• 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.

Split Thread WTC7 is a problem for the 9/11 official story

bill smith said:
It wasn't unknown to Enron pr Worldcom or the SEC who were investigating the 63 billion dollar Enron fraud in California and the Worldcom scandal amongst several others. Apparently those investigations were extremely hampered by the loss of so many original documents.
Click to expand...

So Al Qaeda hijacked the plane to ram into WTC7 because of Enron?

Your stup... imagination knows no bounds.
 
bill smith said:
It wasn't unknown to Enron pr Worldcom or the SEC who were investigating the 63 billion dollar Enron fraud in California and the Worldcom scandal amongst several others. Apparently those investigations were extremely hampered by the loss of so many original documents.
Click to expand...

Yeah, those SEC investigations were real fiascos, it is amazing how Enron and Worldcom remain market leaders....

now you'll have to excuse me as I must go to the doctor's, because i rolled my eyes so hard that one of them popped out of the socket.
 
RedIbis said:
Why would I do that? I'm still waiting for the evidence that supports NIST's WTC 7 collapse hypothesis that you refuse to defend.
Click to expand...

Don't worry, you still haven't defended your double standards in logic either. It's only been 10 months, but I guess that's natural for you
 
WildCat said:
What time envelope? WTC7 didn't collapse until nearly 5 in the afternoon

And your claim also has "them" faking the crash in Shanksville at a moment's notice.

None of your contentions make a bit of sense, and they contradict one another.
Click to expand...

Not at all. They could never have explaindd how another jet made it to New York so long after the first two. They already had enough trouble trying to make that seem credible.

They had to move quickly. to find a place to say that 93 had gone. So they fond a black scar on the ground in Pennsylvania and set off an explosion there to ruffle up the ground a little and say that the plane had crashed there. It was a piss-poor peration and there is no good reason why they got away with it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-59kouBgO_s&feature=related 1993 survey
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBYYjyD03T4&feature=related
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
Effectively what you say is the absolute Truth Twinstead. No rational person could say that WTC7 did not look enough like controlled demolition as to require a new 9/11 investigation.

And we all know that if there is a problem with WTC7 there is a problem with the whole 9/11 official story.

Posted By: Gaspode
Click to expand...

Oops, WTC7 looks exactly like it was on fire all day and collapsed due to fire! Why? Look at the fire.

Only a few fringe conspiracy theorist who lack knowledge on 911 and science think WTC7 looks like CD and not a gravity collapsed. What you saw on 911 was a gravity collapse due to fire; CD looks a lot different than this!
wtc7fire3.jpg

Oops Fire. Thinking is a good first step, evidence next, and some logic, before posting lies and fantasy.
 
bill smith said:
It wasn't unknown to Enron pr Worldcom or the SEC who were investigating the 63 billion dollar Enron fraud in California and the Worldcom scandal amongst several others. Apparently those investigations were extremely hampered by the loss of so many original documents.
Click to expand...
Proof?
 
RedIbis said:
Why would I do that? I'm still waiting for the evidence that supports NIST's WTC 7 collapse hypothesis that you refuse to defend.
Click to expand...

Red very simple, very easy.

If NIST is wrong, you should be able to find dozens of (if not hundreds) peer reviewed engineering journal articles stating they are wrong.

I mean, there would be hundreds of engineers around the world who would never have to worry about job security AGAIN.

where are they?
 
bill smith said:
Not at all. They could never have explaindd how another jet made it to New York so long after the first two. They already had enough trouble trying to make that seem credible.

They had to move quickly. to find a place to say that 93 had gone. So they fond a black scar on the ground in Pennsylvania and set off an explosion there to ruffle up the ground a little and say that the plane had crashed there. It was a piss-poor peration and there is no good reason why they got away with it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-59kouBgO_s&feature=related 1993 survey
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBYYjyD03T4&feature=related
Click to expand...

It's not the same thing

craterdj1.jpg

crater2zt7.jpg
 
I mean, there would be hundreds of engineers around the world who would never have to worry about job security AGAIN.
Click to expand...
Are there no engineers in N. Korea?
Proving US government involvement would at least earn one a bigger flat and a new bicycle.
 
beachnut said:
Oops, WTC7 looks exactly like it was on fire all day and collapsed due to fire! Why? Look at the fire.

Only a few fringe conspiracy theorist who lack knowledge on 911 and science think WTC7 looks like CD and not a gravity collapsed. What you saw on 911 was a gravity collapse due to fire; CD looks a lot different than this!
[qimg]http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/wtc7fire3.jpg[/qimg]
Oops Fire. Thinking is a good first step, evidence next, and some logic, before posting lies and fantasy.
Click to expand...

I can show you a video of that side as the building collpses showing zero fire I believe. That would mean that at the time of collapse te fires were out.
 
bill smith said:
I don't know about Al-Quaeda but I know that the perps cared.
Click to expand...

I know it's hard for you to concentrate, but please try to re-read my original question to which you answered that Enron thing:

Pardalis said:
BTW Bill, if the third plane had "showed up" and hit WTC7, what would have been the justification of the official story for the terrorists hitting a completely unknown building?
Click to expand...

Get it? I'm talking about the official story. If the plane had hit WTC7, what would have been the reason given in the OFFICIAL STORY?

I know my English isn't perfect, but I think my question is written pretty clearly.
 
No, not quite, but I do agree on the general downward direction of the collapse.
Click to expand...
bill smith said:
No ? I think that this sounds pretty much like 100% agreement.

Parky176 wrote
yes. the collapse of wtc 7 "looks" like a controlled demolition.
Click to expand...

And there Bill, is where you get it wrong.
Fire induced collapse and mundane CD both give a downward collapse.
The quantum linked Hutchinson effect of nanothermite and hurricane driven death ray would have produced an upward collapse.
And it is quite obvious that there is no pile of rubble floating at 47 story altitude.
So your theory* fails.


*Whatever it is.
 
Pardalis said:
I know it's hard for you to concentrate, but please try to re-read my original question to which you answered that Enron thing:



Get it? I'm talking about the official story. If the plane had hit WTC7, what would have been the reason given in the OFFICIAL STORY?

I know my English isn't perfect, but I think my question is written pretty clearly.
Click to expand...

In don't think that it is assumed that the terrorists have to give a reason for which bildings they attack. But let's say that the Mayor's command centre was there, the FBI, the CIA.....you get the picture.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom