Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Christopher7 said:
It's a stupid question because you know that the TM says that WTC 7 was a CD. I have said so on this forum many times.
Click to expand...

Saying it was a CD is not enough. Give me some details? How exactly was it done. What kind of explosives were used? When was the building rigged? Who rigged it? How did they rig it with nobody noticing? Tiny details like that.
 
Christopher7 said:
:boggled: I'm not. Go back and read the part after "the point is:" in several of my posts.
Click to expand...

I just did. It appears like most truthers do when faced with the actual statements by firefighters and first responders at the scene, you are tap dancing around the fact that in order for the building to have been demolished by CD and not have been as damaged or on fire as was reported, every single firefighter who testified that the building was unstable and dangerous to enter is either in on it or incompetent.

I especially like when you said, "A real firefighter could figure out how to get the job done". Nice touch.
 
dafydd said:
Saying it was a CD is not enough. Give me some details? How exactly was it done. What kind of explosives were used? When was the building rigged? Who rigged it? How did they rig it with nobody noticing? Tiny details like that.
Click to expand...

At least you're admitting it was a CD.
 
twinstead said:
You're just making this up as you go along, aren't you?
Click to expand...

Put 2 to 10 people in a room. Given a reasonable duration and circumstance/opportunity one will show dominance over the other(s) by body language.

You'll never find a time when the two were together that Cheney was not the alpha.
 
There is NOTHING in the NIST reports about WTC 7 leaning.
Click to expand...

Who gives a crap? There's nothing in the NIST report about Atta's parents, either. Doesn't mean he didn't have any.

WHY do you only cherry-pick the NIST report when it suits you?
 
Christopher7 said:
Typical blatantly false assumption/accusation. In a recent post on this thread I said they erred on the side of caution
Click to expand...

You say they (the FDNY) erred?? When someone errs, he is being incompetent, not?

Was that being cautious a good call (then it was no error) or a bad call (then it was incompetent)?
Would YOU have made a different call, and why?

Christopher7 said:
or they are victims like all of us.
Click to expand...

In this particular circumstance: Victim of WHO? In what sense do you say that they, in that particular circumstance (making a decision to not engage fire in a building they deemed instable), became "victims"?

Christopher7 said:
Four years ago, you were staunchly defending the 10 story gouge and the diesel fuel fires. You were wrong on both. http://truthphalanx.com/chris_sarns/
Click to expand...

You link to your own utterings instead of to something that supports the claim you make. The only mention of R. Mackey in the page you link to is in the context of you noticing something. No mention there of R. Mackey "staunchly defending" anything.
 
Dave Rogers said:
On this small point, I have to say, I agree with KotA. Bush should, on hearing the news, have stood up, apologised briefly to the children, and said that something important had happened that needed him as President to deal with it. He should then have calmly left the room to consult with his retinue and decide what to do next. Instead, he acted like a rabbit in the headlights, and although it's unlikely he could have done anything useful in the eight minutes it took him to figure out how to react, it made him look extremely stupid, unprepared and easily derailed.

It also made it fairly clear that he was utterly shocked and surprised at what happened, which doesn't exactly support the claim that he was one of the people behind it.

Dave
Click to expand...
Actually, the whole thing is a red-herring. It has no relevance to any Conspiracy Theory, since His Constitutional Majesty's position is that Bush wasn't in on the LIHOP. It's simply a way of attacking Bush, and not presenting evidence for his claims.

Oystein said:
Whatever C7 is arguing for, the consequence can only be one of these two:
  1. C7 asserts that the FDNY chiefs and crews were utterly incompetent
  2. C7 asserts that the FDNY was actively and knowingly involved in the conspiracy to CD building 7, and by extension in the murder of 2500+, including hundreds of their own men
Click to expand...
You forgot 3. The bad guys sabotaged thousands of pieces of equipment, since there was no way to predict which companies would be fighting WTC 7, and then made all of the evidence of said sabotage vanish. Alternately, their plan relied on a lot of NY fire companies not noticing said evidence, which falls under your point #1.

Of course, since Chris's position is that it was a CD, making the evidence of the sabotage vanish would be child's play next to vanishing the detonators and components of thousands of explosives from the debris pored over by detectives and forensic experts for over a million man-hours and photographed and videotaped more than any other debris pile in history. Not one Truther has ever found evidence of the thousands of detonators, or miles of wiring which would be needed. And no, radio detonators would not be reliable.
 
Clayton Moore said:
At least you're admitting it was a CD.
Click to expand...

This statement, if it is not a conscious, and thus malevolent, misrepresentation of what daffyd said (this would then be properly called a "lie", in my opinion), reveals the reading comprehension of an at most 12 year old.

This is why I kept asking you how old you are.

But since it appears you are much older than that, I conclude malevolence.


Strange thing that Christopher7 defends you, and apparently never gets frustrated with the likes of you being on his team.
 
It is obvoius that the water was delivered at high pressure to the site
Click to expand...

It seems they could have had had plenty of water and plenty of pressure to fight the fires they were after.

Thing is, WTC 7 wasn't one of them. It was a doomed, empty building. Not a priority. They could have had 100 fireboats, delivering a million gallons a minute. Not a single drop would have been aimed at WTC 7. It was a doomed, empty building.
 
Clayton Moore said:
Put 2 to 10 people in a room. Given a reasonable duration and circumstance/opportunity one will show dominance over the other(s) by body language.

You'll never find a time when the two were together that Cheney was not the alpha.
Click to expand...

Which is, of course, even if completely correct, (a) in no sense evidence for the lie you just made up that Cheney was giving orders from Washington to Bush in Florida at the time of the attacks, and (b) utterly irrelevant to the question of whether either or both was in any way involved in a conspiracy to carry out or assist the attacks.

Dave
 
The floors were approximately 12 feet.
12 x 12 = 144 x .5 = 72 psi loss
A 1000 gmp pump truck, operating at 200 psi, can deliver 700 gmp at 128 psi to the 12th floor.
Click to expand...

A pump truck can't deliver a damn thing. There's still a missing component. Lets see if you can figure out what it is.
 
The data in the NIST report clearly shows that the fire NIST claims started the collapse, did NOT start the collapse.
Click to expand...

So you concede that there was a fire at the column that initiated collapse.
You say the fire had moved on.
Uh...


Whatever was there would have been burned beyond use. This includes explosives, thermite, termites and carpenter ants. Nothing would be left.

so....

The only conclusion is that it wasn't explosives. Based on YOUR comments. Get a new hobby.
 
Oystein said:
This statement, if it is not a conscious, and thus malevolent, misrepresentation of what daffyd said (this would then be properly called a "lie", in my opinion), reveals the reading comprehension of an at most 12 year old.

This is why I kept asking you how old you are.

But since it appears you are much older than that, I conclude malevolence.


Strange thing that Christopher7 defends you, and apparently never gets frustrated with the likes of you being on his team.
Click to expand...
I had a similar experience with a Hoax Believer on ATS called FoosM. I took his claim and used Reductio Ad Absurdum, and he laughed at me for changing my position. It reminds me of the rationalizations people make after being hypnotized.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom