Some simple Tower 7 questions

[volatile]

That we truthers have imagination that is certainly true. Imagination is closely related to intelligence. We are so imaginative that we can consider the option that the element within the Bush adm orchestrated 9-11.

That is beyond your imagination. You believe in the bogey man created by Bush and his poddle Blair.

So basically, you're saying " We make all this stuff up out of thin air, and when asked for evidence, can't provide any."


You know why I don't like Blair and Bush? Because they lied about WMD. You know how I know they lied? There's EVIDENCE they did.

I have imagination too. I can imagine, as Russell did, a celestial teapot orbiting the earth. Doesn't make it true.

 

[twinstead]

That we truthers have imagination that is certainly true. Imagination is closely related to intelligence. We are so imaginative that we can consider the option that certain elements within the Bush adm orchestrated 9-11.

That seem to be beyond your imagination. You believe in the bogey man created by Bush and his poddle Blair.

Funny, but instead of your standard ideological ranting I figured you would actually ANSWER the questions posed to you, namely can you direct us to any evidence at all that your magical thermite directing technology existed in 2001.

I don't care about ideology. I just want you to verify claims you are making. If you can't, then your position is weakened. In essence, if you can't rationally and logically defend your world view, then why have it at all?

 

[JimBenArm]

That we truthers have imagination that is certainly true. Imagination is closely related to intelligence. We are so imaginative that we can consider the option that the element within the Bush adm orchestrated 9-11.

That is beyond your imagination. You believe in the bogey man created by Bush and his poddle Blair.

Oh, boy. Another one who thinks "If I believe hard enough, it's true!"

Still waiting for proof of your imaginary thermite!

And as what's beyond my imagination, well, I imagined you're an immature, shallow, not-very-bright fellow.

Oh wow, I was right!

 

[maccy]

That we truthers have imagination that is certainly true. Imagination is closely related to intelligence. We are so imaginative that we can consider the option that the element within the Bush adm orchestrated 9-11.

That is beyond your imagination. You believe in the bogey man created by Bush and his poddle Blair.

The Nazis were so imaginative that they came up with a story of Jews orchestrating international banking, plotting to rule the world and keeping Germany down. They managed to use this story to get into power and then they did what was beyond most peoples imagination.

There is a good reason to stand for facts and evidence against lies. If you imagine something and state it to be true, when you have no evidence for it, you are telling a lie.

Are you going to address the points raised against you, or will you let your statements stand as un-retracted lies?

 

[aggle-rithm]

I know at least two who has done that. First this Dutch fellow Jowenko? And Romero before he changed his mind, he seems to have been payed off.
Why not a few more? We both know that this is a very sensitive issue. You are seen as unpatriotic if questioning the official version.
Demolition companies are often dependent on Government contracts.

Which government? State? Municipal? County? Federal? Neighborhood Association?

Accept NIST's conclusions? Yes, if they use a correct scientific method etc. It is certainly news to me that NIST is considering controlled demolition. I find this a bit hard to believe. It has been unthinkable.

They addressed it, just to shut up the howls of outrage from the tinfoil hat crowd.

I assume that the demolition in your video is a fairly typical demolition. The thing with the WTC7 demolition is that it is so perfect. I have seen quite a few exemples on the net by now. I've yet to see a better one.

The bigger things are, the more symmetrical they appear when they collapse. Up close, it wouldn't be that pretty.

Yes, it is true that the sound of the blasts isn't that loud. But, remember our main hypothesis (Steven Jones).

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Yes, we remember him. <snicker>

A combination of thermite and explosives. I don't think thermite is used in typical demolitions. According to Jones, the main Steel colums were taken out with termite and the concrete with ordinary explosives.

...and Jesus lived in South America.

The pools of molten iron (a byproduct from a thermite reaction) was found under WTC7 and both of the towers. It strongly suggest that some sort of thermite was used. A thermite reaction is not as loud as a blast.

Or, there was a fire, perhaps. Or perhaps the pools of molten iron didn't exist. Do you have any evidence that they existed?

Well, I can only speculate how long it took and how they were planted. It would require a criminal investigation.

Have you alerted the authorities? If there's any merit to your accusations, I'm sure the criminal investigation will begin immediately.

It is not a serious obstacle. We are suggesting that certain elements within the Bush adm were responsible. For exemple the company responsible for the security for the whole WTC complex (Securacom?) Was headed by the brother and cousin of Dubya. They of course had full access day and night.

The question is not whether they had access. It's whether any of the hundreds of people that were in the building 24/7 would have noticed the walls being removed, the columns weakened, and explosives being planted throughout the building.

I would say the opposite. That it is very incriminating if they thought or knew that building 7 would collapse.

If I'm in the vicinity of a large building that has recently had debris from a collapsing skyscraper fall on it, is creaking and groaning, and is ON FIRE, I'm getting the hell away from it. It doesn't take a genius to know that something bad is probably going to happen, especially if you've just witnessed the collapse of two much larger buildings.

 

[twinstead]

If I'm in the vicinity of a large building that has recently had debris from a collapsing skyscraper fall on it, is creaking and groaning, and is ON FIRE, I'm getting the hell away from it. It doesn't take a genius to know that something bad is probably going to happen, especially if you've just witnessed the collapse of two much larger buildings.

Especially in the case of WTC7, if I saw all that AND was an expert in determining the state of buildings, which was the case on 911.

 

[busherie]

The Nazis were so imaginative that they came up with a story of Jews orchestrating international banking, plotting to rule the world and keeping Germany down. They managed to use this story to get into power and then they did what was beyond most peoples imagination.

There is a good reason to stand for facts and evidence against lies. If you imagine something and state it to be true, when you have no evidence for it, you are telling a lie.

Are you going to address the points raised against you, or will you let your statements stand as un-retracted lies?

Such a classic debunker technique! I'm disapointed... Bringing the nazi abomination anywhere close to 9/11 is a disgrace, for truthers and debunkers alike. Leave it alone!

As for WTC7, I'm not a specialist but I have a stupid question:

1 - WTC7 had been leaning for some time (at least it's what you guys say)

2 - WTC7 fell on its footprint (or at least almost)

Gravity forces should have immediately forced the builing forward in the direction where it was leaning prior to the collapse, right?

Please enlighten my ignorance!

 

[Gravy]

Such a classic debunker technique! I'm disapointed... Bringing the nazi abomination anywhere close to 9/11 is a disgrace, for truthers and debunkers alike. Leave it alone!

As for WTC7, I'm not a specialist but I have a stupid question:

1 - WTC7 had been leaning for some time (at least it's what you guys say)

2 - WTC7 fell on its footprint (or at least almost)

Gravity forces should have immediately forced the builing forward in the direction where it was leaning prior to the collapse, right?

Please enlighten my ignorance!

Rather than dredging up old threads, youir first step should be to read NiST's interim report. Their final report is due out sometime soon. It should give you plenty to respond to in detail.

Fair enough?

The collapses began internally, not externally. Consider yourself enlightened.

 

[busherie]

WTC is down... no! it's behing you, standing!

Maybe you have heard about this video before.(if its the can gimme the link of the thread)
It's really strange its a piece of 9/11 live coverage from the BBC announcing the collapse of WTC7 BEFORE its collapse. The TV guy goes live to NYC and the correspondant is speaking with the WTC site behing her with WTC7 in the background. She mentions that it was due to structural faileure, fires, etc.. while the building is there.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1471985581749234824

It seems to be live feed, real workd behind the correspondant, and not some fake background (check for yourself)

So question: how in hell did they know about it? do you have access to AP, AFP, reuters archives in order to identify the specific information?

Was it just a rumor or confusion ('cause you say that several people said it was about to collapse) ? If so, how do the journalists say "it was empty", "due to structural damage"? Are they making it up in order to look "be the first to know"? Where did this come from?

As more and more people die in Somalia, Iraq, the US and maybe soon Iran, time is running out for us to stop all this!

busherie

 

[chipmunk stew]

As more and more people die in Somalia, Iraq, the US and maybe soon Iran, time is running out for us to stop all this!

Then quit chasing ghosts and get to work. You're pursuing a strategy that never had any hope of achieving such a goal. Even if you did get your new investigation, the wars would continue unabated, and only a fool would count on a criminal conviction of the people carrying out the war to stop it, even if you ignore that they didn't do what you accuse them of doing.

 

[gumboot]

As more and more people die in Somalia, Iraq, the US and maybe soon Iran, time is running out for us to stop all this!

Come again?

-Gumboot

 

[maccy]

That we truthers have imagination that is certainly true. Imagination is closely related to intelligence. We are so imaginative that we can consider the option that the element within the Bush adm orchestrated 9-11.

That is beyond your imagination. You believe in the bogey man created by Bush and his poddle Blair.

The Nazis were so imaginative that they came up with a story of Jews orchestrating international banking, plotting to rule the world and keeping Germany down. They managed to use this story to get into power and then they did what was beyond most peoples imagination.

There is a good reason to stand for facts and evidence against lies. If you imagine something and state it to be true, when you have no evidence for it, you are telling a lie.

Are you going to address the points raised against you, or will you let your statements stand as un-retracted lies?

Such a classic debunker technique! I'm disapointed... Bringing the nazi abomination anywhere close to 9/11 is a disgrace, for truthers and debunkers alike. Leave it alone!

I disagree entirely. I wasn't accusing Pagan of being a Nazi or equating being a Truther with Nazism. I was merely making the point that imagination is only useful in as far as it enables to discover evidence. I used an extreme example, granted, but I was arguing against Pagan's general philosophical point. If he'd bothered to talk specifics (he rarely does), I;d have addressed the specifics and wouldn't have felt the need to use that analogy.

I still maintain that Nazi Germany is a warning of what can happen in a society where people are accused without evidence.

 

[busherie]

Maybe you have heard about this video before.(if its the can gimme the link of the thread)
It's really strange its a piece of 9/11 live coverage from the BBC announcing the collapse of WTC7 BEFORE its collapse. The TV guy goes live to NYC and the correspondant is speaking with the WTC site behing her with WTC7 in the background. She mentions that it was due to structural faileure, fires, etc.. while the building is there.

http://www.dailymotion.com/group/231/video/x1be8j_reopen

It seems to be live feed, real workd behind the correspondant, and not some fake background (check for yourself)

So question: how in hell did they know about it? do you have access to AP, AFP, reuters archives in order to identify the specific information?

Was it just a rumor or confusion ('cause you say that several people said it was about to collapse) ? If so, how do the journalists say "it was empty", "due to structural damage"? Are they making it up in order to look "be the first to know"? Where did this come from?

busherie

I shouldn't have mentionned the current political context. Sorry for that even though I think there is a link.

Criticism say we shouldn't bother about 9/11 and focus on the anti-war issue. I say these two issues (9/11 and the wars) are deeply connected and they should be considered at the same time.

I copied my last post and changed a couple of things (the mention of the wars and the link to googlevideo where the video has disapperead, probably because BBC asked, copyrights and refusal to assume the huge problem: ie saying WTC7 has collapsed "due to fire" and "nobody was inside" when it is clealry still stanfing and in the corrrespondant background).

Can you guys react on this issue? Why such a mistake?

Finally as for the link with Nazis (Maccy) obviously we shouldn't mix Nazis with truther, that is unfair, even though i regret that some holocaust deniers have managed to sneak in the movement. Maccy you say " I still maintain that Nazi Germany is a warning of what can happen in a society where people are accused without evidence" I agree. But then we should also be worried and remember the reichstag fire accident: accusing the communists for the fire, when clearly the guy who did it was manipulated by the nazis themselves, in order to clamp down on civil liberties and in particular on other political parties. Does that remember you anything?......



Please take time to consider the BBC program linked above before answering the other issues mentionned in this post.

Thx for your attention.

Busherie

 

[Firestone]

...
I copied my last post and changed a couple of things (the mention of the wars and the link to googlevideo where the video has disapperead, probably because BBC asked, copyrights and refusal to assume the huge problem: ie saying WTC7 has collapsed "due to fire" and "nobody was inside" when it is clealry still stanfing and in the corrrespondant background).

Can you guys react on this issue? Why such a mistake?
...
Please take time to consider the BBC program linked above before answering the other issues mentionned in this post.

Please ...

 

[busherie]

Intesting video about controlled demolition:

http://www.dailymotion.com/visited/search/vérinage/video/x17lks_demolition-tour-abc-balzac-vitry

It uses a technique called "vérinage" in French, using hydraulic pressure to take a building down using explosives.?

I'm not saying that this was used for WTC. Rather it shows that buildings can collapse completely once one floor starts falling on the rest of the building.

One problem remains: this building did not have core colums, as in WTC 1 and 2. But it's still interesting.
________________

Second question: that the penthouse collapsed seconds before WTC7 collapsed is not inconsistent with a CD explanation. Actually, the corner damage cannot explain the collapse.
As for the "hole" in the lobby, could you lead me to sources proving that there was such damage?
Franckly, there are as many testimonies in favour of natural collapse as in favour of CDs.
However, I'm pretty sure right now that WTC were indeed strutural collapse resulting from fire+damage.

Busherie

 

[Mancman]

I'm posting this here as I don't think it's worthy of it's own thread and I don't want it lost in the mire of the 10 story hole thread.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uFSgPs-cRM

After the penthouse collapses, you can the building progressively bulge outward directly beneath where the penthouse stood. When the 'ripple' dissapears below buildings blocking the bottom floors of WTC7, the entire building collapses.

Surely direct evidence of the penthouse collapsing through the structure and damaging/destroying the transfer girders on the lower storeys of the building, iniating global collapse?

 

[PhantomWolf]

Did you also notice that the second penthouse "tips" into the hole the first created, sliding down into the structure as it falls. That means that it had to be falling faster than the surrounding building, only possible if the floor under it was already falling before the facade went.