WTC7 - The fires failed Girder 44-79

LoneRanger said:
I also believed that WTC 7 was obviously pulled with sufficient reason for a conviction - if all eleven jurists agreed.
Click to expand...

Then I point out, again, that WTC 7 did not collapse straight down, and I ask, again, whether you can point to any precedent for what you apparently believe happened in the case of WTC 7 -- a skyscraper being secretly brought down by explosives after some period of unfought fires.

Your interpretation of "obviously" is not altogether obvious.
 
LoneRanger said:
I might buy into the theory that WTC 7 was pulled in order to prevent the building from toppling into other buildings.
Click to expand...


Except that WTC7 did hit other buildings as it came down. You're suggesting that a deliberate, explosive demolition would prevent the very thing that actually happened. Your argument along these lines is invalid.
 
Cl1mh4224rd said:
Except that WTC7 did hit other buildings as it came down. You're suggesting that a deliberate, explosive demolition would prevent the very thing that actually happened. Your argument along these lines is invalid.
Click to expand...

If the fire kept going for days, NYC would have been a ghost town for days. They would have had to keep people out of NYC.
 
Last edited:
Ok, let's say they "pulled" wtc7 for safety reasons or to save further destruction.

What's the reason for not telling the public the truth. Most people would understand and except that reason.
 
LoneRanger said:
WTC 7 video.


Not exactly a source that most trust, but a video non-the-less and food for thought.
Click to expand...

Most wouldn't trust this source for very good reasons. It's a youtube video made by some anonymous conspiracy theorist. It's mind boggling to me, that there are people such as yourself, that are so gullible that such a lame source is enough to deny all reality and become 911 cult drones and then run around regurgitating the same nonsense trying to recruit other mentally deficient people.

So you believe what some anonymous kook online, that doesn't know what they are talking about, has told you to believe, in a youtube video. how sad... And that you think this is comparable to actual evidence, to the NIST report, to a real education, and to the opinion of the vast majority of qualified experts, is extremely laughable.
 
Last edited:
Spanx said:
Ok, let's say they "pulled" wtc7 for safety reasons or to save further destruction.

What's the reason for not telling the public the truth. Most people would understand and except that reason.
Click to expand...

Would it have been better to wait a week and then get everybody out of NYC again?

They were opportunists. Perhaps they made the right decision.
 
LoneRanger said:
Would it have been better to wait a week and then get everybody out of NYC again?

They were opportunists. Perhaps they made the right decision.
Click to expand...

In case you missed my reply upthread ... CD's take months to organise. A few hours in a burning building? Nope.

And continuing to use the word "pull" the way you do is ignorant.
 
LoneRanger said:
If the fire kept going for days, NYC would have been a ghost town for days. They would have had to keep people out of NYC.
Click to expand...

Along with many other facts you have been completely wrong about, clearly you also have no concept of the size and population of NYC...
 
LoneRanger said:
... I also believed that WTC 7 was obviously pulled with sufficient reason for a conviction ....
Click to expand...
Believing is not for events. You are short evidence, engineering, physics, knowledge and more. You believe WTC 7 fires were small, your beliefs are false on 911.

It comes down to the ability to think for yourself instead of googling nuts who failed to figure out 911 after 11 years, still crying for a new investigation, and never reading the many already complete. It is funny you come to a skeptics forum with plagiarized nonsense on 911, not an original claim, no fact checking, and you present BS, what you believe based on zero.

You use your beliefs and opinions, when you need math and physics. Who did it in your fantasy. In reality 19 terrorists did 911, and destroyed the WTC complex. Without water, without fire fighting a building has no chance to survive, whether it falls or not. There are many examples of building which were totaled by fire, never used again even though their fires were fought.

It is interesting how 911 truth thinks the fires on 911 were small, and compare them to small night fires in other buildings. Their lack of experience and being fooled by lighting conditions is sad commentary on their knowledge, and critical thinking skills.

At least you have a fantasy, and who do you blame for 911? You make up fantasy about the death of so many. Why do you disrespect them so much making up failed claims and not knowing the facts about 911. Do you let people make fun of your family, making up wild rumor and lies? Is that being skeptical? You make up lies because you have no knowledge of the event.
 
GlennB said:
In case you missed my reply upthread ... CD's take months to organise. A few hours in a burning building? Nope.

And continuing to use the word "pull" the way you do is ignorant.
Click to expand...

I suppose the fire department can't pull a building in an emergency?

1) We have the motivation.
2) We have a confession.
3) The suspect(s) are on the scene.
4) We have some forensic fact.
5) We have video.


What does it matter? This jury has decided for the defendant. There is no hope of going 12-0. It takes all twelve to convict here in the US.
 
Last edited:
LoneRanger said:
If the fire kept going for days, NYC would have been a ghost town for days. They would have had to keep people out of NYC.
Click to expand...

Well, you've clearly never been anywhere near a big city, let alone NYC. Why would a city of over 450 square miles be a ghost town due to one burning building?
 
LoneRanger said:
I suppose the fire department can't pull a building in an emergency?

1) We have the motivation.
2) We have a confession.
3) The suspect(s) are on the scene.
4) We have some forensic fact.
5) We have video.


What does it matter? This jury has decided for the defendant. There is no hope of going 12-0. It takes all twelve to convict here in the US.
Click to expand...

This talk of a trial is hilarious from someone who thinks someone on a jury is called a jurist.
 
GlennB said:
In case you missed my reply upthread ... CD's take months to organise. A few hours in a burning building? Nope.

And continuing to use the word "pull" the way you do is ignorant.
Click to expand...

To pull the supports out from under it similar to imploding it is not what it means, that sounds good, but here is what it means.
The demolition process uses explosives to damage the columns. This explosion, like any, is a sudden expansion of gases. That expansion, when over, leaves a vacuum. The vacuum within the building "pulls" the building into the middle, helping it to implode, not explode all over the surrounding area.
When a bld is demo'd they might say, "pull it", to mean create that little black hole to suck the build into.
The pulling action also helps the building to fall faster than it would without assistance.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_it_mean_to_pull_a_building#ixzz28AchCFzm
Click to expand...

Where you thinking you would win the argument by calling me ignorant? :jaw-dropp
 
phunk said:
This talk of a trial is hilarious from someone who thinks someone on a jury is called a jurist.
Click to expand...


You are correct in that a jurist one having a thorough knowledge of law and a juror is a person summoned to serve on a jury. Your use of the word hilarious, however, is foolish.
 
LoneRanger said:
Where you thinking you would win the argument by calling me ignorant? :jaw-dropp
Click to expand...

The wiki answer you quoted is monstrously ignorant of basic science. That you believe it and quote it here says quite a lot about you. So, yes, continuing to use the word "pull" in this context is ignorant.
 
LoneRanger said:
You are correct in that a jurist one having a thorough knowledge of law and a juror is a person summoned to serve on a jury. Your use of the word hilarious, however, is foolish.
Click to expand...

$20 says you just looked up "jurist" in the dictionary.
 
LoneRanger said:
I've seen video of towers where entire floors were engulfed in flames. They didn't fall.

I've seen video of many buildings brought down by explosives. They fell in exactly the same way that WTC 7 did.

I shouldn't get any disagreement that government and government officials lie.

So I remain skeptical.
Click to expand...

Can you post just one video that looks exactly the way WTC7 fell.

Just one will do.

Thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom