• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Video of wtc 7

apathoid said:
"Because of the sensitive nature of the documents it housed" . I guess they don't have paper shredders in Sweden.
Click to expand...

Oh dear sweet Glavin and all his little demi-glaves, don't tell me this guys is from sweden.
 
Curnir said:
Oh dear sweet Glavin and all his little demi-glaves, don't tell me this guys is from sweden.
Click to expand...


Here I could probably fire off a barage of decidedly non-pc jokes about sweedes, intelligence and why this kind of dudes would never emerge from Denmark, but........





It's "Be nice to the poor Sweedes" day......:(

;)
 
Arkan Wolfshade's post and several following it were moved to Flame War. Again, I ask everyone to please keep in mind the Membership Agreement and do not use personal insults.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson
 
Bell said:
We need translation tools for poverty's posts. Let's see if this helps...

[qimg]http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/CAMB/27655~Baby-Talk-Posters.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

That is the cutest post by the way.

ETA: Do you have a bigger version of that picture? It's so funny.
 
Last edited:
Do you know what the problem is ongoing here, a building has collapsed. If you see that building (a lot of people didn't know about the building) and you know nothing about the raging fires and tremendous damage and the fact that the building came down 7 hours later, the first thing you would say is: "hey that looks like a controlled demolition, they brought it down, maybe they had to implode it, it was a dangerous situation, we don't know what's going on, but it really looks like a CD, even experts cannot imagine it is due to the coming down of the twin towers". Then a whole discussion starts about the tower, then we have two groups, people who are convinced it is due to fire and damage and people who think they've imploded it. Some of the first group of people will probably also think it was a CD but they changed their opinion because there is no official explanation for that, other people of that first group then immediately think it is due to fire and damage and are behind the official story because ... they are behind the official story. Then there is a second group of people who saw the 3 towers collapse, two of them disintegrating in strange way and one that looks like a classical CD that starts at the bottom, a piece of art in fact that requires well-trained experienced professionals. Between them are die-hard-CT'ers, maybe even no-planers, bathtubers, what else do we have, but as always a group is a collection of subgroups or at a lower level individuals. Between them are also experts that think it is a CD and also, normal people, just ordinary people, very serious people that are wondering how that could happen due to fire and damage.

Is it unreasonable to be a little bit critical and think this is really really strange? I don't think one has the right to classify you as a nutter. What I don't understand from some of the debunkers, it is all : "look at the firemen bla bla... no they pulled it back because bla bla", why not saying: "I really believe it is due to fire and damage, but I admit it is a little bit strange, I cannot explain it and rely on the government's investigation"
 
Last edited:
einsteen said:
why not saying: "I really believe it is due to fire and damage, but I admit it is a little bit strange, I cannot explain it and rely on the government's investigation"
Click to expand...

I'll say what I believe clearly:

I think there is enough evidence (pictures of fires and damage to the structure, firemen testimonies) for my layman understanding to come to the conclusion that the WTC7 building collapsed due to the damage it endured after the collapse of the WTC towers.

Unless some proof to the contrary can be brought forth, I therefore find nothing strange about it.

Fair enough Einsteen?
 
Last edited:
Something that has always troubled me. Buildings 4,5 & 6 were hit by more debris, recieved more damage and had fires greater than that of building 7 yet they remained standing. Building 7 with huge damage to one corner and fires falls straight down instead of towards the damage. Both points never added up for me.
 
Usual Suspect said:
Something that has always troubled me. Buildings 4,5 & 6 were hit by more debris, recieved more damage and had fires greater than that of building 7 yet they remained standing.
Click to expand...

Size mean much to ya?

ETA: 7 was cantilevered over a sub station as well!
 
Usual Suspect said:
Something that has always troubled me. Buildings 4,5 & 6 were hit by more debris, recieved more damage and had fires greater than that of building 7 yet they remained standing. Building 7 with huge damage to one corner and fires falls straight down instead of towards the damage. Both points never added up for me.
Click to expand...
Hi usual. I have a paper linked in my signature that explains things pretty well, I think. Your characterization of the building's condition is drastically incomplete. Please read the accounts of the FDNY that I've compiled in the paper.

It's important to remember that building 7 was a true skyscraper, nearly 600 feet tall, and fairly slim on one axis. The other buildings you mentioned were much wider than they were tall. Therefore, internal collapses could occur without bringing the whole building down. In addition, the FDNY was able to get some water on those low buildings, which they couldn't do with building 7.
 
Dog Town said:
Size mean much to ya?
Click to expand...

Yeah, the size of the uhmplosives in WTC 7 was much bigger that the size of the uhmplosives in WTC 4, 5 & 6.

Oh, wait. There were no uhmplosives in WTC 4, 5 & 6 !

Oh, wait more. There were also no uhmplosives in WTC 7 !
 
einsteen said:
Do you know what the problem is ongoing here, a building has collapsed. If you see that building (a lot of people didn't know about the building) and you know nothing about the raging fires and tremendous damage and the fact that the building came down 7 hours later, the first thing you would say is: "hey that looks like a controlled demolition, they brought it down, maybe they had to implode it, it was a dangerous situation, we don't know what's going on, but it really looks like a CD, even experts cannot imagine it is due to the coming down of the twin towers". Then a whole discussion starts about the tower, then we have two groups, people who are convinced it is due to fire and damage and people who think they've imploded it. Some of the first group of people will probably also think it was a CD but they changed their opinion because there is no official explanation for that, other people of that first group then immediately think it is due to fire and damage and are behind the official story because ... they are behind the official story. Then there is a second group of people who saw the 3 towers collapse, two of them disintegrating in strange way and one that looks like a classical CD that starts at the bottom, a piece of art in fact that requires well-trained experienced professionals. Between them are die-hard-CT'ers, maybe even no-planers, bathtubers, what else do we have, but as always a group is a collection of subgroups or at a lower level individuals. Between them are also experts that think it is a CD and also, normal people, just ordinary people, very serious people that are wondering how that could happen due to fire and damage.

Is it unreasonable to be a little bit critical and think this is really really strange? I don't think one has the right to classify you as a nutter. What I don't understand from some of the debunkers, it is all : "look at the firemen bla bla... no they pulled it back because bla bla", why not saying: "I really believe it is due to fire and damage, but I admit it is a little bit strange, I cannot explain it and rely on the government's investigation"
Click to expand...


I thought you already agreed that WTC 7 collapsed due to massive damage from falling debris and fire?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1958275&postcount=55
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom