Justice Posted March 7, 2016 Share Posted March 7, 2016 (edited) Watch at the 3:25 mark. If you dare. Then explain that. Edited March 7, 2016 by Justice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 7, 2016 Share Posted March 7, 2016 (edited) Watch at the 3:25 mark. If you dare. Then explain that. Are you !@#$ing kidding me? Dude you are MUCH smarter that that. BTW you linked two different videos. Edited March 7, 2016 by Chef Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justice Posted March 7, 2016 Share Posted March 7, 2016 Are you !@#$ing kidding me? Dude you are MUCH smarter that that. BTW you linked two different videos. I know. The second one I should just delete. The audio doesn't match the video. The first one does though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 7, 2016 Share Posted March 7, 2016 I know. The second one I should just delete. The audio doesn't match the video. The first one does though. So, you're asking us to believe that not a lot of people were involved in the plot, but the supporting video has a NYPD commander clearing traffic before the controlled explosion? NYPD involved in a controlled explosion plot that took the lives of hundreds of NYPD and NYFD? And not a single person has come out with the truth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 7, 2016 Share Posted March 7, 2016 I know. The second one I should just delete. The audio doesn't match the video. The first one does though. And it's only :57 long I think. I thought you were using Silverstein's "Pull it" remark as evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justice Posted March 7, 2016 Share Posted March 7, 2016 So, you're asking us to believe that not a lot of people were involved in the plot, but the supporting video has a NYPD commander clearing traffic before the controlled explosion? NYPD involved in a controlled explosion plot that took the lives of hundreds of NYPD and NYFD? And not a single person has come out with the truth? Both stories seem far fetched. Don't act as if the story you believe is actually believable too. And it's only :57 long I think. I thought you were using Silverstein's "Pull it" remark as evidence. Look again. It's 11 minutes long. Watch it for a minute or so. On the meantime Kiko is a Dolphin. Dang it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 7, 2016 Share Posted March 7, 2016 Look again. It's 11 minutes long. Watch it for a minute or so. On the meantime Kiko is a Dolphin. Dang it. No time right now. I'll give it a look later. Oh and keep that football bull **** where it belongs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 7, 2016 Share Posted March 7, 2016 Both stories seem far fetched. Don't act as if the story you believe is actually believable too. Two 767s loaded with fuel slam into two 110 story buildings, causing them to sway, burn & collapse. The resulting fire & debris take down a poorly designed skyscraper on the site. Other buildings around the site suffer extreme damage, but do not collapse because they had better structural integrity. Deutsche Bank building damaged by falling debris but stayed up because it's base wasn't compromised. WTC7 was compromised. Sounds a hell of a lot more plausible than any conspiracy theory you can toss out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 7, 2016 Share Posted March 7, 2016 I think you're overly exaggerating how many people it takes to execute such a plan. So let me get this straight: you agree that terrorists flew planes into the Twin Towers, but also believe that...totally separately and unrelated... somneone rigged WT7 with bombs to go off...just in case? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 7, 2016 Share Posted March 7, 2016 Both stories seem far fetched. Don't act as if the story you believe is actually believable too. Having studied more than a few bombing raids from World War 2, including reports from both sides...WTC7 falling late in the day is not all that unusual. Damage tends to add up and compound, even days after the bombings stop. The only reason to look for an alternative explanation is immaturity. So let me get this straight: you agree that terrorists flew planes into the Twin Towers, but also believe that...totally separately and unrelated... somneone rigged WT7 with bombs to go off...just in case? The classic mark of a bad theory: it gets progressively more complex, the more you question it. If you have to keep postulating endless new adjustments to your theory, your theory sucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justice Posted March 7, 2016 Share Posted March 7, 2016 (edited) So let me get this straight: you agree that terrorists flew planes into the Twin Towers, but also believe that...totally separately and unrelated... somneone rigged WT7 with bombs to go off...just in case? Not totally separate. In concert. Having studied more than a few bombing raids from World War 2, including reports from both sides...WTC7 falling late in the day is not all that unusual. Damage tends to add up and compound, even days after the bombings stop. The only reason to look for an alternative explanation is immaturity. The classic mark of a bad theory: it gets progressively more complex, the more you question it. If you have to keep postulating endless new adjustments to your theory, your theory sucks. Dude gave orders to pull it. And did they collapse at free fall speed? Edited March 7, 2016 by Justice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted March 7, 2016 Share Posted March 7, 2016 I can't but it's easier to assume that a when two huge jetliners filled with several thousand gallons of jet fuel crash into two buildings that the ensuing fire will spread. Easier to believe that somehow some group of people entered WTC7 and rigged up explosive and no one...not a single goddamn person saw or reported seeing something fishy. That's just !@#$ing whacked. Again, no dog in this fight but: The bolded isn't true. There are plenty of eye witnesses on the ground that day who claim to have seen or heard explosions from WTC7. Not saying those people aren't suffering from the fog of war and/or making stuff up after the fact -- but there are plenty of people who reported seeing/hearing something "fishy" from the ground. So let me get this straight: you agree that terrorists flew planes into the Twin Towers, but also believe that...totally separately and unrelated... somneone rigged WT7 with bombs to go off...just in case? The major theory out there (which I'm not a believer in but I have looked into it for my own work) is that it was a coordinated attack. It wasn't rigged "just in case", it was rigged before, as were the towers themselves, to go off in a controlled demolition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 7, 2016 Share Posted March 7, 2016 (edited) Again, no dog in this fight but: The bolded isn't true. There are plenty of eye witnesses on the ground that day who claim to have seen or heard explosions from WTC7. Not saying those people aren't suffering from the fog of war and/or making stuff up after the fact -- but there are plenty of people who reported seeing/hearing something "fishy" from the ground. The major theory out there (which I'm not a believer in but I have looked into it for my own work) is that it was a coordinated attack. It wasn't rigged "just in case", it was rigged before, as were the towers themselves, to go off in a controlled demolition. Explosions?!?! Say it ain't so!!!! Two !@#$ing jumbo jets crashed into two of the world's largest buildings and people said they heard explosions afterwards. What a revelation!! Oh and I mean no one saw or heard anything fishy prior to the crash. You know ninjas climbing the exterior of the buildings with dynamite in backpacks. Edited March 7, 2016 by Chef Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 7, 2016 Share Posted March 7, 2016 Not totally separate. In concert. So the terrorists bombed the building? What is the reason for not telling anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted March 7, 2016 Share Posted March 7, 2016 Explosions?!?! Say it ain't so!!!! Two !@#$ing jumbo jets crashed into two of the world's largest buildings and people said they heard explosions afterwards. What a revelation!! Oh and I mean no one saw or heard anything fishy prior to the crash. You know ninjas climbing the exterior of the buildings with dynamite in backpacks. Oh, my bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted March 7, 2016 Share Posted March 7, 2016 Explosions?!?! Say it ain't so!!!! Two !@#$ing jumbo jets crashed into two of the world's largest buildings and people said they heard explosions afterwards. What a revelation!! Oh and I mean no one saw or heard anything fishy prior to the crash. You know ninjas climbing the exterior of the buildings with dynamite in backpacks. That's because they're ninjas. You're not supposed to see them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 7, 2016 Share Posted March 7, 2016 That's because they're ninjas. You're not supposed to see them What a !@#$ing dumbass I am. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justice Posted March 7, 2016 Share Posted March 7, 2016 Let's just agree to disagree. You guys can't explain how a 50 story building collapses at free fall speed and I can't explain my side either. Your only explanation is to tell me fire caused it. Or debris. Both are physically impossible. OKC took a truck bomb and still stood. Debris takes down WTC 7??? But but but how did they get away with it?? Nobody saw them??? How am I supposed to know. All I know is a building collapsed that wasn't hit by a plane and it only took 9 hours to do it. Many other buildings burned much longer than that and stood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 7, 2016 Share Posted March 7, 2016 Not totally separate. In concert. Dude gave orders to pull it. And did they collapse at free fall speed? What speed are buildings supposed to collapse at? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 7, 2016 Share Posted March 7, 2016 Let's just agree to disagree. You guys can't explain how a 50 story building collapses at free fall speed and I can't explain my side either. Your only explanation is to tell me fire caused it. Or debris. Both are physically impossible. OKC took a truck bomb and still stood. Debris takes down WTC 7??? But but but how did they get away with it?? Nobody saw them??? How am I supposed to know. All I know is a building collapsed that wasn't hit by a plane and it only took 9 hours to do it. Many other buildings burned much longer than that and stood. Did those buildings have a design flaw as they burned for hours.? If this was a controlled demolition of WTC, why the need for the other two planes to target DC? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 7, 2016 Share Posted March 7, 2016 (edited) It was built by unionized contractors? Hey! That simply is a low blow. It is usually the opposite. Did you see where they shut an elevator down in China and left a lady in it to die? I am pretty sure they are VERY anti-union in China! That would never happen in an union shop of maintenance workers in the US... They would have waited for a few more Republicans to file in before shutting down the elevator... :-P Edited March 7, 2016 by ExiledInIllinois Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justice Posted March 7, 2016 Share Posted March 7, 2016 (edited) What speed are buildings supposed to collapse at?The fact that it collapsed perfectly at free fall speed is the concern. It didn't collapse from one side to the other. It collapse in the fire damages section only. It came down all at once as if it was demolished. Once again. Fire alone can not cause this to happen. Edited March 7, 2016 by Justice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 7, 2016 Share Posted March 7, 2016 The fact that it collapsed perfectly at free fall speed is the concern. It didn't collapse from one side to the other. It collapse in the fire damages section only. It came down all at once as if it was demolished. Once again. Fire alone can not cause this to happen. That's just foolishness. How did you measure the speed? How do you know fire can't do that? How does a collapse limit itself to "fire damaged sections" only? This, that you're doing here, is a fallacy. You're filling in gaps in your knowledge based on a preconceived notion of the outcome and a misguided belief that unprecedented events are impossible because they're unprecedented. AND you're doing so with the certainty of absolute statements, which are the hallmark of a crackpot theory (e.g. "There's a consensus!") You quite simply don't know what you don't know. You just can't admit it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justice Posted March 7, 2016 Share Posted March 7, 2016 (edited) That's just foolishness. How did you measure the speed? How do you know fire can't do that? How does a collapse limit itself to "fire damaged sections" only? This, that you're doing here, is a fallacy. You're filling in gaps in your knowledge based on a preconceived notion of the outcome and a misguided belief that unprecedented events are impossible because they're unprecedented. AND you're doing so with the certainty of absolute statements, which are the hallmark of a crackpot theory (e.g. "There's a consensus!") You quite simply don't know what you don't know. You just can't admit it. "You're filling in gaps in your knowledge based on a preconceived notion of the outcome and a misguided belief that unprecedented events are impossible because they're unprecedented." Ain't that grand? Three unprecedented events in one day huh? Defies all logic and physics. Never mind the fact the owner of the building used a demolition term and the building went down in unison. Newsflash, genius, steel structured buildings have been on fire much longer than WTC 7 and haven't collapsed. No airplane hit this building. Most of the fuel from those planes burnt away shortly after impact. How did building 7 even catch fire on the 6th floor? Why not the top? If you ask me, foolishness is believing a 50 story building can collapse solely from debris and fire damage over the course of 8 to 9 hours. Edited March 7, 2016 by Justice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justice Posted March 7, 2016 Share Posted March 7, 2016 Don't you guys ever wonder why and how each building came down. Both towers burnt away quickly from top to bottom. WTC 7's collapse started from the bottom and the top collapsed on top of it. Crushed by its own weight. The Pentagon, well that never collapsed at all, but we didn't see much debris on the grounds surrounding it. Of course all 4 buildings are structurally different, but you can not ignore the differences in NY. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 "You're filling in gaps in your knowledge based on a preconceived notion of the outcome and a misguided belief that unprecedented events are impossible because they're unprecedented." Ain't that grand? Three unprecedented events in one day huh? Defies all logic and physics. Never mind the fact the owner of the building used a demolition term and the building went down in unison. Newsflash, genius, steel structured buildings have been on fire much longer than WTC 7 and haven't collapsed. No airplane hit this building. Most of the fuel from those planes burnt away shortly after impact. How did building 7 even catch fire on the 6th floor? Why not the top? If you ask me, foolishness is believing a 50 story building can collapse solely from debris and fire damage over the course of 8 to 9 hours. And yet, all the evidence - the compromise of the internal structure from the North Tower debris (which is how the fires got to the 6th floor - the debris fell through the buliding), the bulge in the southwest wall growing through the afternoon, the creaking sounds emergency responders heard all afternoon that prompted pulling them back from the building, the progressive collapse of the structure (in four different stages, over the course of more than a minute, significantly slower than "free-fall") - points to an uncontrolled collapse due to damage from the North Tower collapse. Don't you guys ever wonder why and how each building came down. Both towers burnt away quickly from top to bottom. WTC 7's collapse started from the bottom and the top collapsed on top of it. Crushed by its own weight. The Pentagon, well that never collapsed at all, but we didn't see much debris on the grounds surrounding it. Of course all 4 buildings are structurally different, but you can not ignore the differences in NY. None of that is actually correct. I was at the Pentagon. I saw the debris. And the collapse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 And yet, all the evidence - the compromise of the internal structure from the North Tower debris (which is how the fires got to the 6th floor - the debris fell through the buliding), the bulge in the southwest wall growing through the afternoon, the creaking sounds emergency responders heard all afternoon that prompted pulling them back from the building, the progressive collapse of the structure (in four different stages, over the course of more than a minute, significantly slower than "free-fall") - points to an uncontrolled collapse due to damage from the North Tower collapse. None of that is actually correct. I was at the Pentagon. I saw the debris. And the collapse. Yes but you're part of the conspiracy. Did two men in black approach you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 Yes but you're part of the conspiracy. Did two men in black approach you? What makes you think he Isn't one of the guys in black.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 What makes you think he Isn't one of the guys in black.... What's that red light on your forehead? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 Don't you guys ever wonder why and how each building came down. Both towers burnt away quickly from top to bottom. WTC 7's collapse started from the bottom and the top collapsed on top of it. Crushed by its own weight. The Pentagon, well that never collapsed at all, but we didn't see much debris on the grounds surrounding it. Of course all 4 buildings are structurally different, but you can not ignore the differences in NY. And yes crushed by it's own weight. Gravity brought 1&2 down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justice Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 And yes crushed by it's own weight. Gravity brought 1&2 down. I'm not debating that. And yet, all the evidence - the compromise of the internal structure from the North Tower debris (which is how the fires got to the 6th floor - the debris fell through the buliding), the bulge in the southwest wall growing through the afternoon, the creaking sounds emergency responders heard all afternoon that prompted pulling them back from the building, the progressive collapse of the structure (in four different stages, over the course of more than a minute, significantly slower than "free-fall") - points to an uncontrolled collapse due to damage from the North Tower collapse. None of that is actually correct. I was at the Pentagon. I saw the debris. And the collapse. I assure you. There's no difference between controlled demolition and what happened to WTC 7. I compared videos of both. They're identical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 What makes you think he Isn't one of the guys in black.... Actually DCTom was the inspiration for X-Files "Smoking man" much of it is very accurate except in reality he never smoked instead he was always sucking the fillings out of Twinkies, Ho Hos and other pastries - TV executives just changed the activity because focus groups thought it generated more physical disgust than ominous tension. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 (edited) I'm not debating that. I assure you. There's no difference between controlled demolition and what happened to WTC 7. I compared videos of both. They're identical. There's a huge difference. Controlled demolition takes weeks to set up. You really think this was a controlled demolition that no one....I mean not a !@#$ing soul saw set up? Please explain how that is even remotely possible. Edited March 8, 2016 by Chef Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justice Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 There's a huge difference. Controlled demolition takes weeks to set up. You really think this was a controlled demolition that no one....I mean not a !@#$ing soul saw set up? Please explain how that is even remotely possible. Yeah. I think it's possible. More possible than fire and debris bringing down a 50 story building demolition style. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 Yeah. I think it's possible. More possible than fire and debris bringing down a 50 story building demolition style. Watch this. With all the cameras rolling on 911 did any capture this sound? You don't need to watch the whole thing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaBQ3AkRetI Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 Yeah. I think it's possible. More possible than fire and debris bringing down a 50 story building demolition style.Even if it's rhetorically possible, it is practically impossible. There is no way in the world this conspiracy would have stayed quiet for so long. Already you've implicated a dozen federal, state and nyc agencies, never mind many more in the private sector, and you think there's not one soul who had the human decency to come clean with the plot, especially considering that at least one of the conspirators probably lost a close friend on that day? How much did they get paid for staying quiet? What was their incentive to carry out the plot? Did that incentive change when 3,500 died a gruesome death? Does logic even enter your moron minds? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 There's a huge difference. Controlled demolition takes weeks to set up. You really think this was a controlled demolition that no one....I mean not a !@#$ing soul saw set up? Please explain how that is even remotely possible. Controlled demolition was set up in World Trade Center buildings after the 1993 bombing attempt by the blind sheikh - They couldn't afford the Towers falling like dominoes, the liability was too great and after the attack you couldn't claim it was an unforeseeable event. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justice Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 (edited) Watch this. With all the cameras rolling on 911 did any capture this sound? You don't need to watch the whole thing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaBQ3AkRetI I see your point but the explosive sounds were greatly reported that day. Plus this video footage isn't the same as WTC 7's in regards to proximity and other factors. Besides, there's more than one way to skin a cat. Many people speculate thermite was used. How much noise does that make? Edited March 8, 2016 by Justice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 Controlled demolition was set up in World Trade Center buildings after the 1993 bombing attempt by the blind sheikh - They couldn't afford the Towers falling like dominoes, the liability was too great and after the attack you couldn't claim it was an unforeseeable event. Oh that's a new angle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justice Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 (edited) Controlled demolition was set up in World Trade Center buildings after the 1993 bombing attempt by the blind sheikh - They couldn't afford the Towers falling like dominoes, the liability was too great and after the attack you couldn't claim it was an unforeseeable event. Who are they and why couldn't they? This if for the other guys: How about this? If fire can bring down buildings then why in the hell do you waste months and God knows how many dollars setting up demolition?? Fire is cheap. Now run tell that! Imagine that. After all these years we could've just light the B word on fire and wait a few hours. Stupid us. Edited March 8, 2016 by Justice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts