DC: Why do you think WTC7 was a CD?

[thewholesoul]

In other words, it will never end until we start treating fantasy as reality.

HAY GUYS, I'M AN ASTRONAUT!!

because you are unable to counter an argument intelligently you resort to humour.

Who is guilty? And what are they guilty of? (aside from the highjackers and those who masterminded it).

read the theme of this thread. try stay on topic and rebute my points.

 

[applecorped]

Troother overdose.

 

[johnny karate]

thewholesoul, one question:

Why the need for explosives and thermite?

 

[thewholesoul]

Do a forum search for the points you have above.
All the points you raised have been dealt with before.
None of them are problematic.
Several of them are outright false.

those are the reasons why i think 7 was a CD.

your lazy response i.e. they've all been debunked - doesnt wash with me.

go get those arguments and we debate.

because frankly your lazy opinion means absolutely zero to me

 

[applecorped]

You offer nothing. You provide nothing. You contribute nothing. Go home.

 

[aggle-rithm]

those are the reasons why i think 7 was a CD.

your lazy response i.e. they've all been debunked - doesnt wash with me.

go get those arguments and we debate.

because frankly your lazy opinion means absolutely zero to me

Given that such an operation would be EXTREMELY difficult to pull off and EXTREMELY difficult to keep quiet -- so much so that it threatened to expose the whole operation -- WHY WAS DESTROYING WTC7 SO IMPORTANT?

Why was it destroyed secretly when other heavily-damaged buildings in the area were destroyed openly?

 

[X]

two questions.yes or no.

1) do you accept that iron, sulphur, potassium and manganese are characteristic of thermate?

2) do you accept that these chemicals were found in wtc dust samples?

if yes, then what exactly is your problem?

Yes to both.
Let me ask you a question in return: Is it possible that those mateirals could have come from other sources, such as materials common to office buildings?
What your argument here is, is "If P, then Q", but you ignore alternate explanations for P.

those are the reasons why i think 7 was a CD.

your lazy response i.e. they've all been debunked - doesnt wash with me.

go get those arguments and we debate.

because frankly your lazy opinion means absolutely zero to me

I'm lazy, because I tell you to do a little research about the claims you're making?
Or because I didn't do the research for you?

You made the claims. I directed you to where you can find the answers.
You rudely throw my help back in my face, and call me lazy?
What you have just done, is admitted that you don't actually care to do research. You'd rather have information fed to you. The trouble with that is, in most cases (particularly the ones with idealistic truthers), the moment they are presented with information, they reject it, if they consider it at all. However, knowledge someone took the time to learn for themselves tends to be slightly better understood.
I apologize if the reality of the situation doesn't come with a fancy soundtrack and rapid-fire presentations of disparate facts sans reference.
Study is boring. Conspiracies are sexy, and don't require any real work.

Attitudes like yours are why people display short fuses with the truth movement. Even when told where they can find real answers, they refuse to do it and insult those who try to help.


If you truly are interested in "truth", and not some propaganda from prisonplanet or its ilk, then search these forums. The people here are very smart, and represent a broad range of expertise.

But if you're going to demand that we do your homework for you, then I'm going to ask one thing in turn:
Actually think about what you get told, here. Don't just reject it out of hand, don't argue pointless minutae, and don't hand-wave it away based on prior preconceptions.
If you agree to critically consider the evidence, then I will dig up the answers to the points you've raised.
If you fall back onto childish tactics like those you displayed in the post above, then take your fantasy somewhere else and don't bother us grownups.

For those who are wondering: Yes, I am a little offended by his post, hence the somewhat curt reply.

 

[quicknthedead]

first explosions heard before any towers collapsed - Jennings

Not true.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3723485#post3723485

 

[applecorped]

those are the reasons why i think 7 was a CD.

your lazy response i.e. they've all been debunked - doesnt wash with me.

go get those arguments and we debate.

because frankly your lazy opinion means absolutely zero to me

Then why do you bother asking questions if you are going to dismiss them?

 

[Alt+F4]

based on the fact that prior to and after 911 there IS NO EXAMPLE of a natural collapse resembling a CD, that the truthers have a historically stronger argument...

According to your logic the WTC could not have been a CD because never in the history of the entire world has two buildings as large as World Trade Center 1 & 2 been destroyed by a controlled demolition.

Give me just ONE example before or after 9/11.

 

[Jwheelz]

my historical angle was merely based on the "appearance" of a building collapse.

- no natural collapse in history looked like a CD
- or every building collapse that looked like a CD was a CD

this fact of course doesn't prove that wtc 7 collapse actually was a CD

You mean, looked like a CD minus the flashes and explosions you commonly SEE and in real controlled demolitions.

Your reliance on the "We have never seen it before" just doesn't fly. Do you know of any videos where people have been lucky enough to be right next to something that naturally collapsed? Better yet, how many natural collapses have you compared to the collapse of building 7.

now to address your statement: do i have any historical example of a skyscraper felled by unconventional CD, in secret, while the building was on fire?

no, i have no example prior to or after 911 of such circumstances. so what?

do you have any example in history of a U.S. destroyer being shot by two friendly missiles, secretly, under the impression the missiles were shot by north vietnamese?

of course you dont because "circumstances" almost always differ. however what your question and my question have in common is that they were both examples of false flag attacks. the first was CD of wtc towers and the second was the Gulf of Tonkin.

so do i have examples of false flag attacks in history prior to 911? yes of course i do there are loads. do they have the same circumstances, no of course the dont. however they do have commonalities that being they were examples of "false falg attacks" or examples of "national governments staging atatcks on themeselves in order to further a political agenda".

in any event your statement has no baring on the fact that historically every building collapse that looked like a CD was a CD. if it does then let me know.

I'm quite sure you have dug up all kinds of things relating to false flag attacks. The difference is that the existence of false flag attacks doesn't make it any more likely for people to bring down what would have been the largest building in the world to be felled by controlled demolition - under secrecy - using an unconventional demolition technique -- all while this world record breaking demo building had fires raging throughout.

Precedences are just too many to name with this loon theory.

i do take the fire and damage into consideration. by the same token then why did wtc 3 4 5, and 6 not collapse? they after all received GREATER structural damage and had BIGGER fires burning LONGER and did not have STEEL CORE COLUMNS. maybe you should think about that debunker.

Yes, I know, you think that comparing three 9-story buildings built differently somehow indicates that a skyscraper shouldn't have collapsed when subjected to the same events as building 7. Oh, forgot the 22 story WTC 3 (Marriott) ---

For someone talking about honesty - do you see a difference between buildings 3/4/5/6 and building 7??

"OK class, today we are going to study steel framed skyscrapers. Turn to page 5 where we will first focus on the 9 story US Customs House. -- Something wrong with that picture"??

in other words just because historcially speaking lightening strikes twice doesnt make it any more likely that lightening will strike again. your logic is flawed.

My logic has to do with applying precedence to events in the same manner you have applied it to 7WTC. OK, so off the top of my head, I can't locate another building that collapsed naturally while not looking like a controlled demolition --- and you can't locate another building that underwent the same series of events as you claim happened to building 7... Where does that leave us??

I agree, the logic is flawed, however I am only mocking your logic.

 

[beachnut]

those are the reasons why i think 7 was a CD.

your lazy response i.e. they've all been debunked - doesnt wash with me.

go get those arguments and we debate.

because frankly your lazy opinion means absolutely zero to me

The cool thing about you; you have no evidence so all you can do is talk about it, spew some hearsay, and run away!

They are all debunked! You seem to suffer from one or all the of the following or even more problems with reality.

You have zero evidence for CD
You have no idea about fire induced failures.
You have ignored the fire burning all day in WTC7.
You have ignored the unique structure that was WTC7.
You have no understanding of physics.

You could get some help with all these topics with some tutors or teachers and try to make a rational assessment, and repeat this process, until you get it right.

If you had some evidence; that would be priceless.

 

[beachnut]

two questions.yes or no.

1) do you accept that iron, sulphur, potassium and manganese are characteristic of thermate?

2) do you accept that these chemicals were found in wtc dust samples?

if yes, then what exactly is your problem?

1; oops these elements are found in people. People blew up the WTC by spontaneous combustion? What is your point? You have failed again? I mean there are tons of sulfur in the WTC, many hundred of pounds on each floor! Who found sulfur? I mean you are missing all the piles of spent thermite/thermate which looks like a pile of iron! Where did they go? How many did you use in your model of stupid ideas on 9/11?

Potassium is in thermite? Why? Thermite is Al, and iron rust; the good stuff has a special kind of iron rust! Once again without piles of this iron junk left over from thermite, you have no case! Plus thermite would probably just weld on to the steel column; jet fuel is better at adding heat per pound than thermite or explosives. You have no real idea how much of this stuff is needed; do you?

I mean if thermite/themate was used in the WTC there would be PROOF! It would be like a molten (now solid in the rubble pile) pile of stuff all over the areas used. Plus you have no clue how much thermite is needed to make the WTC fail! No clue?

Gee, pound for pound I think jet fuel has 10 times the energy of thermite, this is why jet fuel and office fires weakened the steel without thermite/thermate/explosives. Only those who have lack knowledge, don't know physics, and have no clue about 9/11 believe this kind of tripe you try to push without any evidence at all!


2. What dust samples? I mean you are missing the number of piles of thermite/thermate in the WTC needed to bring down the towers, but have failed to show how it is even possible to use thermite/thermate on a grand scale to do it. Why have you failed so badly? Is it due to the lack of evidence and you have no real idea what you are talking about?

You sure to post a lot of tripe to reveal you have zero, 0, evidence. Why do you lack substantive evidence? You do realize Jones made up thermite with no evidences at all 4 years after 9/11, and he still has zero evidence? It looks like Jones has played everyone as a fool to get you to believe his false ideas. Why are you so gullible?

 

[applecorped]

bump for thewholesole's reply

 

[pomeroo]

those are the reasons why i think 7 was a CD.

your lazy response i.e. they've all been debunked - doesnt wash with me.

go get those arguments and we debate.

because frankly your lazy opinion means absolutely zero to me

Speaking of lazy opinions, your moonshine about CD is rejected by demolition experts because there were no simultaneous explosions. Duh!
The total absence of evidence for explosives--no bits of wiring, no detonator caps, no chemical signatures--also works against your fantasy.
To date, no one in your evil movement has come close to suggesting what motive your imaginary conspiracy might have had for blowing up an obscure building seven hours after the attacks. Squirm as you like, it doesn't--can't--make sense.

 

[applecorped]

If WTC7 is still being purported to be a CD 5, 10. 20 years from now; JREFers, who here will keep up the debunking? I've only been here a couple of months and I must admit that the repetition is exhausting.

 

[jandarian]

Yes, and to think, I actually proposed that you guys try and be nicer about your responses. I realize much more now just how tiring and tedious this can get. Seriously, my mistake.

 

[Corsair 115]

1. the so-called “collapse” of 7 does not look like a natural collapse; it looks like a CD. now i know this fact alone does not prove it was a CD nevertheless can anyone cite me just ONE example of a natural collapse that "looked" like a CD?

You're first going to have to define what "natural collapse" means. What does it mean? What are its criteria? How did you determine what a "natural collapse" looks like? You've obviously got some sort of methodology since you appear certain WTC7 doesn't fit. Mind explaining to us in detail your methods of determining natural from unnatural collapses?

i am simply saying that i believe the witnesses that they heard a loud explosion and whe i hear the explosion in the video i sighted it sounds like an explosive detonation. here you will find a link that shows the difference between the sound of a deflagration and detonation

Now you just need to explain why those powerful explosives produced no blast wave which shattered the windows of the building and hurled a deadly spray shrapnel into the surrounding area. You are aware that powerful explosives of the kind used to knock down buildings produce a very strong blast wave, yes? You are aware that that is the reason why buildings slated for demolition via explosives are gutted before being rigged, yes?

 

[thewholesoul]

hey aggle

1. Why blow up a heavily damaged building that would have to be destroyed anyway?

comparatively speaking with all other wtc buildings it wasnt heavily damaged
but why destroy it? i dont know and i am not going to speculate either. the fact is molten iron was found at gorund zero under tower 7 rubble, and steel samples tested from wtc 7 had evaporated - these two facts cannot be explained by the official spoof.

2. If the explosives were put in place before 9/11, why didn't anyone in the building notice? If they were put there on 9/11, why didn't the firefighters notice?

again that would require speculation. but one thing i do know is that such a feat although improbable is by no means impossible. molten metal and evaporated steel on the other hand cannot possibly be caused by fire.

3. How did the explosives survive six hours of fire?

they didnt they were exploding throughout all this time

4. How does thermite or explosives explain molten metal better than underground fires, given that both have short-term effects, and the metal would have had to remain molten for a long time?

because molten iron is a bi-product from a thermite reaction. and an underground fire cannot survive for months in a oxygen starved environment with constant water being applied. molten steel heated by thermite can.

What was so important about blowing up WTC7 that it was worth risking the exposure of the whole operation?

i dont know

And please don't say, "that's why we need a new investigation". If you want to throw away your money looking into this foolishness, that's your business. Not a dime of taxpayer money should be wasted on it.

there shoudl be a new investigation because the official explanation is unable to satisfactorly describe what we observed that day.

 

[beachnut]

they didnt they were exploding throughout all this time


because molten iron is a bi-product from a thermite reaction. and an underground fire cannot survive for months in a oxygen starved environment with constant water being applied. molten steel heated by thermite can.

The explosives were blowing up during the fire, all the time. The silent ones only?

No, sorry, thermite does not stay melted for days, it is a rapid reaction. Next time take some chemistry courses. Why not take off 4 years and get a college degree. Did you missed cause and effect in first grade? We do teach that in first grade. What were your SAT scores? We can find a college to take you.