WTC 7...explained

TakuanSoho · #31 (**permalink**) 05-09-2008, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carson

It just shows that they have done similar things before. Which is telling, very telling.

Where exactly has the US Government murdered 3,000 of its own civilians before? I don't think even Zinn goes that far.

As for "hitting". What? Your only argument to date has been: "you can't prove there is no conspiracy, therefore there could be one." Not exactly a telling blow there.

Carson · #32 (**permalink**) 05-09-2008, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TakuanSoho

Where exactly has the US Government murdered 3,000 of its own civilians before? I don't think even Zinn goes that far. I didn't say murdered. Point being if they are willing to lie to you a million times why is it such a reach for you to imagine that might lie again?

As for "hitting". What? Your only argument to date has been: "you can't prove there is no conspiracy, therefore there could be one." Not exactly a telling blow there.

I wasn't trying to prove that there was a conspiracy, never said I was. and "hitting" wtf are you talking about? My point is you act like a conspiracy theorist is such a nutjob but they are just as likely as you to be right so step off your high horse there and stop acting like you know shit, because you don't

TakuanSoho · #33 (**permalink**) 05-09-2008, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carson

I wasn't trying to prove that there was a conspiracy, never said I was. and "hitting" wtf are you talking about? My point is you act like a conspiracy theorist is such a nutjob but they are just as likely as you to be right so step off your high horse there and stop acting like you know shit, because you don't

[RANT]

Listen, if you are accusing the US government of having a part in 9/11, then you are accusing them of murder. I can't help if you are such a pussy as not to be able to face the implications of what you are "suggesting". If you don't like it, then don't make the suggestion.

Jesus H Christ, I am so sick of assholes like you that want to "allege" things, yet cry like a sissy when someone points out the obvious conclusion of your allegations.

Hell, NOYB, ICY and their ilk are infinitely better than you are, at least they make no bones about what they mean. I can at least respect them to a certain small degree for this, but there is nothing about you that is respectable. You are just another in a pathetic long line of stupid, left leaning , children that think that you are so superior because you "know better" than anyone else. Here is a newsflash. You are not cutting edge, you are boring, predictable, and stupid sounding.

So be a man (or woman) and if you want to say that the US was involved in 9/11 then say that the US government murdered 3,000 of its own civilians, because that is what happened on 9/11.

[/RANT]

nefarious_plot · #34 (**permalink**) 05-22-2008, 12:59 AM

They are already guilty of murder and so are you=

Carson · #35 (**permalink**) 05-22-2008, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TakuanSoho

[RANT]

Listen, if you are accusing the US government of having a part in 9/11, then you are accusing them of murder. I can't help if you are such a pussy as not to be able to face the implications of what you are "suggesting". If you don't like it, then don't make the suggestion. I'm fine calling them murderers, what implications are you talking about dipshit?
Jesus H Christ, I am so sick of assholes like you that want to "allege" things, yet cry like a sissy when someone points out the obvious conclusion of your allegations. Your the one being a bitch, I have just as much to support my argument as you do yours. If you got something to say say it otherwise fuck you and have a nice life.
Hell, NOYB, ICY and their ilk are infinitely better than you are, at least they make no bones about what they mean. I can at least respect them to a certain small degree for this, but there is nothing about you that is respectable. thanks for the complement, go suck a dick mother fucker You are just another in a pathetic long line of stupid, left leaning , children that think that you are so superior because you "know better" than anyone else. Here is a newsflash. You are not cutting edge, you are boring, predictable, and stupid sounding. Why would I listen to somebody so obviously full of

as yourself
So be a man (or woman) and if you want to say that the US was involved in 9/11 then say that the US government murdered 3,000 of its own civilians, because that is what happened on 9/11.

[/RANT]

Damn straight you fucking asshole so if you agree why all the hate? Oh thats right because your retarded and don't know what the fuck your talking about.

Real0ne · #36 (**permalink**) 07-20-2008, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stryker

7 World Trade Center - Debunk911myths

WTC 7... EXPLAINED!

From his link:

7 World Trade Center - Debunk911myths

Quote:

Few photos and video clips exist that show the damage sustained to south face of 7 World Trade Center on 9/11. From a news helicopter, ABC News captured footage of the south face of 7 World Trade Center, including a glimpse of a gash, extending approximately 10 stories

No photos = ALL BULLSHIT.

Much much larger gashes were seen on neighboring buildings, the tiny little ding is nothing more than a scratch as confirmed by a veteran 33 year demolition expert Jowenko where after examining the damage reports and the structural design stated that there is NO possible way that little ding caused any structural damage. Went on to say there is no possible way that the building could have been taken down with a fuel fire and that this was definitely a professional demolition job!

Quote:

In video of the collapse, taken from the north by CBS News and other news media, the first visible sign of collapse is movement in the east penthouse 8.2 seconds before the north wall began to collapse, which took at least another 7 seconds

Thats standard demolition practice to take buildings down in chunks to insure they fall in the correct and desired footprint.

Do I really need to post all the vids of standard demolitions or have you at least done that little bit of research on your own?

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%...se%20Final.pdf

NIST Claims they saw no evidence that the collapse of WTC 7. was caused by bombs, missiles, or controlled demolition.

THEN

NIST Claims:
Draft NIST Report on the World Trade Center Investigation
NOTE: The NIST investigation of the WTC 7 building collapse is not yet complete. The report on the WTC 7 collapse investigation will be released in draft form for public comment and posted on this web site as soon as it is available.
NIST and the World Trade Center : Publications

NOW

NIST Claims;
NIST's investigation of WTC 7 includes an extremely complex analysis that incorporates detailed information about the building's structure and construction, as well as data about fires, damage sustained from falling WTC 1 debris and other technical factors to determine its probable collapse sequence.

Funny part is they are telling a 1/2 truth here:

Quote:

An initial local failure occurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet;

Vertical progression of the initial local failure occurred up to the east penthouse, as the large floor bays were unable to redistribute the loads, bringing down the interior structure below the east penthouse; and

Horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of floors 5 and 7, that were much thicker than the rest of the floors), triggered by damage due to the vertical failure, resulting in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure.

Yepperz thats how most demolitions work and they cause "nearly simultaneous or syncronized" structural failure. We start by blowing the vertical column supports and it progresses to the horizontal and it all caves in on itself. Very good NIST!

Further the wtc7 building super, an x boiler man, was blown from the 7th floor to the 8th floor and was trapped as a result of that explosion that took place on the 7th floor of wtc 7 "B4 WTC 2 WAS DEMOLISHED". His testimony!

The media in a chopped clip portrayed him as being in one of the wtc towers. Of course the only people who know that are us utubers who have seen the footage and the rest of America is none the wiser! Just a little slight of hand eh? He and another guy "JUST" made it out by getting the attention of a fireman outside shortly before they took it down.

Quote:

Claim

Controlled demolition was used to bring about the collapse of 7 World Trade Center on the afternoon of September 11, 2001.

Fact
Vincent Dunn, a retired deputy FDNY fire chief and author of the textbook, The Collapse of Burning Buildings, spoke with Popular Mechanics and explained the how the unique design of 7 World Trade Center, which was built on top of a Con Ed substation, made it extra vulnerable to the stresses imposed by the falling debris and fires on 9/11.

So here we have a "fireman" who is a structural engineer and smarter than Roth Engineering? Sorta makes ya wonder?

He also said that he never saw molten steel before from a fire, but I dont think anyone needs to be an expert at anything to recognize molten steel.

Quote:

Claim

This claim was bolstered by a comment made by Larry Silverstein on a PBS documentary, America Rebuilds, where he uttered the phrase "pull it". Conspiracy theorists claim that this is slang term used in building implosions, and that with those words, Silverstein was authorizing the demoltion of WTC 7.

Fact

Controlled demolition experts reject the notion that "pull it" is a term used in building implosions.

Reject it? Seems they accept it here;

http://www.pumpitout.com/phone_calls...emolitions.mp3

I have to laugh, out their mouth they say no and out their asses they say yes! Is that good enough?

Do I have to post the grammatically correct linguistic analysis?

Yeh I suppose I better since I do not know which catagory you fall in to and 50% of americans are functionally illiterate.

From the Desk of a linguistics expert:

Quote:

Sorry. I get your meaning now. And you're right, and the word "And" is part of the linguistic flag here:

pull it = demolish the building

"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it (to demolish the building).' And they made that decision to pull (to demolish) and then we watched the building collapse."

Linguistic evidence
If we assume that pull it means to pull (the plug on) the operation, to stop the operation, then the second pull doesn't fit grammatically, because it would have to carry the same meaning. It'd have to be "....they made the decision to pull out ...", a different verb altogether.

The problem here, or rather the apparent problem, is the phrase pull it. It's ambiguous, that is, it has two potential meanings:

1) to end an operation, to pull out of an operation
2) to demolish a building

If the idiom pull it means to pull out of an operation, then its base verb form to pull should follow semantically. That is, in order to keep the same meaning, which is evident by the speaker's use of the conjunction "And" which connects the two sentences, to pull would have to be to pull out.

In short, you are correct. Good eye! Pull in pull it and to pull means to demolish, not to pull out. To pull is short for pull it.

What Silverstien said was grammatically and "perfectly" correct for the "blow it to hell" interpretation.

Real0ne · #37 (**permalink**) 07-20-2008, 05:52 PM

Silverstien, the state department and silverstiens cronies LIED!

Quote:

"I'm going to guess it was after 3:00...we walked all the way back down to Vesey Street. There was a big discussion going on at that point about pulling all of our units out of 7 World Trade Center.

Another Lie! Their units were pulled out no later than 12:30.

Quote:

Claim

7 World Trade Center fell in 6.8 seconds -- in free fall speed.
Fact

The collapse did not occur at free fall speed. It took 16 seconds, with the east mechanical penthouse beginning to collapse 8.2 seconds before any more obvious signs of total collapse (as seen on videos).

Now this is really grabbing for straws LOL

The time it takes for a building to be demolished is the time it takes for any given section from the instant it starts to move through the time it hits the ground.

That is to say a building, (as many are) demolished in sections and the total demolition can be years apart if they only detonate one section per year.

This is beyond ignoarnt!

Quote:

Claim

BBC reported collapse of WTC7 early
Fact

* Part of the conspiracy? - BBC
* Part of the conspiracy? (2) - BBC

Yeh the litany of excuses!

Well we have their WORD for it that they are NOT part of the conspiracy. Hey thats good enough for me, especially from an agency that admits they will tell you bullshit.

Quote:

Claim

No steel was recovered from WTC7
Fact

Members of the FEMA/ASCE Building Performance Study Team and others including members of the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY), Dr. J. Gross, a structural engineer at NIST, and Professor A. Astaneh-Asl of the University of California, Berkeley had access to the recovery yards where debris, including the steel, was taken during the cleanup effort.

Wow they had "ACCESS" to it! I guess that means they recovered it then..

Quote:

Although no steel was recovered from WTC7 to allow NIST to conduct tests on actual material from the structure,

Oh maybe not, shucks they will do better next time eh?

Quote:

Wow kool pics

Hey stryker where is building 7 in all those pics? The only one that shows building 7 shows a worthless long distance shot of some dust heading that way.

The rest of those pics dont have a label. Bet you didnt notice that did you? So tell me, in those pics that have no label, which one is building 7?

I love these debunking sites set up to catch all the non-thinking tv watchers where critical thinking is a dirty word.

I think this appropriately debunked your debunkers, if not I am sure you will let me know

Anyway thanks for explaining it all to us.

nefarious_plot · #38 (**permalink**) 08-15-2008, 02:56 PM

YouTube - 9/11: Total Proof That Bombs Were Planted In The Buildings!

Bonny Solder · #39 (**permalink**) 08-15-2008, 06:25 PM

Evacuating the people.... That's a lot of enemas.

There may have been secondary explosions; that doesn't prove they were planted bombs, or who may have planted them if they were bombs.

Next to the bible this is the greatest bullshit story ever told and anyone who believes it needs to be evacuated.

nefarious_plot · #40 (**permalink**) 08-15-2008, 06:34 PM

Want a a count of how many fire fightes said a BOMB or "device" in the buidling.. Theres a ton more of these they all were right there 90 percent of them were rescue workers of some sort. And they all said bomb. Ill take their word over any politicans.