• 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.

Merged New video! Architects and Engineers - Solving the Mystery of Building 7

Clayton Moore said:
It could have been thermite. It like was likely thermite in part.

But it's a riot watching a thermite debate when the nisters can't recreate how a building, 3 different huge buildings, subjected to 3 different amounts of damage/force from different angles/locations can completely destroy themselves.
Click to expand...

Fire is the constant. Get your head out of the sand.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
But redibis demands that you show him a "thermally expanded" and "buckled" column 79. On another note: Redibis doesn't understand that building materials are pretty standard and there's documentation devoted just to listing physical material properties for every standard construction from wood to steel which tell you just about everything you need to know about it when applying to construction and design. Thermal properties, ultimate stresses, the strength and applicability of specific size which are used to calculate loads and drive engineering decisions, name it... the docs have it from real tests. Red will claim that this doesn't count.
Click to expand...

Wish I could. Would he still believe in CD's as the building collapsed around him?
 
Clayton Moore said:
Careful. You could lose your stipend with such a poppycock post.
Click to expand...

So you resort to the standard crazy 911 cult delusion that anyone who disagree with your dishonest rhetoric and games must be paid, and then you say I'm the one with a poppycock post??? Wow, that's the same contradiction game twice in a row.

These games y'all play are why 911 cults are still in the lunatic fringe after 10 years and why your laugh at by some and ignored by most and always will be.

Nobody needs to be paid to think that your crazy and dishonest when you guys show everyone how crazy you are over and over again.
 
Not one hijacker's name is on any of the passenger manifests or victim lists even though they were required to show photo IDs to board
Click to expand...
Hard to take a list like that seriously Clayton Moore. Really.
 
Clayton Moore said:
It could have been thermite. It like was likely thermite in part.

But it's a riot watching a thermite debate when the nisters can't recreate how a building, 3 different huge buildings, subjected to 3 different amounts of damage/force from different angles/locations can completely destroy themselves.
Click to expand...

Buildings are always trying to destroy themselves. It's called gravity.
 
tsig said:
Wish I could. Would he still believe in CD's as the building collapsed around him?
Click to expand...

I think the very nature of his demand answers the question. He intentionally sets his conditions impossibly high to satisfy.
 
Dave Rogers said:
Let me repeat the question, as you seem determined to avoid it. Since you feel it important that a hypothesis should be framed which does rely on physical evidence, how do you think such evidence could now be collected, and how therefore should a new investigation into the collapse of WTC7 proceed?

Dave
Click to expand...

Now? I don't have any expectations that any steel from WTC 7 would ever turn up. That ship has sailed. I find your question rather funny and stupid to the extreme.

You can rest easy that there will never be any further investigation into any physical aspect of the attacks.
 
tsig said:
The physical evidence says that damage from plane impact and the subsequent fire destroyed the buildings. The fact that you can't recognize this only proves that you don't understand physics.
Click to expand...

Granted, the mod's decision to cut this exchange out of the other thread and paste it into this one is bizarre, so I'll give you a pass on not seeing that we're talking about WTC 7.
 
LSSBB said:
Grizzly Bear, I believe you present all valid points. He still, in my opinion, needs to explain why not being able to find column 79 in the rubble justifies discrediting NIST, especially when there is no physical evidence of the alternate hypothesis of controlled demolition, and in light of the amount of non-physical evidence used by NIST to build their case.
Click to expand...
He intentionally avoids any direct insinuation of controlled demolition to maintain the facade that he's a genuine skeptic. In fact, he's never revealed any "theory" other than he believes the NIST is a falsehood, there was no plane at the pentagon or Shankseville, and that he thinks Larry Silverstein committed insurance fraud on a massive scale. And in three years I've seen him argue, he's offered zero rationalization for any of those positions.

Maybe the saying: "better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt" applies to what he's doing to a certain extent? No idea...
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
Now? I don't have any expectations that any steel from WTC 7 would ever turn up. That ship has sailed. I find your question rather funny and stupid to the extreme.

You can rest easy that there will never be any further investigation into any physical aspect of the attacks.
Click to expand...

NOR SHOULD THERE BE


No amount of idiotic truther whining will change that. The facts are in. NO EXPLOSIVES OF ANY KIND.
 
RedIbis said:
Granted, the mod's decision to cut this exchange out of the other thread and paste it into this one is bizarre, so I'll give you a pass on not seeing that we're talking about WTC 7.
Click to expand...

So the aircraft impacts were just a ruse so theytm could take down WTC 7 - the real target. They had 2 extra planes so they shoved one in the pentagon and forgot how to fly the other into the capital building.

Gotcha.
 
Supposedly WTC 7 was a "government command post" destroyed for the sake of removing evidence of their plans... of what, and how they got the idea it'd work better than a paper shredder, I've no clue. I don't think it's ever been speculated clearly what, if any connection to the allegedly insider plan to blow up the other WTC towers it was supposed to have...
 
Last edited:
sylvan8798 said:
Hard to take a list like that seriously Clayton Moore. Really.
Click to expand...


War games? No hijacker names on the "passenger manifest"? I think I see what Clayton Moore is up to...

He's trying to revive the afros and bell-bottoms of the 9/11 Truth Movement.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
Supposedly WTC 7 was a "government command post" destroyed for the sake of removing evidence of their plans... of what, and how they got the idea it'd work better than a paper shredder, I've no clue. I don't think it's ever been speculated clearly what, if any connection to the allegedly insider plan to blow up the other WTC towers it was supposed to have...
Click to expand...

It was more than just the paper, grizzly. You can't imagine the nightmare we had coming up with a plan to get rid of all those computers, spare cans of thermite paint, failed remote control devices, cuttings from faked videos, extra plane parts, voice morphing machines, etc. etc.

Ooops... I think I've said too much :blush:
 
RedIbis said:
Now? I don't have any expectations that any steel from WTC 7 would ever turn up. That ship has sailed. I find your question rather funny and stupid to the extreme.
Click to expand...

You find it funny and stupid that any attempt should be made to uncover evidence that might lead to an explanation of WTC7's collapse that you might accept? That's a strange attitude for someone who claims to be interested in determining the truth.

RedIbis said:
You can rest easy that there will never be any further investigation into any physical aspect of the attacks.
Click to expand...

Then can we assume that you would oppose any further investigation into the collapse of WTC7 on the grounds that the real cause is unknowable so it would be a waste of time and money?

Remember, the sole reason you reject NIST's conclusions is that they are not backed up by what you describe as "physical evidence", although your definition is not the common one; your definition of "physical evidence" equates to "physical samples of the debris from WTC7 demonstrating the specific collapse mode proposed in the report". Since you admit that no such physical evidence can possibly be obtained, logically you must reject any alternative conclusion on the same grounds. So, do you support or oppose further investigation into the collapse of WTC7; and, if you oppose it, wouldn't it make a bit more sense just to shut up about it?

Dave
 
Miragememories said:
Killtown did a lot of valuable work in exposing the flaws in the Official WTC7 story and his loss here is regrettable.
Click to expand...

Killtown wouldn't know a five-letter word beginning with i meaning "an idiot who doesn't know a five letter word for 'idiot' starting with i". He certainly doesn't know the word for "a chance occurrence of events remarkable either for being simultaneous or for apparently being connected".

Dave
 
Miragememories said:
Killtown did a lot of valuable work in exposing the flaws in the Official WTC7 story and his loss here is regrettable.
Click to expand...

Nobody with good sense suffers much from the exiling of a doofus who thinks he can measure the size or distance of a cloud from a single photograph with no referrence points behind the cloud.

Killtown did that, and tried to use his calculations to convince us that a pile of crap was the imprint of an ordnance blast used to fake the crash of Flt 93.

The boy aint got all his marbles in one bag.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom