1999 replies to this topic

[RaptorBites]

seller2006, on 10 April 2012 - 06:32 PM, said:

Are you still arguing if it was an inside job? theres still people trying to defend 9/11 official story? The evidence pointing towards ad inside job/ false flag attack is unbelievably logical , evident and out weighs the official story in almost ALL aspects lol. But theres always those clinging to the official story, trying to defend their government blindly, does NOT matter how much evidence your present these people, they will never believe it , because they choose not to -.- . Gl with those people who are still persuading through use of evidence, logic, paper trails ,etc proving it is an inside/ false flag ATTACK. I guess if we ignore history ( Lusitania , BAY OF TONKIN, PEARL HARBOUR ,etc ,etc ,etc ,etc) those events repeat themselves, i guess past false flag attacks weren't enough to support this theory?

so tell me seller.  which video is the real one? yours?  or this one?  



note how the image of WTC 7 is reversed in your video compared to the supposed "real video"

If deception is the conspiracy theorist's weapon, then you really don't have a leg to stand on.  Instead of watching youtube videos to learn your facts, can you show us some scientific evidence of explosives used in WTC7?  Better yet, can you show us some evidence at all other than shoddy and apperantly deceptive video?

[seller2006]

booNyzarC, on 10 April 2012 - 09:09 PM, said:

So essentially you can't prove your position.  Got it.

Carry on with your babbling incessently about the ebil gummint and calling people fools.

LOL, Im confused, i never stated i couldn't or could prove this position or any position for that matter, i am understanding, from both sides, several years ago i was an adamant 9/11 official story believer. You make many assumptions then call me out on them. good for you, you clever individual Im not calling people fools, i called one person a fool. Had i have generalized a whole population as fools you could use that against me. Again, the gov is there for your protection . I don't you see you proving your view yet you claim so many things against me. Lol your logic is the MOST impeccable i have EVER seen

Edited by seller2006, 10 April 2012 - 09:38 PM.

[seller2006]

RaptorBites, on 10 April 2012 - 09:20 PM, said:

so tell me seller.  which video is the real one? yours?  or this one?  



note how the image of WTC 7 is reversed in your video compared to the supposed "real video"

If deception is the conspiracy theorist's weapon, then you really don't have a leg to stand on.  Instead of watching youtube videos to learn your facts, can you show us some scientific evidence of explosives used in WTC7?  Better yet, can you show us some evidence at all other than shoddy and apperantly deceptive video?

Should the video evidence of both be taken into consideration? DECEPTION ( ironically) is the greatest weapon used by the gov via the media to perpetuate this story. LOL so if something is from youtube it is false? why do i keep some fallacious logic when it comes to 9/11 official story defenders. one could use that same argument about the 9/11 story, could you expain the BBC incident? or how about explaining how the building fell so quickly after not being hit by a plane, while smaller building all around the area were stable and nearly unharmed lol. I guess since it is america, everything happens faster , including buildings falling from fires ... could you explain to conspiracy theorists why the building fallse resembled ( exactly) a controlled demolition. There are far too many "coincidences" happening during 9/11 to say there isn't anything suspicious. The events surrounding 9/11 happened once a blue moon i guess, during this time they say logic, laws of nature can be bent hence the all 3 buildings coincidently fell in the same fashion, and very quickly. Architects, pilots , engineers , for 9/11 truth are all wrong, the government is right. Oh and so was their commission report, which excluded WTC7( another blue moon coincidence). There is no such thing as corruption in America .

[booNyzarC]

seller2006, on 10 April 2012 - 09:38 PM, said:

LOL, Im confused,

Yes, it is quite apparent that you are.

Carry on.

[skyeagle409]

seller2006, on 10 April 2012 - 08:43 PM, said:

Not even gonna dignify you with an indepth response, the patriotic American card isnt a good excuse. All i see is a rant, a false weak effort to defend the false, fallacious logic behind defending 9/11  official story, i guess nowadays they make flash lights that emit a light similar to that of molten metal.

Well, some of the 9/11 conspiacy folks didn't learn unitl later that the so-called molten metal photo was doctored.

Quote

I guess the witness reports of those brave men which stated and were maligned after 9/11 ( they implied their were bombs inside ,etc ,etc ,etc ,etc ,etc).

I have been through wars and heard lots of explosions, which is why I have said that they did not hear what they thought were bomb explosions. People who have never heard real bomb explosions can easily confuse other sounds as explosions and I brought up an example in Hawaii where a wind storm knocked down buildings where some people have said that it sounded like explosions.

Quote

YOUR A FOOL.

Wrong again, but not surprising that you are wrong on other things as well. I hope you didn't think that I have always sided with the government.

[RaptorBites]

seller2006, on 10 April 2012 - 09:54 PM, said:

Should the video evidence of both be taken into consideration? DECEPTION ( ironically) is the greatest weapon used by the gov via the media to perpetuate this story. LOL so if something is from youtube it is false? why do i keep some fallacious logic when it comes to 9/11 official story defenders. one could use that same argument about the 9/11 story, could you expain the BBC incident? or how about explaining how the building fell so quickly after not being hit by a plane, while smaller building all around the area were stable and nearly unharmed lol. I guess since it is america, everything happens faster , including buildings falling from fires ... could you explain to conspiracy theorists why the building fallse resembled ( exactly) a controlled demolition. There are far too many "coincidences" happening during 9/11 to say there isn't anything suspicious. The events surrounding 9/11 happened once a blue moon i guess, during this time they say logic, laws of nature can be bent hence the all 3 buildings coincidently fell in the same fashion, and very quickly. Architects, pilots , engineers , for 9/11 truth are all wrong, the government is right. Oh and so was their commission report, which excluded WTC7( another blue moon coincidence). There is no such thing as corruption in America .

Fyi, the BBC news report has already been explained several times over.  

You have come into a thread 60+ pages in with accusations of foul play on the government part with no evidence of your claims.

Why should we bother entertaining your accusations with evidence posted multiple times when you have not provided any of your own?

[skyeagle409]

seller2006, on 10 April 2012 - 09:54 PM, said:

The events surrounding 9/11 happened once a blue moon i guess, during this time they say logic, laws of nature can be bent hence the all 3 buildings coincidently fell in the same fashion, and very quickly.

Facts are facts, because they fell without the aid of explosives.

Quote

...Architects, pilots , engineers , for 9/11 truth are all wrong,...

Just those who have claimed that explosives were used to bring down the WTC buildings. What made you think they are demolition experts with knowledge of explosives?

Quote

...the government is right. ..

The evidence speaks for itself.

Quote

There is no such thing as corruption in America .

Wrong again, and it is no secret that many of the 9/11 conspiracy folks are delusional. After all, how many have claimed that no aircraft struck the WTC buildings, the Pentagon, and Shanksville?

[booNyzarC]

skyeagle409, on 10 April 2012 - 11:11 PM, said:

Wrong again, and it is no secret that many of the 9/11 conspiracy folks are delusional. After all, how many have claimed that no aircraft struck the WTC buildings, the Pentagon, and Shanksville?

+1

[Daughter of the Nine Moons]

C'mon everyone here knows how to play nice...dont make me use this face  

[booNyzarC]

Q24, on 10 April 2012 - 05:18 PM, said:

It is not “wrong”, it is what NIST say happens in a progressive collapse.  There is no equivalent timeline and image set for their full fire and debris case and we know the impact/WTC1 debris damage made little difference anyway: -

• “The third LS-DYNA analysis demonstrated that the fire-induced damage led to the collapse of WTC 7, even without any structural damage from the debris impact.”
  
• “WTC 7 was prone to classic progressive collapse in the absence of debris impact and fire-induced damage when a section of Column 79 between Floors 11 and 13 was removed.”
  
• “The initial westward progression and the overall speed of the collapse was not sensitive to the extent of the estimated structural damage to WTC 7 due to the debris from the collapse of WTC 1.”

It is obvious that in any case where the internal structure is first removed, the external shell will warp all over the place.  But that did not happen in reality.  NIST’s theory is wrong.

You do realize that NIST not only wanted to identify a probable collapse sequence for each tower, but they also wanted to improve building safety codes in general.  As part of their testing they determined that fires alone could have caused the collapse, and this is important to recognize so that improved safety standards could be implemented.  In terms of looking forward, this additional part of their mandate was actually more important than perfecting the specific 911 collapse models because the probability that any given building may encounter fire is significantly higher than the probability that it will be hit by an airplane.

[skyeagle409]

booNyzarC, on 11 April 2012 - 02:15 PM, said:

You do realize that NIST not only wanted to identify a probable collapse sequence for each tower, but they also wanted to improve building safety codes in general.  As part of their testing they determined that fires alone could have caused the collapse, and this is important to recognize so that improved safety standards could be implemented.  In terms of looking forward, this additional part of their mandate was actually more important than perfecting the specific 911 collapse models because the probability that any given building may encounter fire is significantly higher than the probability that it will be hit by an airplane.

BINGO!!


The recommended changes to building codes after the 9/11 attacks point away from a government conspiracy. Not only were changes made to building codes after the 9/11 attacks, but changes to aircraft cockpit doors were made as well.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ICC: Building Safety Codes Changed as a Result of 9/11

The International Code Council's activity heightened when the National Institute of Standards and Technology released its "Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center," which contained 30 broad recommendations for the model codes, standards industry, design community, and emergency responders.

• Sep     05, 2011

The 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center identified a new, challenging frontier in public safety for the International Code Council, a developer of construction industry building safety codes used throughout the United States.

My link

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Decade after 9/11 World Trade Center attacks, skyscraper safety improving

An unprecedented collapse

No American high-rise had succumbed to a total collapse before 9/11, although there had been warning signs. Several skyscraper fires, including a raging 19-hour blaze in Philadelphia's 38-story One Meridian Plazain 1991, had caused significant structural damage and raised serious questions about the adequacy of safety systems and firefighters' ability to cope with the challenges that high-rises posed.

That 47-story skyscraper had a more conventional structural frame than the twin towers, and it wasn't hit by jets or doused with fuel. But when debris from Tower 1 set Building 7 afire – a blaze that burned for 7 hours because the sprinklers were disabled – it fell too. Fortunately, all occupants had evacuated and emergency teams were ordered out. Building 7 was the first total high-rise collapse strictly due to fire, and further highlighted the need for improved fire-resistance.

My link

_____________________________________________________________-

9/11 Brought Some Changes to Skyscrapers and High-Rises But More Should Be Done

New Buildings, New Safety Features

Not surprisingly, new buildings, those under construction and those on the drawing board have a number of features that older buildings did not. In New York City, for example, stairwell enclosures in high-rises must be wider and made of harder materials, and elevator shafts must be stronger as well.

To prevent the pancaking that happened at the World Trade Center as one floor fell onto another, the city requires high rises to be built to prevent"progressive collapse," but it doesn't spell out how to do that. Even in places where codes have not been updated, some high-rises are taking steps to strengthen their buildings, said Jon Schmidt, an associate structural engineer and director of anti-terrorism services for the Kansas City, Mo.-based Burns& McDonnell, an engineering, architectural and consulting firm.

Materials and measures once reserved for military and government buildings gradually are becoming more mainstream, including concrete-encased stairwells to protect evacuating tenants and laminated glass that is less likely to shatter into fragments during a blast, Schmidt said.

More attention is being paid to fireproofing material that better sticks to steel —an issue that got a lot of attention because the jets that hit the twin towers apparently knocked the coating off the girders to the point they softened and broke

My link

Edited by skyeagle409, 11 April 2012 - 05:48 PM.

[Stundie]

skyeagle409, on 30 March 2012 - 07:16 PM, said:

Neither did one of the WTC builidngs in 1993 after more than 1000 pounds of explosives were detonated beneath the building.

I know, like I've said previously, they should have used fire as it would have been much better at destroying the buildings!!

skyeagle409, on 30 March 2012 - 07:16 PM, said:

Those were not explosions. The sounds they heard were not loud enough to have been explosions and no explosions were registered on video nor audio recorders either.

Sorry, but I will take the words of the people who were at GZ and on the video who said they were explosions and not some anonymous internet warrior who think he's knows better.  

Edited by Stundie, 16 April 2012 - 02:17 PM.

[Stundie]

skyeagle409, on 30 March 2012 - 07:21 PM, said:

Look the condition of those structural beams!  Explosives didn't cause that.

And how do you know this?? lol

So we can't tell what metal is pouring out from the side of WTC2 from a video/photographic evidence....but....you can tell us that explosives didn't cause that, from looking at a photo evidence??

Make your mind up with your double standards??

More importantly, a gravity driven collapse isn't going to send tons of steel members flying outside of it's own footprint hundreds of metres away.

Of course, unless you have calculation which prove it.  

[Stundie]

skyeagle409, on 30 March 2012 - 07:39 PM, said:

But, that doesn't mean anything. Perhaps someone needed paper for a shopping list?

But it does mean something, before it was removed for being embarressing for the official story worshippers, that list was a collection of engineers who refuted the demolition theory and support the NIST conclusions.

A&E9/11 Truth have over 1500 signatories from Architects and Engineers, that list had 58 people including a Mike Hunt.

In otherwords, if there were hundreds of thousands of people who agree with the official story, they would have more than 58 signatures in the 10 months wouldn't they??

Thats about 5 signatures per month, of course some of them were clearly faked.

I'm sure if there are as many Architects and Engineers who support the official story, then getting as many as A&E9/11 Truth shouldn't be a problem should it??  

[booNyzarC]

skyeagle409, on 30 March 2012 - 07:16 PM, said:

Those were not explosions. The sounds they heard were not loud enough to have been explosions and no explosions were registered on video nor audio recorders either.

You've put me into a position where I must agree with Stundie, and I don't much appreciate that sky.




Seriously though, there is no doubt that explosions, or loud bangs that sounded like explosions, were heard.  They were captured on video.  They were reported by a great number of witnesses.  There is no question that there were very loud noises which sounded like explosions.

Now, that isn't to say that the explosive sounding bangs were from any kind of demolition charges.  In fact, there could well have been bombs in addition to the crashes.  This doesn't equate to government involvement though.  Loud bangs could be the result of many things.

Do you recall the white vans that were reported about?  I believe one was at the George Washington bridge, and others in different places.  Could there have been others parked under the WTC towers?  I don't know personally.  This topic isn't discussed in great detail anywhere that I've found, but I do remember the news reports when they first aired because I was glued to the TV like most people.

These points shouldn't be ignored or denied.  Saying things like "there were no explosions" only adds fuel to the conspiracy theorist's fires.