• 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.

Former conspiracy believer here

RedIbis said:
WTC 7.
Click to expand...
Wow, you're right, there was a building called WTC 7. We were so stupid to miss that. Guess the whole conspiracy really is true. Wow. WTC 7. How could I have missed that? I'm a Truther now. Thanks, RedIbis, for that amazing insightful analysis of the events.

Seriously, is there anything in specific about WTC 7 that proves the government faked the whole series of events, such as to instantly convince a rational thinker? You're insulting us if you think citing the name of a building is going to convince anybody on this board of intelligent individuals, or that it's going to count for diddly squat in a debate against us.
 
Pardalis said:
Yes, the Tuther epiphany.

Let's be careful here boys and girls, we're touching the religious core of the Truth movement.
Click to expand...

Perhaps when NIST delivers its much anticipated report you can say what caused WTC 7's collapse. Until then admit that there is no explanation for the collapse.
 
RedIbis said:
Perhaps when NIST delivers its much anticipated report you can say what caused WTC 7's collapse. Until then admit that there is no explanation for the collapse.
Click to expand...

Something tells me it won't make much of a difference in your mind. :rolleyes:
 
Diagoras said:
Wow, you're right, there was a building called WTC 7. We were so stupid to miss that. Guess the whole conspiracy really is true. Wow. WTC 7. How could I have missed that? I'm a Truther now. Thanks, RedIbis, for that amazing insightful analysis of the events.

Seriously, is there anything in specific about WTC 7 that proves the government faked the whole series of events, such as to instantly convince a rational thinker? You're insulting us if you think citing the name of a building is going to convince anybody on this board of intelligent individuals, or that it's going to count for diddly squat in a debate against us.
Click to expand...


Take a good look at this picture. WTC 7 collapses to the ground. WTC 5 and 6 are still partially standing and they were smaller and more directly in the path of falling debris.

GZblds567.jpg
 
RedIbis said:
Perhaps when NIST delivers its much anticipated report you can say what caused WTC 7's collapse. Until then admit that there is no explanation for the collapse.
Click to expand...

Yeah, who'da thunk it? A totally undamaged building just suddenly collapsed one peaceful september day.
 
RedIbis said:
Take a good look at this picture. WTC 7 collapses to the ground. WTC 5 and 6 are still partially standing and they were smaller and more directly in the path of falling debris.

http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k90/jrubins101/GZblds567.jpg
Click to expand...


and they were smaller and had wider footprints.
and wtc 5 and 6 partially collapsed (they didn't collapse fully)
and they didn't have WIDE open lobbies or countervelance floors that affected stability.


red, you have to try harder. please find a building built exactly like WTC 7 that had a 110 building story collapse ontop of it, start fires through several floors, with a wide open lobby area (nearly 5 floors) and had a huge 20 story gouge on the south wall.


Why do truthers continue to compare apples to oranges?
 
RedIbis said:
Perhaps when NIST delivers its much anticipated report you can say what caused WTC 7's collapse. Until then admit that there is no explanation for the collapse.
Click to expand...

Yet amazingly, the FDNY, who was right there, doesn't see this as proof of a conspiracy.

I wonder who could be right.
 
RedIbis said:
Perhaps when NIST delivers its much anticipated report you can say what caused WTC 7's collapse. Until then admit that there is no explanation for the collapse.
Click to expand...
There is an explanation. It's just incomplete. From very early on, the explanation has been that it collapsed due to a structural failure caused by a combination of impact- and heat-induced damage from the collapse of buildings 1 & 2 and the ensuing fires. This is still, by far, the most parsimonious explanation, and few people expect that it will change with the final NIST report.
 
So Red. Let's hear your "Theory" as to *WHY* (note, I'm not asking you HOW) WTC7 was a controlled demo. Seriously. WHY? WHY haven't any of you truthers had a coherent reason WHY *someone* would go through the trouble to CD WTC7 publicly when whatever they might have been getting rid of could have been a million other ways without cameras or firemen or tricky aerobatics?
 
RedIbis said:
Perhaps when NIST delivers its much anticipated report you can say what caused WTC 7's collapse. Until then admit that there is no explanation for the collapse.
Click to expand...

If there's no explanation for the collapse, how does the collapse support a conspiracy?

In order for the collapse to support a conspiracy, one would have to explain how it collapsed.
 
bonkey said:
If there's no explanation for the collapse, how does the collapse support a conspiracy?

In order for the collapse to support a conspiracy, one would have to explain how it collapsed.
Click to expand...
[mode="truther"]
All I'm saying is, NIST can't explain it, so we need a new independent investigation that's unafraid of looking at all the evidence for a controlled demolition.
[/mode]
 
RedIbis said:
Take a good look at this picture. WTC 7 collapses to the ground. WTC 5 and 6 are still partially standing and they were smaller and more directly in the path of falling debris.
Click to expand...
Even assuming that there is something anomalous about that, how does that prove the government masterminded this conspiracy? I don't see how you make that leap.

I asked for evidence of a government conspiracy, not some aspect of the collapse that you as a layman and a non-structural engineer cannot immediately think of a good explanation for.
 
Last edited:
Diagoras said:
I asked for evidence of a government conspiracy, not some aspect of the collapse that you as a layman and a non-structural engineer cannot immediately think of a good explanation for.
Click to expand...

Zing!

"The new kid got brains."

"Yeah, an' moxie!"
 
Diagoras said:
Even assuming that there is something anomalous about that, how does that prove the government masterminded this conspiracy? I don't see how you make that leap.

I asked for evidence of a government conspiracy, not some aspect of the collapse that you as a layman and a non-structural engineer cannot immediately think of a good explanation for.
Click to expand...

That's what they do. They look at something that doesn't look like they expect it to look and immediately it becomes "obvious" that it is fake/set-up/planted/a conspiracy.

I honestly don't understand how people can make such leaps of judgment but apparently many can...
 
chipmunk stew said:
[mode="truther"]
All I'm saying is, NIST can't explain it, so we need a new independent investigation that's unafraid of looking at all the evidence for a controlled demolition.
[/mode]
Click to expand...

You're truther tags have convinced me*

Isn't it amazing that no-one else like the insurance companies involved bothered doing their own, independant investigations*

jc


*May not be entirely true :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom