Question to truthers

AndrewBurley said:
Of course I am. It couldn't be demolished by controlled demolition accidentally.
Click to expand...

WTC7 has ZERO earmarks of a controlled demolition. None, nada, zip. Compare:

WTC 7 Collapse video with audio: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tNhnTBzSyQ (collapse starts at 14 seconds into the video) the second half of the video has an ACTUAL controlled demolition, see if you can tell me the difference.

Another ACTUAL controlled demolition: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ

Now what is on the two ACTUAL controlled demolition videos that is blatantly NOT on the WTC 7 collapse video? Not one WTC 7 collapse video has anything remotely sounding like either of those two ACTUAL controlled demolitions.

This video is from a former twoofer, you should take some notes from this guy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFJa9WUy5QI
 
Last edited:
Eric D said:
Because that's a magic trick. We know of magic tricks and we know enough about human anatomy to know this is just a trick. You won't find a consensus among experts saying that this woman was literally pulled into two moving pieces, only to be contradicted by a small fringe group of alleged experts saying that it was really just a trick.
Click to expand...

Jep thats right.

your eyes were misleading you, you had to need your rationality to understand its impossible.

With our eyes we saw 2 planes going in the 2 buildings. And with our eyes we saw the collapses of the buildings.

The fallacy of the most debunkers is they see the relation between the impact and the collapse is the only way.

Just the most of people, would think they see a relation between pulling off the body with humanforce and the bifurcation of the body.

A doctor will tell you its biological impossible.

And an engineer, or a physicist will tell you the natural collapses are physical impossible.

There is no consensus about the NIST reports, the reports are not peer-reviewed.


Even NIST admits per example in the last report of wtc 7 that some results (per example the free fall) is not consistent with the physical principles.

The majority who have studied the NIST reports, is the ae911truth and other experts.
 
Oz1976 said:
WTC7 has ZERO earmarks of a controlled demolition. None, nada, zip. Compare:

WTC 7 Collapse video with audio: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tNhnTBzSyQ (collapse starts at 14 seconds into the video) the second half of the video has an ACTUAL controlled demolition, see if you can tell me the difference.

Another ACTUAL controlled demolition: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ

Now what is on the two ACTUAL controlled demolition videos that is blatantly NOT on the WTC 7 collapse video? Not one WTC 7 collapse video has anything remotely sounding like either of those two ACTUAL controlled demolitions.

This video is from a former twoofer, you should take some notes from this guy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFJa9WUy5QI
Click to expand...

Firstly, I would like to see an original copy of that first video. The one you have posted has been uploaded to youtube by some random person who admits they have at least altered the sync of the audio.

Secondly, the lack of sound is inconclusive given that microphones can pick up different sounds at different distances in different ways and can even deliberately block general sounds to allow for voices. Also there are some pretty hefty buildings between that microphone and wtc7.
 
Animal said:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_481644e6d80b26ef43.jpg[/qimg]

Your problem is you have jumped to a conclusion without supporting evidence. You make assumptions without knowing ALL the facts. A body with a knife in its back is not proof of murder. It may not even be a homicide.

Troofers stay willingly ignorant of the facts involved and jump to their pre drawn conclusion.

BTW.......your body with a knife in its back could have been a suicide, an accident, or a self defense injury.
Click to expand...

Is that John Gross of NIST in the picture ? Sure looks like him.
 
Oz1976 said:
WTC7 has ZERO earmarks of a controlled demolition. None, nada, zip. Compare:

WTC 7 Collapse video with audio: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tNhnTBzSyQ (collapse starts at 14 seconds into the video) the second half of the video has an ACTUAL controlled demolition, see if you can tell me the difference.

Another ACTUAL controlled demolition: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ

Now what is on the two ACTUAL controlled demolition videos that is blatantly NOT on the WTC 7 collapse video? Not one WTC 7 collapse video has anything remotely sounding like either of those two ACTUAL controlled demolitions.

This video is from a former twoofer, you should take some notes from this guy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFJa9WUy5QI
Click to expand...




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOn32pZ__Mw
 
AndrewBurley said:
Firstly, I would like to see an original copy of that first video. The one you have posted has been uploaded to youtube by some random person who admits they have at least altered the sync of the audio.

Secondly, the lack of sound is inconclusive given that microphones can pick up different sounds at different distances in different ways and can even deliberately block general sounds to allow for voices. Also there are some pretty hefty buildings between that microphone and wtc7.
Click to expand...

Are you kidding me? Seriously? you're going to hand wave "the lack of sounds" (of explosives) in the WTC 7 video when you can clearly hear people talking? Did you bother watching the REAL CD's and notice the REAL LOUD ****** BANGS? Not one WTC 7 video ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD has those bangs, NONE, not a single one!

The hefty buildings around the Landmark building in the second video didn't muffle it. You're really just dismissing it all huh? Typical religious nut twoofer response.
 
Oz1976 said:
Are you kidding me? Seriously? you're going to hand wave "the lack of sounds" (of explosives) in the WTC 7 video when you can clearly hear people talking? Did you bother watching the REAL CD's and notice the REAL LOUD ****** BANGS? Not one WTC 7 video ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD has those bangs, NONE, not a single one!

The hefty buildings around the Landmark building in the second video didn't muffle it. You're really just dismissing it all huh? Typical religious nut twoofer response.
Click to expand...

The video that Marrokan just posted above adequately refutes what you are saying.
 
Oz1976 said:
Are you kidding me? Seriously? you're going to hand wave "the lack of sounds" (of explosives) in the WTC 7 video when you can clearly hear people talking? Did you bother watching the REAL CD's and notice the REAL LOUD ****** BANGS? Not one WTC 7 video ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD has those bangs, NONE, not a single one!

The hefty buildings around the Landmark building in the second video didn't muffle it. You're really just dismissing it all huh? Typical religious nut twoofer response.
Click to expand...

No explosions in WTC7 you silly boy ? And what's that white smoke boiling up from the base of WTC7 after one of the explosions (at 3:35 in the video) ? Ask the news commentator if you have doubts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=BXvsugiyKdY longer version

PS. NIST said that office fires only burn for about 20 minutes at any given location.As the furniture is burned up the fire goes out and moves on. So how come the thick smoke we see pouring from WTC7 went on all day for maybe six straight hours without visibly diminishing ?
 
Last edited:
AndrewBurley said:
Are you saying it doesn't look like a controlled demolition??? Where is the conflicting evidence?
Click to expand...

It doesn't look like a controlled demolition except in a rather obvious subset of the features, namely that the building is initially standing, falls, and is then a pile of rubble. Other than the trivial fact that the building fell, it doesn't resemble a controlled demolition in any respect whatsoever, and most significantly it sounds completely unlike a controlled demolition.

As for conflicting evidence, we have the sound recordings made at the time, every witness statement other than those that conflict with other statements by the same witnesses, the dynamics of the collapse (truthers like to lie about this, but in fact the acceleration profile of the collapse conflicts with the profile of an explosive demolition), the absence of any reports of preparation work for a demolition, and the absence from the debris pile of anything indicating demolition explosives (another thing that truthers like to lie about, but again these are nothing but lies).

Overall, the evidence is conclusive that WTC7 was not intentionally demolished using devices installed within the building. Sorry, but that's reality.

Dave
 
Last edited:
Marokkaan said:
And an engineer, or a physicist will tell you the natural collapses are physical impossible.



Only a tiny percentage of experts (truthers) will tell you it's impossible, why are you lying?


The majority who have studied the NIST reports, is the ae911truth and other experts.
Click to expand...



Plenty of (non-truther) experts have studied the reports, why are you lying?
 
Last edited:
Marokkaan said:
The whole leading investigation team has to be arrested immediately.


If you really feel that way, quit trolling around the net and do somethin about it. Good luck by the way, you're gonna need it,


1500 are registered and now its up to you show the numbers, to show the majority.
Click to expand...
Only 1500 idiots? That my friend is merely a tiny drop in the ocean. Try again
 
Ron_Tomkins said:
(When attempting to answer this very straightforward question, try keeping it as concise and simple as possible)

What is so difficult about believing that a group of religious fanatics, who have a history of committing atrocious terrorist acts, committed an atrocious terrorist act?
Click to expand...

Absolutely nothing if so many of the facts that show explosives were used in wtc 1,2 & 7 were not present. This could have started out that way but there is no question that it ended as something else bc only insiders, with full access, could have planted explosives in those buildings. Not mention everything else that had to happen and the lack of an appropriate response since has also been very telling as well.

Officials immediately started to dispose of the structural steel and have refused to properly investigate since. (regardless of how it appears if we only look superficially. [IF YOU'RE CONVINCED IMPRESSED BY NIST's CLAIMS OF ALL THE EXPERTS THEY INTERVIEWED TO CREATE THESE REPORTS] This was the first critical investigation: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/official/fema.html

Was that an appropriate response to such a massive attack ? To what are easily the greatest and least understood structural failures in history? NO. Remember, in any criminal investigation, time is crucial and the first days are critical. Yet the hampered investigators FEMA were not even allowed access to ground zero for nearly a month and then were given what was described by one of them as 'a guided tour' of the site. They cut small samples of (what are clearly thermite corroded structural steel) steel from Freshkills Landfilland were subjected to only the most preliminary form of metallurgical analysis: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm) -Thank goodness for that.

Just about the time that the report was issued in may 2002 the site had been scrubbed clean. The structural elements of all 3 buildings loaded on barges and shipped overseas for recycling. (!) This is all documented. *'debunkers' claim this did not happen, confusing the 2 year search for human remains at Freshkills Landfill with a truly forensic analysis of the structural steel. (even after that intensive 2 year serach for human remains we are still 1100 human being short of accounting for the people who were in those buildings). Gravity did that? In highly redundant structures, because the weight of the top (light) sections? Absurd! There was a huge uproar at the time because of all this disposing of the steel but officials carried on anyway.

: NIST's ignoring the voluminous evidence of molten metal and explosions is also revealing. etc **Pls see my posts on some of how it is that we know, with complete certainty, those could not have been natural events subsequent to the plane crashes.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
Tut tut Dave. Pots and kettles you know.. Would you like me to post some firefighter statements detailing explosions ? Watch this Readers.
Click to expand...

As you're well aware, explosions are a commonplace feature of fires that don't involve explosives, so no number of statements like that are "facts that show explosives were used in wtc 1,2 & 7". So please feel free to waste your time.

Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom