Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Childlike Empress said:
Exactly. When i don't present them on a silver plate to you, they don't exist.

Oh well, PNAC. Cheney and Rumsfeld were part of that, weren't they? Just a coincidence, of course. Nothing to see here. No dots. There are no dots, Myriad.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't it be less keystrokes to just type "It's at 34:50" than to deflect?
 
NoahFence said:
They were on fire for an hour. WTC 7 for like 7 hours, with fires that went on without one lick of water being put on them. Not exactly sudden.

Clayton - I know how difficult it is for you people to answer a direct question, but I figure if I try hard enough one of you will mistakenly provide an answer:

How exactly do you imagine explosives survived for an hour inside a building burning out of control, that was impacted by a 757 at 500 miles per hour?
Click to expand...


Fire Consumes WTC 7-Size Skyscraper, Building Does Not Collapse

Monday, February 9, 2009

A fierce fire consumed all 34 floors of a skyscraper in Beijing today, shooting 30 foot flames into the air, but unlike the similarly-sized 47-story WTC 7, which suffered limited fires across just eight floors, the building in China did not collapse.
Click to expand...



Compare images of WTC 7 with those of the skyscraper fire in Beijing. Note that the Beijing skyscraper appears to be leaning due to the unorthodox design of the building – it did not suffer any kind of collapse.
Click to expand...


090209top6.jpg

090209top1a.jpg


http://freespeech.vo.llnwd.net/o25/pub/pp/images/february2009/090209top11.jpg

http://freespeech.vo.llnwd.net/o25/pub/pp/images/february2009/090209top10.jpg


Raging fires in the WTC buildings? No way.


http://www.prisonplanet.com/fire-consumes-wtc-7-size-skyscraper-building-does-not-collapse.html
 
Fire Consumes WTC 7-Size Skyscraper, Building Does Not Collapse
Click to expand...

You do realize that the Mandarin Oriental building was built.....

USING INFORMATION OBTAINED BY STUDYING THE COLLAPSE OF WORLD TRADE CENTER SEVEN!?!!

too easy.

Say, WHY NOT just be the first truther to answer the question - HOW DID THE EXPLOSIVES SURVIVE!?!

Truth is you have no answer. You KNOW for a fact that they can't. You KNOW the wiring connecting the explosives would have melted. All this sideshow is bulls.... because the EXPLOSIVES COULD NOT SURVIVE

As for the building leaning....
18477_1.jpg


That's how the building was designed. It's not leaning AT ALL
 
Last edited:
NoahFence said:
You do realize that the Mandarin Oriental building was built.....

USING INFORMATION OBTAINED BY STUDYING THE COLLAPSE OF WORLD TRADE CENTER SEVEN!?!!

too easy.

Say, WHY NOT just be the first truther to answer the question - HOW DID THE EXPLOSIVES SURVIVE!?!

Truth is you have no answer. You KNOW for a fact that they can't. You KNOW the wiring connecting the explosives would have melted. All this sideshow is bulls.... because the EXPLOSIVES COULD NOT SURVIVE

As for the building leaning....
[qimg]http://www.landor.com/one/lib/images/blogs/18477_1.jpg[/qimg]

That's how the building was designed. It's not leaning AT ALL
Click to expand...
One more thing...
Why it didn't collapse: Reinforced concrete construction increases fire resistance far beyond steel framing + added-on protection, entirely different structural framing system that makes it perform differently, and perhaps most importantly no pre-existing impact damage to mess with any functional fire suppression or structural integrity.

Nitpick though; the "leaning" is specifically addressed by the mention of its unorthodox design. That isn't something he claimed.

His building studies are no better than those of PP and AE911 over the years... pretty zero research capability, nothin' new...
I'm glad Clayton isn't an architect.
 
Last edited:
NoahFence said:
You do realize that the Mandarin Oriental building was built.....

USING INFORMATION OBTAINED BY STUDYING THE COLLAPSE OF WORLD TRADE CENTER SEVEN!?!!

too easy.

Say, WHY NOT just be the first truther to answer the question - HOW DID THE EXPLOSIVES SURVIVE!?!

Truth is you have no answer. You KNOW for a fact that they can't. You KNOW the wiring connecting the explosives would have melted. All this sideshow is bulls.... because the EXPLOSIVES COULD NOT SURVIVE

As for the building leaning....
[qimg]http://www.landor.com/one/lib/images/blogs/18477_1.jpg[/qimg]

That's how the building was designed. It's not leaning AT ALL
Click to expand...

Sophisticated modern explosive devices are not subject to the same problems oater explosives have.
 
Childlike Empress said:
That i'm not willing is caused by my knowledge that you are not genuinely interested, proven again by your reaction to the video. It's all there, I delivered you maybe the most detailed account of what Cheney did on 9/11. It's directed at people like you (see foreword). You simply dismiss it. And that's where it ends. Again.
Click to expand...


I didn't ask for a detailed account of what Cheney did on 9/11. I asked for an example of what he (or Rumsfeld) did (on 9/11 or any other date) that shows the nature (which you claimed was nefarious) of their "involvement" in the events of 9/11.

The kinds of things that a criminal indictment would have to include. Something like:

"He shot [name of person]."

"He deposited 4 million dollars in a Swiss bank account."

"He did not push the button to deploy the Pentagon anti-aircraft batteries despite being physically able to and knowing that an aircraft-based attack was incoming."

"He ordered [name of person] to do [criminal action]."

Note the words in bold: those are "verbs," and they indicate actions. When accusing people of nefarious behavior, such as in criminal charges, they are used to indicate the nature and scope of the behavior. Words merely describing a condition or characteristic, such as "involved," "evil," or for that matter "like you," are ineffective for that purpose. So if you wish to make a meaningful accusation you will have to use some. Until then, you not only have no evidence for your accusations, you don't even have any coherent accusations. You are just pretending.

Dismantling underway: 0% Dismantled
Error: Could Not Dismantle
Error Code: -43, No behavior data in misbehavior accusation

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Sophisticated modern explosive devices are not subject to the same problems oater explosives have.
Click to expand...

You're going with THAT?

Hate to do this to ya, but....

name 'em. Show us. Show us these magical explosives that don't explode when on fire.

ETA:
I'm heading out for a cookout. That should provide you plenty of time to research and link me to a site that describes exactly what kind of 'modern explosive device' can survive the fires seen at the trade center.
 
Last edited:
NoahFence said:
You're going with THAT?

Hate to do this to ya, but....

name 'em. Show us. Show us these magical explosives that don't explode when on fire.

ETA:
I'm heading out for a cookout. That should provide you plenty of time to research and link me to a site that describes exactly what kind of 'modern explosive device' can survive the fires seen at the trade center.
Click to expand...
Nit-pick:
Most explosives simply burn-up in fires.


;)
 
Myriad said:
I didn't ask for a detailed account of what Cheney did on 9/11. I asked for an example of what he (or Rumsfeld) did (on 9/11 or any other date) that shows the nature (which you claimed was nefarious) of their "involvement" in the events of 9/11.

The kinds of things that a criminal indictment would have to include. Something like:

"He shot [name of person]."

"He deposited 4 million dollars in a Swiss bank account."

"He did not push the button to deploy the Pentagon anti-aircraft batteries despite being physically able to and knowing that an aircraft-based attack was incoming."

"He ordered [name of person] to do [criminal action]."

Note the words in bold: those are "verbs," and they indicate actions. When accusing people of nefarious behavior, such as in criminal charges, they are used to indicate the nature and scope of the behavior. Words merely describing a condition or characteristic, such as "involved," "evil," or for that matter "like you," are ineffective for that purpose. So if you wish to make a meaningful accusation you will have to use some. Until then, you not only have no evidence for your accusations, you don't even have any coherent accusations. You are just pretending.

Dismantling underway: 0% Dismantled
Error: Could Not Dismantle
Error Code: -43, No behavior data in misbehavior accusation

Respectfully,
Myriad
Click to expand...


Would you have at least watched the first minutes of the video, you would know what I meant by "people like you". Would you have watched further, you would know that a lot of what they did (your original question) on 9/11 is not known and the contradictory accounts cherry-picked to fit the "narrative" of the 9/11 Commission. And you would know what they did before 9/11, going back to the 80s.

Spare me your rhetoric.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
One more thing...
Why it didn't collapse: Reinforced concrete construction increases fire resistance far beyond steel framing + added-on protection, entirely different structural framing system that makes it perform differently, and perhaps most importantly no pre-existing impact damage to mess with any functional fire suppression or structural integrity.

Nitpick though; the "leaning" is specifically addressed by the mention of its unorthodox design. That isn't something he claimed.

His building studies are no better than those of PP and AE911 over the years... pretty zero research capability, nothin' new...
I'm glad Clayton isn't an architect.
Click to expand...

AHAHHAHA It didn't collapse because of the same reason no other steel framed buildings had collapsed because of RAGING fire before or since 9/11.
 
Childlike Empress said:
Would you have at least watched the first minutes of the video, you would know what I meant by "people like you". Would you have watched further, you would know that a lot of what they did (your original question) on 9/11 is not known and the contradictory accounts cherry-picked to fit the "narrative" of the 9/11 Commission. And you would know what they did before 9/11, going back to the 80s.

Spare me your rhetoric.
Click to expand...
You have nothing on Cheney, or Rumsfeld, save a few delusions you can't define. Watch the video? A poet who hates Cheney, a rant of political claptrap, and you fall for it. You fall for a poet's, and CIT crazy claims; they have the exact same evidence as you do.
 
NoahFence said:
They were on fire for an hour. WTC 7 for like 7 hours, with fires that went on without one lick of water being put on them. Not exactly sudden.

Clayton - I know how difficult it is for you people to answer a direct question, but I figure if I try hard enough one of you will mistakenly provide an answer:

How exactly do you imagine explosives survived for an hour inside a building burning out of control, that was impacted by a 757 at 500 miles per hour?
Click to expand...
And why weren't any of them they flung clear out of the building along with the jets' landing gear and the body parts and DNA?

Here's one I thought up earlier today, and it's useful against anyone claiming the towers all fell "(nearly) straight down, in their own footprints". See if you can figure out the responses to both yes and no answers.

Did the conspirators know the debris from WTC 1 would hit 7? If they did,
they would've had to have "aimed" the building's fall well out of its own footprint, which can't really be done with such precision without the collapse being conspicuously asymmetrical, and would've disrupted the explosives.
If not, then
they put explosives in the building without an excuse in place. They would've had to either claim the building spontaneously collapsed, or remove tons of boom-boom from 7 under the watchful eye of a ton of news and amateur cameras in the city and thousands of eyewitnesses, including cops, FDNY, people assisting, and spectators, through streets blocked with debris for months, or risk discovery after the building is investigated or demolished. That's even more impossible than planting them in the first place.


Ah, I love Morton's Fork. I wouldn't be surprised if someone thought this up before.
 
Last edited:
Childlike Empress said:
That i'm not willing is caused by my knowledge that you are not genuinely interested, proven again by your reaction to the video. It's all there, I delivered you maybe the most detailed account of what Cheney did on 9/11. It's directed at people like you (see foreword). You simply dismiss it. And that's where it ends. Again.
Click to expand...
The pitable thing is that you think you're being reasoned and logical.

Clayton Moore said:
Sophisticated modern explosive devices are not subject to the same problems oater explosives have.
Click to expand...
No, that word refers to the Western genre, not the locative designation.

Any explosive with enough padding to survive that impact would be conspicuous. wiring used to detonate it which would survive said impact would be extremely visible. Radio detonators would be unreliable, as well as leaving a few dozen of themselves scattered about. The hypothetical scenario requires split second precision, and you can't do that if you can't reliably trigger the explosives.
 
000063 said:
The pitable thing is that you think you're being reasoned and logical.

No, that word refers to the Western genre, not the locative designation.

Any explosive with enough padding to survive that impact would be conspicuous. wiring used to detonate it which would survive said impact would be extremely visible. Radio detonators would be unreliable, as well as leaving a few dozen of themselves scattered about. The hypothetical scenario requires split second precision, and you can't do that if you can't reliably trigger the explosives.
Click to expand...

Quaint response. I advise you cease relying on old movies, such as Bridge Over the River Kwai, for your responses.
 
Clayton Moore said:
It didn't collapse because of the same reason no other steel framed buildings...
Click to expand...
Your definition of "research" is taking a single glance of a video and blindly accepting what your gut feeling tells you without question. You imply you've done something more productive? Okay I'll take you up on your "offer." Please explain the reasons; backed up with a professional building performance analysis of each example.

Clayton Moore said:
AHAHAHAHA
Click to expand...
Is this what happens when you get backed into a corner? When you're asked to explain you claims from a technical standpoint? Or is this the evolution by intelligent design to which you were referring?
 
Grizzly Bear said:
Your definition of "research" is taking a single glance of a video and blindly accepting what your gut feeling tells you without question. You imply you've done something more productive? Okay I'll take you up on your "offer." Please explain the reasons; backed up with a professional building performance analysis of each example.


Is this what happens when you get backed into a corner? When you're asked to explain you claims from a technical standpoint? Or is this the evolution by intelligent design to which you were referring?
Click to expand...

Wake up. Never in a gazillion years could the towers pancake and completely collapse in under 30 seconds. It's impossible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom