The equivalent of minor league baseball, but for crazy internet forums.
10 story hole in WTC 7
- Thread starter Christopher7
- Start date
-
- Tags
- 911 conspiracy theory wtc
- Status
The equivalent of minor league baseball, but for crazy internet forums.
You know, one of the things that CTers seem to overlook is the unorthoday structural arrangement of the building, which is explained at some length in the preliminary report, and incorporated some weird and wonderful things such as reuse of pre-existing foundations even though locations weren't optimum.
You know, one of the things that CTers seem to overlook is the unorthoday structural arrangement of the building, which is explained at some length in the preliminary report, and incorporated some weird and wonderful things such as reuse of pre-existing foundations even though locations weren't optimum.
HeyLeroy
Vegan Cannibal
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2005
- Messages
- 5,567
Well, I gotta admit that I engaged in some mild name-calling, but it wasn't even directed at anyone in particular. I've seen the word used on this forum, and I dunno if it even violates rule 8 here.
But then the doofus who must've reported me called me GayLeroy after my suspension was announced.
I think they put me off for a month in the hopes that I just won't come back.
Fat chance at that.
ConspiRaider
Writer of Nothingnesses
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2006
- Messages
- 11,156
All the best wishes during your suspension, Leroy, it is very inspiring to the rest of us. Your bravery, your courage. We're with you all the way, just hang in there. The time will pass quickly.
Can I bring you anything during your incarceration / suspension? MREs? The 2007 WooWoo Pet Of The Year Calendar? Gravy's avatar?
CHF
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2006
- Messages
- 3,871
Why the hell are the twoofers still arguing about WTC7?
- WTC7 suffered extensive damage from falling debris
- it was leaning over before it fell
- fires burned for six hours
- the FDNY feared it would collapse 2 hours before it did
- no demolition charges were heard
- no seismographs picked up explosions
- there STILL is no logical reason for a) blowing it up, and b) waiting until 5:20 pm to do it
What exactly is there still to debate on this one? "Pull it"???
- WTC7 suffered extensive damage from falling debris
- it was leaning over before it fell
- fires burned for six hours
- the FDNY feared it would collapse 2 hours before it did
- no demolition charges were heard
- no seismographs picked up explosions
- there STILL is no logical reason for a) blowing it up, and b) waiting until 5:20 pm to do it
What exactly is there still to debate on this one? "Pull it"???
Suddenly, everything is becoming clear.
From the Oxford Dictionary:-
story
• noun ([SIZE=-1]pl.[/SIZE] stories) 1 an account of imaginary or real people and events told for entertainment. 2 an account of past events, experiences, etc. 3 an item of news. 4 a storyline. 5 [SIZE=-1]informal[/SIZE] a lie.
storey
([SIZE=-1]N. Amer.[/SIZE] also story)
• noun ([SIZE=-1]pl.[/SIZE] storeys or stories) a part of a building comprising all the rooms that are on the same level. [SIZE=-1]— ORIGIN[/SIZE] from Latin historia ‘history’: perhaps originally referring to a tier of painted windows or sculptures on a building, representing a historical subject.
Yes, there are holes in whole stories about the WTC.
From the Oxford Dictionary:-
story
• noun ([SIZE=-1]pl.[/SIZE] stories) 1 an account of imaginary or real people and events told for entertainment. 2 an account of past events, experiences, etc. 3 an item of news. 4 a storyline. 5 [SIZE=-1]informal[/SIZE] a lie.
storey
([SIZE=-1]N. Amer.[/SIZE] also story)
• noun ([SIZE=-1]pl.[/SIZE] storeys or stories) a part of a building comprising all the rooms that are on the same level. [SIZE=-1]— ORIGIN[/SIZE] from Latin historia ‘history’: perhaps originally referring to a tier of painted windows or sculptures on a building, representing a historical subject.
Yes, there are holes in whole stories about the WTC.
CHF
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2006
- Messages
- 3,871
That sure does make it all the more sad, doesn't it?
Their best evidence is completely inconsistent with a demolition and they don't so much as have a logical explanation as to WHY the bad guys would blow it up anyway.
Destroying documents - when a paper-shredder would have worked just fine? An insurance scam where the guy takes the money and rebuilds, LOSING money on whole venture?
Good grief!
