Discussion in 'IntroSpectrum' started by Fag In The Box, Jul 17, 2008.
1-Sentence Debunking of NIST'S Report on WTC 7
more on Debunking the NIST report on WTC bldg 7
more for the debunkers.
Debunking 911 Debunking
I love how these 9/11 conspiracy reports never cite any REAL sources
BBC: Debunked "Pancake Theory" Caused Towers To Collapse
the 2nd and 3rd pictures are actually pictures of wtc 7 while it is still standing. its showing the intense fire and smoke coming from the building.
heres another pic for proof:
there is a whole in the SW corner that is nearly 20 stories high. almost half of the 45 story building.
the building did fall to the south....check out this photo and see how its leaning to the left (south) while its collapsing.
since i read that, you can just read this...
debunks your favorited site.
Debunking 9/11 Website Debunks Itself
Here's the thing with conspiracy theorists we all have to understand. They are fantasy prone people that view themselves as bigger deals then they really are.
In their eyes there are three types of people in the world:
1) The people committing these atrocious acts and cover them up
2) The sheep who have the wool pulled over their eyes and have no idea.
3) The smart, intellectual brave people who have see through the veil of darkness and know what is REALLY going on. (Usually themselves)
isnt that convenient?
wtc 7 was so fucked up that i dont even give a fuck if it was controlled or not, cuz if it didnt fall on its own they wouldve had to do a controlled demoliton anyway...
its amazing how the only people who claim thier was only small fires or not much damage usually come from the conspiracy websites and read like this. "numerous accounts say there was little to no damage even done to wtc 7"..
get the fuck out of here.. look at the actual pictures.. plus there were reports, which anyone with 2 eyes watching the news that day, could visibly see, that it sustained over 25% structural damage immediately after the towers collapsed.. by the time it fell it looke dlike one of those buildings in that video game rampage just ready to fall..
the Debunking 9/11 Debunking website is full of half charges and ad hominen attacks.
the guy is only commenting how there are a few misspelling and reaching.
"There is no doubt "Pull" means pull the fireman out." (Again note the serious case of plural amnesia).
And yet in the second paragraph of the page the author claims that, "Only Building 7 had unfought fires and the massive load of 40 stories above the them ." (another error).
So if the Building was subject to "unfought fires" which were the sole cause of its collapse how could there have been any firemen to "pull" out of the building?
To repeat Silverstein's spokesman, "The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires."
Popular Mechanics , which is cited by the Debunking 9/11 website in its links section, also quotes NIST in saying "There was no firefighting in WTC 7."
Which is it to be? Firemen or no firemen? Pull or nothing to pull?
he then starts plugging his DVD.
the fires in WTC 1 and 2 werent fought either. but there were firefighters in the building.
its kinda hard to get hoses up 40, 50, even 80 or 90 stories.
i havent done my research on this...
and i dont know whats right and wrong... but reading throught this i can def see that urb has no idea what hes talking about, and keeps using the "im not gonna explain this again" thing even tho hes replied in here i dont know how many times..... which had to take more time then it would have to just explain himself one more time...
the "i was on a plane to af, im not explaining myselfs, you guys are idiots" stuff isnt real convincing... and kinda makes u look lost
so does prefacing your post with "I haven't done any research" and then proceeding to comment
So who brought down the Titanic?
Now, I realize you've been conditioned to believe it was an iceberg? Hah! Peasants. No iceberg could slay a ship of that size, a ship "not even god himself could sink." Hmm? You all baffle me with your gullibility.
Good day, sirs
no data or scientist working on the reports ever claimed the heat melted the building.
thats another logical fallacy of yours.
what they say is that the intense heat compromised the integrity and the strength of the beams causing the core of the building to weaken.
not that the heat melted the building.
here is your answer about what really sunk the titanic:
YouTube - Unfastened Coins: Titanic Conspiracy
when i said im not taking either side because i havent done any reasearch..
what exactly did i seem lost about? i didnt comment on the buildings... so my not researching that...makes me look lost on a comment on an observation that had nothing to do with the bulidings?
if i come in here and someone is hitten me with a shitload of shit to support what they think.. and my come back is over and over again "im not explaining myself again"
then i would look lost... what does researching this have to do with that obvservation
or are u just in super defense mode and attacking anything u think might oppose what u think?
calm down fuck boy
yeah i see that now...could barely see it in the hidden corners but i see the bldg now, i mean there's sooo much smoke that i guess the Smoke did make the building collapse...cuz smoke usually means that right?...lol
i've seen Large houses burn (i was a firefighter for 4 yrs) funny thing is these houses were built our of WOOD...when we'd let uncontrollable fire's within these houses burn, it would go on like such...but silly thing is, a 3-4 story house doesnt Collapse?...why is that?...i've seen apartments that stand 6+ stories get smashed into by a semi truck and rip out sections of the bottom of the Apartment in a far more measurable distance campared to building size then what is missing on the wtc7...yet the Main Frame stays intact, with FIre burning...with Wood framed units...hmmm...and never once did i see a WOOD house crumble from smoke...i mean, all that Grey smoke should be obvious to anyone that the firefighters were trying to do they're job and put out the Fire which produces Large amounts of smoke...and the 2 buildings that fell prior to the wtc7, they didnt at any event, any time, help induce the Amounts of Smoke surrounding that building? which in any case, would not have made the wtc7 bldg fall...Smoke/FIRE in a larger aspect has never made a Building such as wtc7's structure/size ever fall...and if you claim the piece missing on the corner helped it cumble completely flat in under 10Sec's is very dillusional towards "Scientific Facts"
what i dont get it why all teh conspiracy theorists never show the penthouse collapsing first, then the building coming down.. theya lwas show it post penthouse collapse, therebye creating an image that the whole building collapsed in controlled manner all at once, in less then 7 seconds, when the actual building as a whole came down in like 18-20 seconds
Separate names with a comma.