Hello all,
I KNOW there has been a tremendous debate over the subject of 9/11, and from the few threads I have read it looks like most believe the, "Official Story." Well, here's what I can assure you. If you engage me in this debate, than you will NOT leave this thread without KNOWING that 9/11 was an inside job and brought down by controlled demolitions.
Welcome to the forum. If you have never been here before, lurking or otherwise, than I doubt you know what your in for here. Your chances of convincing any of the frequent posters here that 9/11 was an inside job is slim to nil, but thanks for having the courage to try.
Of course, WTC 7 is and will forever be the smoking gun. I am, of course, referring to 47 story steel-structured building, that dissolved to the ground in mere seconds. I say - DISSOLVED into nothingness, in a mere few seconds. Whether it was 6 or 7 or 8 9 10 seconds...that's not at debate.
It is not a debate, it is a lie. There is plenty of evidence, including photos shown by others above, that WTC7 did not collapse into "nothingnes". Infact, after collapse parts of the vrick facade were in large sections, not "nothingness".
We've all seen the video, and the fact remains...this 47 story steel-structured building literally DISSOLVED in just the blink of an eye....apparently due to a couple fires that were so LARGE they were virtually invisible from the outside. Remember...there is no official report on the cause of WTC 7's collapse.
Are you for real. You really must be new to this board to come in here with this old, debunked garbage. Once again, did not dissolve. Also, besides the LARGE fires that burned un treated, un kept for SEVEN hours, there was a 10-20 storey high Chunk taken out of the South side of the building. This damage was caused by large debris that was ejected during the collapse of the second tower to go. Finally, there is an official report on the cause of the collapse of WTC7, it is called the NIST report on WTC7. There is an Interim version on the NIST website, and the full report is due out soon.
The 911 commission didn't even address it, and if you know anything about a pancake collapse...WTC 7 was NOT a pancake collapse. All 47 stories simply turned into jello all at once. And magically at that. No wait...I mean because of those small fires that melted the entire infrastructure all at once. Yea, that's what I meant to say.
WTC7, in the eyes of the 9/11 commission, and the vast majority of the rest of the world, certainly then, and even today, was NOT RELEVENT to the mandate of the 9/11 commission. It was not struck by a plane, it was not taken down by terrorists. That is why the commission did not address it.
I love jello and magic, but we are not children here, so try to use more grown up terms here. For someone coming in here trying to "Honestly" try to "unite us, your last sentence above seems to stink of sarcasm.
Now, I think one of the main problems people encounter when analyzing an event like this is that they OVER analyze it. Especially since politics are often brought (kicking and screaming) into this discussion...
Spoken like a true non-scientist who is afraid of the facts and evidence. There is no way to over analyze the collapse of these structures. To underanalyze it however, is a common trait of WooWoo.
it's easy for one to loose track of the real issues by dismissing another as a, "Liberal! or NeoCON!" Please, don't be blinded by political bias. In fact, let's just check that at the door. This debate has NOTHING to do with what political party you like to associate yourself with.
Your right, it has nothing to do with the democratic party, which is the one I would support, were I American. Here, in Canada, I actually supported the NDP, which are even further left than the DEMS.
In conjunction: We're NOT debating WHO is responsible for 9/11 in this thread. So, regardless if you do decide to open your mind up to THE truth...it doesn't mean that you're saying or agreeing to who is actually responsible for the demolition of the WTC. The only fact about this event that we shall discuss, is whether or not FIRE was the chief cause of the collapse of WTC 1, 2, 7 or if a controlled demolition is to blame.
Starting off on the wrong foot already. It was a combination of (1) Severing of the exterior and interior core columns by the plane impacts, (2) removal of much of the fireproofing on the columns etc...by the plane impacts, and (3) longstanding fires, superheated by the contents of the buildings that contributed to the eventual collapses of the WTC 1/2 and longstanding fires combines with severe damage from debris in the case of WTC7.
See, I think the main problem with the, 'Debunkers.' is that they never actually debunk this main issue i.e. the buildings came down via a demolition.
The threads here doing just that are too numerous to count.
And the reason they probably haven't presented any actual hard evidence (I'm not talking about an "expert's" commentary or analysis) I'm talking about actual evidence you could present in a court of law that PROVES unequivocally, that demolitions we're NOT used on the WTC buildings.
Do I have to prove that martians didnt bring it down either. Since when do we have to prove what DIDN'T bring it down. ok, I can't prove that God didnt raise his mighty hand and bring it down either.
As for your comment on expert opinions, they are used in courts for both defense and procecution. Typical WooWoo comment to try to avoid or eliminate expert opinion...of course, because all the expert opinion serves the official story, not the CTs. I hope you tell your doctor you dont want his opinion the next time you visit.
And, really this is the only point worth discussing. Sorry, but calling someone a, "Nutjob!" isn't gonna work. I'm only looking for something that could be presented as evidence in a court of law. Let's get REAL left-brained and linear about this...oki doki! You know like Skeptics are SUPPOSE to be!
You are as see through as glass my friend. Trying to sway us from legitimate argument such as expert opinion and analysis by falsly appealing to our reason is juvenile, but, alas, typical.
There is really no point in getting distracted with the small side issues and theories...because it only serves to dilute the whole point of this investigation...and that is to irrefutably prove what caused the buildings to collapse.
see above.
So if we could...I would like to pose a series of simple questions...and all I want for everyone to do is simply respond to the question at hand. If everyone can follow these simple guidelines, than it shouldn't take too long before you will have to accept the fact that the buildings collapsed because of explosives and NOT a fire that melted steel wherein initiating an improbable pancake collapse.
To appease your silliness, I will take the test...
Question 1: Is it possible to prove whether or not (irrefutably) that in the history of the world...a steel-structured building has collapsed as a direct result of a fire? I know we've all heard that this has never happened before 9/11, but is it possible to prove that statement true or false - without a shadow of doubt? And if we can prove whether or not that statement is true, than please give your answer - yay or nay, and present your evidence.
NO. As has been stated in a review of this by NIST, and published in Fire Protection Engineering Magazine...
"Another important finding of this study was the lack of readily available, and well-documented, information on partial or total structural collapse due to fire. Unless the fire event was significant for other reasons, e.g., loss of life, very little information was available. It is recommended that a centralized database be developed, whereby structural damage and collapse can be investigated and systematically reported in the future. The current lack of systematic information on fire-induced collapses seriously limits the profession's understanding of the scope and nature of the real structural fire protection problem." - Fire Protection Engineering MAgazine
http://www.fpemag.com/archives/article.asp?issue_id=27&i=153
Next Question?
TAM