By the way, I'm Jan from Toronto. I met up with Abby, Chad and yourself at GZ the week after 9/11/06. My girlfriend says hi as well
Oh and that was an impressive destruction of Jason and Dylan. I laughed out loud whenever the camera caught Jason with that look of his that screams "oh crap, now what?"
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
Actually C7 wishes to have us say that we all believe that there was a 10 storey or larger hole in the south face of WTC 7. What he is not stating are the particulars of the hole he is talking about, one that most probably did not exist but that one firefighter did report.
NIST included that report along with several others which report similar but less extensive damage to the south face of WTC 7.
What Chris 7 wants us to state is whether or not a 10 storey gouge in the south central face of WTC 7, that extended from the wall to the core, existed.
Thing is that NIST always puts qualifiers on any statement or graphic concerning the possible extent of damage done there. It is likely that this worst reported case is not the reality that day and anyone who actually has read the report should easily see that.
C7 wishes to suggest then that NIST deliberatly included the statements and graphics to mislead people into believeing that this massive gouge did exist. In this he hopes to cast doubt and disrepute on the authors of the report.
Sorry but anyone who does not see the report's use of this statement for what it is, simply another eyewitness report that demonstrates that there was damage to the central area of the south face but that it does not claim or mean that the worst extent of damage that was reported was a fact, is not reading carefully and is only skiming or looking just at the diagrams and pictures.
Last edited:
CHF
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2006
- Messages
- 3,871
I think the size of the hole is a non-issue anyway.
The building was leaning over! Hear that, twoofers? It was leaning over!
Now I'm no demolition expert, but I'm pretty sure explosive charges
don't make a building lean over hours before knocking it down. I also believe those charges make a slight bang.
Oh wait....thermite. How could I not see it?
The building was leaning over! Hear that, twoofers? It was leaning over!
Now I'm no demolition expert, but I'm pretty sure explosive charges
don't make a building lean over hours before knocking it down. I also believe those charges make a slight bang.
Oh wait....thermite. How could I not see it?
Christopher7
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 6,538
Wrong: should be no 10 story hole*
Right
Right
********************************************************
Right
*********************************************************
Right [except for always. They left out the 'possible' on pg 31, 32 and statement 1) in the Summary]
Yes. Many people believe that the massive damage as described in this report definitely occured
I respectfully disagree. The report is very misleading IMO
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
No, you have stated that you believe that most OT's will state that a 10 storey and deep gouge existed. Perhaps the semantic problems that arise in a text only conversation rear there ugly head here....
Please do not re-write my comments. If you wish to correct me then show my statement and explain your stance separately.
You indeed would be calling into disrepute the authors of this report if you believe that they deliberatly strove to mislead readers on this or any issue. If it is a simple credibility problem then you would have to believe that it was an inadvertant error on their part. Seems to me that you have stated on other occasions that you believe it was deliberate and you have never objected to my saying you believe it was deliberate before. Have you changed your mind and now believe that it may be an inadvertant error (I don't believe it was an error at all) rather than a deliberate attempt to mislead the public?
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
Cl1mh4224rd
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2006
- Messages
- 9,778
Thermite goggles are standard issue CT gear...I dunno, the CT's seem to be able to with great clarity.
Yes it seems Rizzo, in supply pawned off a few C-130's full of the surplus 1940's x-ray specs, on some moron. The same one's we sold kids, in the back of comics, frome the 50's onward.
They seem to trace back, to a one A.Jones of Austin, TX. The CT'ers think they work quite well, everything kinda glows. Fashionable too. I think our bonus this year, came from the sale.Shhh...
Christopher7
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 6,538
It was the "wishes to have us say" [should have been] "believe they will say"
Noted
No. I'm slaming the SOB who coerced them into publishing that insipid piece of misleading dribble.
...........[Rember what happened to Kevin Ryan]
Last edited:
Arkan_Wolfshade
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Messages
- 7,154
He made false statements and attempted to do so from a position of authority as an employee as the UL, not as an individual and was subsequently fired. Or was there something else?
Christopher7
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 6,538
We have differing opinions on why he was fired. Enough said.
About WTC 7:
Do you believe that the middle 1/4 to 1/3 width of the south face was gouged out from floor 10 to the ground ?
[as stated in the NIST report]
- Status