it would collapse.

again, all structural elements did not have to be removed simultaneously.


QUOTE
I did not say that. I said, "Buildings 4, 5 & 6 are hit with more debris, withstand more damage and sustain worse fires than building 7." Watch the videos that is fact. Buildings 4, 5 & 6 were directly under the towers not a block away like building 7 to say they weren't hit by more debris and sustained worse damage shows total ignorance to the facts he claims to know.


WTC7 was not even close to a block away, it was across the street.

and 4, 5, & 6 all partially collapsed. that they did not fully collapse can be attributed to the fact they they were not subjected to the SAME circumstances as 7 and they also were designed and built differently. they they did not collapse does not indicate that wtc7 was a controlled demolition.

QUOTE
or those who dont know, ive been IP banned from JREF because I was destroying the clowns there.


no, you weren't. i was there, i saw, you weren't "destroying" anyone. each and every one of your arguments were categorically disproved.

QUOTE
Nothing HIT Wtc 7. Therefore it's collapse and likeness to a controlled demolition is highly suspect. Simple as that.


debris hit WTC7. see picture below. and falling chunks of concrete do not start fires, but the remants of the massive, raging fires in the towers would. remember those huge fires?

QUOTE
it has ALL the classic characteristics of a controlled demolition and looks anything but a natural collapse from damage


for one thing, it's missing the loud, sequential explosions one hears during a controlled implosion.

it DOES resemble a controlled demolition, though. i'll give you that. it LOOKS like one, but that doesn't mean it IS one.

QUOTE
for a start it doesn't even fall towards the damage, it frops straight down


47 story buildings don't fall OVER they fall DOWN.

QUOTE
symetrically into it's own footprint


no, actually it damaged numerous buildings around it.

QUOTE
in 6.5/7 seconds.


it actually took more like 13.
Top
Roxdog
Posted: Oct 26 2006, 11:58 AM


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


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



Wtc7 was across the street from the COMPLEX but not the TOWERS. Towers 5 and 6 were in between, took more damage yet remained standing.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories/images/wtc-photo4.jpg

QUOTE
it actually took more like 13.

I consider the collapse of the Penthouse and the actual collapse of the superstructure two different things but even if you want to obfuscate and add them together it makes no difference. There is still no explanation for a 13 second collapse.

QUOTE
no, actually it damaged numerous buildings around it.

Sources? If it did it was minimal.
Top
Popeholden
Posted: Oct 26 2006, 12:21 PM


Advanced Member


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



QUOTE
I consider the collapse of the Penthouse and the actual collapse of the superstructure two different things but even if you want to obfuscate and add them together it makes no difference. There is still no explanation for a 13 second collapse.


why do you consider them two separate events? if you consider them two separate events, why did the penthouse collapse? did they bomb the penthouse, and then bring down the rest of the building?

is it a coincidence that the penthouse that fell was almost directly over the kink which then developed?

a 13 second collapse is what happened, so there must be SOME explanation for it.

QUOTE
Sources? If it did it was minimal.


no, it wasn't. notice the large chunk taken out of the building on the lower right:

(Posted Image)
Top
IVXX
Posted: Oct 28 2006, 12:20 AM


MDCCLXXVI


Group: Admin
Posts: 5,109
Member No.: 378
Joined: 20-October 06



Now THIS is interesting.
Top
Reggie_perrin
Posted: Oct 28 2006, 04:39 AM


Advanced Member


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



The denial is strong in this heard of sheep.

The telescreens have done there job well.
Top
pdoherty76
Posted: Oct 28 2006, 04:50 AM


Unregistered









QUOTE (Reggie_perrin @ Oct 28 2006, 09:39 AM)
The denial is strong in this heard of sheep.

The telescreens have done there job well.

I think they go to bed at night and play tapes of the official story like them stop smoking tapes you can buy.
Top
Reggie_perrin
Posted: Oct 28 2006, 04:57 AM


Advanced Member


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



QUOTE (pdoherty76 @ Oct 28 2006, 09:50 AM)
QUOTE (Reggie_perrin @ Oct 28 2006, 09:39 AM)
The denial is strong in this heard of sheep.

The telescreens have done there job well.

I think they go to bed at night and play tapes of the official story like them stop smoking tapes you can buy.

Heh yeh, a tape that repeats over "we're the good guys, the Muslims are evil, they attacked our freedoms"

"of course 19 incompetant hijackers could pull of such a military precise plan, of course thay could avoid standard operating procedure fighter jets to hit the heart of America"

"we're good they're evil, we're good they're evil"

"we found WMD in Iraq, we found WMD in Iraq, we found WMD in Iraq"
Top
pdoherty76
Posted: Oct 28 2006, 05:29 AM


Unregistered









QUOTE (Reggie_perrin @ Oct 28 2006, 09:57 AM)
QUOTE (pdoherty76 @ Oct 28 2006, 09:50 AM)
QUOTE (Reggie_perrin @ Oct 28 2006, 09:39 AM)
The denial is strong in this heard of sheep.

The telescreens have done there job well.

I think they go to bed at night and play tapes of the official story like them stop smoking tapes you can buy.

Heh yeh, a tape that repeats over "we're the good guys, the Muslims are evil, they attacked our freedoms"

"of course 19 incompetant hijackers could pull of such a military precise plan, of course thay could avoid standard operating procedure fighter jets to hit the heart of America"

"we're good they're evil, we're good they're evil"

"we found WMD in Iraq, we found WMD in Iraq, we found WMD in Iraq"

"we r a nice friendly government, we r a nice friendly government"

"building 7 fell cos some flames might have touch a bit of steel, building 7 fell cos some flames might have touch a bit of steel"
Top
Reggie_perrin
Posted: Oct 28 2006, 07:20 AM


Advanced Member


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



"the gulf of tonkin happened, so the deaths of 58 thousand american soldeirs was justified, Tonkin happned so 1 and half million veitnamiese dead is justified, TOKIN HAPPENED" Remeber if you repeat many times it becomes true

"OPERATION NORTHWOODS DOESN'T EXIST OUR GOVENMENT WOULDN'T HARM US" Repeat ad nauseum until brainwashed.

"saddam had clear links to al qeada and 9/11, the UK and US didn't help him to power in the first place and they didn't arm him after he gassed 100 thousand kurds, donald Rumsfeld never meet him"

"this war on terror isnt about oil ..repeat..not about oil and geopolotics and economical gains it's much more simple, it's about evil people who hate our freedoms"

"the Iran contra affair never happned"

"the watergate scandel never happned"


"Kennedy was shot by a lone gunman even though the house of assinations has admitted Kennedy dies in a probable conspiricy"

govenments don't lie.

"fox new's is fair and balanced"


repeat the above until the desired state of brain wash has taken effect.

Remember don't ask questions shut up, the govenment is in control, go drink some more bud stay stupid and remember your govenment is in control, trust them blindly, dont ask questions.


Top
pdoherty76
Posted: Oct 28 2006, 07:33 AM


Unregistered









QUOTE (Momoka @ Oct 23 2006, 03:10 AM)
QUOTE (IVXX @ Oct 23 2006, 02:28 AM)
Actually I believe the FEMA experts said that the fires in building 7 and how they caused the collapse remain unknown. Looks like we're all in agreement.

Because they were working on photos that had smoke in front of everything. NIST got better photos, and could see that WTC 7 got hit by debris.

"if a wise man asks a question call him a kook immediately, if a wise man asks a question call him a kook immediately"

"move on, theres nothing to see here, move on, theres nothing to see here"
Top
chris sarns
Posted: Oct 28 2006, 08:25 AM


Advanced Member


Group: Members
Posts: 491
Member No.: 691
Joined: 26-October 06



That 13 second crap is just spin.

It took 6.6 seconds for the building* to fall

Clairification for fumduckers:

* when the entire building falls

Why do fumduckers keep saying WTC 7 fell because of fire when NIST could only say that it "appears possible" [thats a double maby]

Top
Reggie_perrin
Posted: Oct 28 2006, 08:46 AM


Advanced Member


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



the 9/11 commission report has building 1 and 2 falling in 10seconds or less, although the 9/11 commission is full of crap they got this bit right.

Where the fuck did this 13 second wtc7 collapse come from, ALL video evidence shows it falls in 6.5/7 seconds more or less free fall.
Top
pdoherty76
Posted: Oct 28 2006, 09:34 AM


Unregistered









QUOTE (Reggie_perrin @ Oct 28 2006, 01:46 PM)
the 9/11 commission report has building 1 and 2 falling in 10seconds or less, although the 9/11 commission is full of crap they got this bit right.

Where the fuck did this 13 second wtc7 collapse come from, ALL video evidence shows it falls in 6.5/7 seconds more or less free fall.

They reckon its 13 when you count the penthouse but who gives a flying fuck about the penthouse?
Top
0 User(s) are reading this topic (0 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
« Next Oldest | WTC 7 | Next Newest »
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you

Topic OptionsPages: (14) 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 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: 0.0354 seconds · Archive