NIST releases final report on WTC7!!!!

No, I initially thought it was space aliens but no one could corroborate that for me. I then suspected Charlie Sheen because no one could account for his whereabouts that day. I flirted with the notion that Herve Villachez might have done it because he ws so small so as to go undetected but I found out he was dead.
I relented and went with reality, it was all I had left.
 
Dictator Cheney said:
but alot "debunkers" take it as granted that the cause for the "collapse" was the fires and damage. mmmhhhh :confused:
Click to expand...
I'm not surprised that you are confused. It best fits the known evidence (there were fires and structural damage to the building) and is also the realistic explanation of what happened. There is no evidence to suggest it was otherwise. However, the NIST must still conduct a close examination of how it happened.

Three guys are standing in the middle of a basketball court, during the halftime of an NBA game. They are part of the cleaning crew and are just dry mopping the court floor. One is wearing a hat with the basketball team’s logo on it, one is wearing a bandana, and the third is wearing a hat with the local baseball team’s logo on it. Suddenly, the guy with the baseball hat shoots the other guy with the hat in the head, using a 9mm he had hidden in his coveralls. Not all the spectators were paying attention, but some saw the first shot. Since it was halftime the feed from the cameras were not live and the cameras were not pointed at the location of the killing. Now however, everyone is now watching the middle of the court, and the technical director of the game instructs his camera crew to get shots of the action for the news division of the network. Before security has time to react, the gunman then shoots the guy with the bandana, in the chest. Almost all the spectators, numbering in the thousands, saw this. The shooter then turns the gun on himself, placing the gun in his mouth and pulls the trigger. The back of his head explodes in a shower of blood and brains.

In David Simon's book Homicide: a Year on the Killing Streets this would be regarded as a "dunker" (slang for "a slam dunk case"), an obvious suspect and plenty of witnesses. However, Will Peterson and his crew (CSI, for those who are unfamiliar with American TV) arrive, and must still map out what happened at the scene. The coroner will still do an autopsy to determine a cause of death. Detectives look into the backgrounds of the victims and the shooter, to find a possible motive. Bullets are found in the two victims, along the track of the wounds. Unfortunately, the bullet that killed the suspected shooter can't be found. It traveled (according to witnesses and video playback) at an upward angle, most likely going into the rafters of the building, and may have struck one of the steel supports above it, been spent and fell to the ground. Thus, it was probably lost in the crowd as it left the building.

However, before the findings of the investigators are completed a dentist has some unanswered questions. Why did the bullet go through the shooter's head and not the first victim's head? Why was the fact that the second victim had a pacemaker never made available to the public? Why has the third bullet never found? The explanation to him and others he enlists is obvious. There is a vast conspiracy, on the part of professional sports, to raise ticket prices.

The dentist, referred to as "Doctor" by his supporters, explains that only explosives placed within the logo of the hat of the first victim can explain the wound not being a through-and-through. He finds an explosive expert who tells him that "yeah an explosive could cause a wound like that..." Leaving out the rest of the statement, "but to propel the bullet into the skull would require an explosive package size that would be noticeable to the victim and the people around him." He also shows that an explosive could be placed in the pacemaker of the second victim, without doing research into when the victim's last operation was. "Isn't it obvious that the absence of the third bullet is proof that an explosive charged was placed in the man's head?" Also, some of the eyewitnesses (including off-duty cops, and soldiers on leave) described some of the "gunshots" as "sounding like small explosions." There can be no other possible explanation.

Further, who benefited? Since the event all major league sports have raised their ticket prices, to pay for extra security, it must be the professional sports teams.

Why hasn't the investigation been completed? The sport teams have the city and state officials in their pocket.

Finally, isn't it suspicious that the suspect was identified so quickly?

According to the coroner, all three people died of gunshot wounds. According to the forensics team, the guy in the baseball hat was the shooter. He has GSR on his hands and his fingerprints are the only ones on the gun and the bullets inside the gun. According to the detectives, there was bad blood between the shooter and the victims. Apparently, the guy in the basketball hat was sleeping with the baseball hat wearer's wife, and the guy in the bandana knew this was going on for sometime and didn't tell baseball hat. Two days before there had been an altercation between the men in their locker room.
 
how do sportteams benefit when they have to rise ticketprices to pay for the security?
lower prices will rise the demand of tickets :)
 
Last edited:
Dictator Cheney said:
but alot "debunkers" take it as granted that the cause for the "collapse" was the fires and damage. mmmhhhh :confused:
Click to expand...

You need to reconsider the meaning of the word "debunker." It means to debunk claims, not make them. In this case, the claim being made is that, contrary to all expert opinion, elementary physics, visual evidence, appearances, and common sense, the WTC was brought down not by debris falling from the Twin Towers, but by a controlled demolition (or some other thing). I know this has been explained innumerable times, but it's up to the party making the claim to back it up. And it's the role of the debunker to question that claim, to demand evidence, and when appropriate (and this is such a case) to point out that a much simpler, seemingly more obvious, rational, and sane theory is available that explains the existing evidence far better.

So there you have it (not that I expect it'll have a great deal of impact). CTers by definition make claims. Debunkers by definition question those claims. The roles are not equivalent, as you appear to imply. And when a truther pulls a claim out of his rectum and insists it's the unvarnished truth, debunkers have every right to say "That isn't truth, it's a piece of crap." And when said truther then retorts "But I pulled it out so quickly! Much quicker than it's taking the official report to get done. That must mean something!!" we have every right to laugh in his face.
 
Stellafane said:
You need to reconsider the meaning of the word "debunker." It means to debunk claims, not make them. In this case, the claim being made is that, contrary to all expert opinion, elementary physics, visual evidence, appearances, and common sense, the WTC was brought down not by debris falling from the Twin Towers, but by a controlled demolition (or some other thing). I know this has been explained innumerable times, but it's up to the party making the claim to back it up. And it's the role of the debunker to question that claim, to demand evidence, and when appropriate (and this is such a case) to point out that a much simpler, seemingly more obvious, rational, and sane theory is available that explains the existing evidence far better.

So there you have it (not that I expect it'll have a great deal of impact). CTers by definition make claims. Debunkers by definition question those claims. The roles are not equivalent, as you appear to imply. And when a truther pulls a claim out of his rectum and insists it's the unvarnished truth, debunkers have every right to say "That isn't truth, it's a piece of crap." And when said truther then retorts "But I pulled it out so quickly! Much quicker than it's taking the official report to get done. That must mean something!!" we have every right to laugh in his face.
Click to expand...

contrary to all expert opinion, elementary physics, visual evidence, appearances, and common sense,
Click to expand...

are you sure you want to claim that?
 
Dictator Cheney said:
are you sure you want to claim that?
Click to expand...

Actually, I don't. Let me add "intelligence" and "sanity" to the list, and see how it reads:

...contrary to all expert opinion, elementary physics, visual evidence, appearances, intellgence, sanity, and common sense...
Click to expand...

Hmm, maybe I see what you mean. It's the word "all" in front of "expert opinion." As I recall, CTers seemed to have found one or two people who claim they're qualified to make a judgement on the WTC7 express the opinion that it could have been a CD. Now in my less charitable moments I think anyone who really believes that is both stupid or crazy, or perhaps just enjoys the attention for some perverted reason. But seeing as I'm a nice guy, I'll amend it instead to the following:

...contrary to the overwhelmingly vast majority of expert opinion, elementary physics, visual evidence, appearances, intellgence, sanity, and common sense...
Click to expand...

Yep, that's about right.
 
Dictator Cheney said:
Who thinks it looks like a CD??

a demolition expert and several structural engineering experts for example.
Click to expand...
I few dolts in 9/11 truth who lack knowledge; why are they so wrong? I know of no body who understands WTC7 and the events of 9/11 who thinks it was CD or thermite. Thermite is the dumbest idea yet. CD is impossible based on the evidence. That leave you thinking it was, and you are wrong. WTC7 is what happens when a building burns all day. But that takes knowledge to understand that trumps your own biased made up ideas that you think are correct. Maturity and knowledge may help you make a rational conclusion instead of being wrong, except your sig, on 9/11.

Your opinions, not based on facts, are wrong on 9/11. You may want to debate something you have some evidence on. I suspect, from you posts, you have no real knowledge to support your opinions on 9/11.

Since WTC7 was burning out of control, what would happen after 6 or 7 hours? Go ahead set fire to your home of office and do not fight the fire and disable the fire systems. Tell me what happen?
 
Stellafane said:
Actually, I don't. Let me add "intelligence" and "sanity" to the list, and see how it reads:



Hmm, maybe I see what you mean. It's the word "all" in front of "expert opinion." As I recall, CTers seemed to have found one or two people who claim they're qualified to make a judgement on the WTC7 express the opinion that it could have been a CD. Now in my less charitable moments I think anyone who really believes that is both stupid or crazy, or perhaps just enjoys the attention for some perverted reason. But seeing as I'm a nice guy, I'll amend it instead to the following:



Yep, that's about right.
Click to expand...


elementary physics?
explain how fires can cause a symmetrical collapse of a onesided damaged building?
 
Still no ideas for the new investigation? Still clinging to your nonsensical "questions" uh DC?

It's going to take forever if you'll keep doing this.
 
Last edited:
Pardalis said:
Still no ideas for the new investigation? Still clinging to your nonsensical "questions" uh DC?

It's going to take forever if you'll keep doing this.
Click to expand...

what new investigation?
they are not even done with the first one.....

maybe they will this summer.
 
Dictator Cheney said:
what new investigation?
they are not even done with the first one.....

maybe they will this summer.
Click to expand...

Well it's from the same organisation that did the report on the towers, so you'll refuse it without reading it.

So what about that new investigation? Any ideas or do you want to keep JAQing off? It's not on a message board that you're going to get your answer you know.
 
Dictator Cheney said:
elementary physics?
explain how fires can cause a symmetrical collapse of a onesided damaged building?
Click to expand...

Oh dear, oh dear...apparently my little explanation of the respective roles of "CTer" and "debunker" hasn't had the desired effect (not that this is a heart-attack-provoking surprise). So just in case you missed it the first time, here it is again in a nutshell: You make the claim. You support it. I point out, if I can, the flaws in your claim. If I can't, you've got yourself (if I do say so myself) a reasonably intelligent and articulate convert. Otherwise, I keep treating your claims like the load of feces I'm fairly certain they are. Got it?

So let's try this again: what, exactly, are you claiming?
 
Last edited:
Stellafane said:
Oh dear, oh dear...apparently my little explanation of the respective roles of "CTer" and "debunker" hasn't had the desired effect (not that this is a heart-attack-provoking surprise). So just in case you missed it the first time, here it is again in a nutshell: You make the claim. You support it. I point out, if I can, the flaws in your claim. If I can't, you've got yourself (if I do say so myself) a reasonably intelligent and articulate convert. Otherwise, I keep treating your claims like the load of feces I'm fairly certain they are. Got it?

So let's try this again: what, exactly, are you claiming?
Click to expand...

well you claimed that elementary physics can explain it......

but its a good thing you retracted that claim.
 
Pardalis said:
Well it's from the same organisation that did the report on the towers, so you'll refuse it without reading it.

So what about that new investigation? Any ideas or do you want to keep JAQing off? It's not on a message board that you're going to get your answer you know.
Click to expand...

welcome to ignore , liar.
 
Dictator Cheney said:
well you claimed that elementary physics can explain it......

but its a good thing you retracted that claim.
Click to expand...

I have done no such thing, because, as I've patiently tried to explain to you to no effect, I am not making any claim. I've already warned you about putting words in my mouth, but apparently it hasn't deterred you from doing it again. I have never put anyone on ignore before, and I'm not going to start with you. But I will say I will never again respond to anything you ever write, because you have proved youself simply unworthy of the bother.

ETA: And oh yeah, the fact that you desperately avoided making a claim, because you knew it would be humiliatingly thrown back into your face like every other piece of insanity ever offered by any truther anywhere, and instead resorted to a schoolyard insult unworthy of a 10 year old child, did not escape my notice.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom