What brought down WTC7

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,321
126
I confess Moonbeam and I concocted the whole plan.......
We decided that if the world could not have the trans warp portal then nobody could.
It was alien technology that brought down wtc7! You see wtc7 was built on top of a transwarp portal.
But before we could destroy the trans warp portal other parties decided to fly a passenger plane into wtc7 which was built unknowingly to the world right smack on top of the worlds only trans- warp portal.
Both Moonbeam and I have been sworn to secrecy by a top secret panel of aliens gathered from around the galaxie...sort of like a galactical United nations.
If we talk they have promised change this world in ways we could not imagine...as proof they were serious and capable we have our first black POTUS......you didn`t think that happenned by accident did you????
 

Ausm

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
25,213
14
81
Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
I confess Moonbeam and I concocted the whole plan.
We decided that if the world could not have the trans warp portal then nobody could.
It was alien technology that brought down wtc7! You see wtc7 was built on top of a transwarp portal.
But before we could destroy the trans warp portal other parties decided to fly a passenger plane into wtc7 which was built unknowingly to the world right smack on top of the worlds only trans- warp portal.
Both Moonbeam and I have been sworn to secrecy by a top secret panel of aliens gathered from around the galaxie...sort of like a galactical United nations.
If we talk they have promised change this world in ways we could not imagine...as proof they were capable we have our first black POTUS......you didn`t think that happenned by accident did youi????

How did smuggle the miles of primer cord up Moonbeam's ars?

Pics or shens

:)

 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,321
126
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: waggy
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Money
its quite funny how sceptics have the largest share of the vote in the poll, yet 90% of posts are from OMG TIN FOIL HATS 4 U HAHA

i am fully convinced all these people decrying `truthers` simply bash and reiterate the lies to convince themselves that 9/11 really was done by angry afghanis.

after all, i too wish that 9/11 was not a false flag attack, but unfortunately, all the evidence points to that being the case

I think most people realize 9-11 was carried out by a bunch of angry Saudi's. They saw the biggest events unfold with their own eyes on live TV. Then watched as the leader of the group who organized it dicsussed it on video.

Now I am sure this is where somebody tells us Bin Laden is a CIA plant from the 80s and Bush personally detonated the explosives that really took down the towers after he remote controlled the planes and cruise missile that hit the pentagon all while reading a childs book in Florida to pre school kids. The man is a damned mastermind obviously!

lol im always amazed when "truthers" say how bush did this. Are we talking about the same bush?
Nice, you take one nut post by a non truther and now you see Bush haters everywhere. Can we have some examples from actual truthers to support your theory or shall we just consider you farting in the wind.

We sure as hell are not talking about Moses and the burning bush.....
 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
Originally posted by: WildHorse
911 was done with full complicity of a cabal of maniacal kooks who got power, especially Dick Cheney...
While I wouldn't be surprised to learn Cheney was in on it, I don't have any proof of such, and I doubt you do either. In that regard, I recommend sticking to showing people what can be proven so that we can build support for a proper investigation to do the rest.

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
....

When the diesel tank erupted in flame the temps went above the structural integrity for the supporting steel for the office building above.
....

That solve the mystery for you?
Weakening by fire does not explain the near instantaneous removal of approximately 8 stories of structural support required to achieve the observed free fall collapse. Besides, diesel full doesn't even burn hot enough to notably weaken steel, let alone enough to instantaneously melt the 105 feet of structure needed allow for a period of free fall over that distance. If you insist on believing your argument here I've got a mystery for you; how come diesel engines don't melt when you run them?

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I thought what was to be pulled were any efforts by the fire department to save the building, as in pull the firemen.
That would make more sense if there had been any firemen in the building when he claims he made the decision.

Originally posted by: Double Trouble
So... countless believable groups have done countless studies and performed actual scientific analysis of the available facts...
You are making a faith based argument here, and one that stands in direct contradiction to the facts. So you scream pseudo-science for having your faith confronted, like a Young Earth creationist arguing against radiocarbon dating.

Originally posted by: rudder
By intentionally demolish do you mean that the owner decided that the building was not worth the loss of life that could occur if the fire dept tried to save the building?
Rather, he means he believes the owner made decision was made to implode the building, as it had obviously been previously rigged to do. The fall was even reported on before it happened, by both CNN and BBC. Granted, none of that make for proof that the owner was involved, but his comments do merit inquiry in a proper investigation.

Originally posted by: wwswimming
why did the building collapse AT ALL ? wasn't struck by an airplane.
Even if it had, that wouldn't explain what happened, but that is a more complicated discussion which I'd prefer to leave to the side until more people come to terms with this far more simply matter of WTC7.

Originally posted by: waggy
Originally posted by: Genx87...Bush personally detonated the explosives...
lol im always amazed when "truthers" say how bush did this. Are we talking about the same bush?
I'm always disappointed when falsers avoid the discussion at hand by bringing in arguments from elsewhere. I rather doubt Bush understood what happened any better than most falsers, no one here as said anything to suggest otherwise.

Originally posted by: Number1
kylebisme wrote = "These facts together prove that an outside force removed approximately 105 feet of structural resistance, though I understand that it is a fact which many find difficult to accept."

What force would that be?
As I said on my OP, a proper investigation would be needed to establish the "what" here.

Originally posted by: Number1
Your poll is bullshit and to be fair answer #2 should have read:

I have faith in the theory that the official story stands in contradiction to demonstrable physical reality.
My position is not one of faith, but rather one based on the facts I mentioned above.

Originally posted by: Number1
One more point, your post is littered with ridiculous spelling mistakes. If you want to appear credible, at least take the time to present your point of view properly.
I'm dyslexic, and hence a rather poor speller and proofreader. That said, I'll give it another read though and do my best to make corrections, and if you care to point out any such mistakes, I'd be much obliged.

Originally posted by: BeauJangles
Hey friend,

Okay, here are some easy questions for you.
They are all easy questions, but ones I already typed out answers to last time you asked them, and lost that reply as the thread was locked while I wrote it. With respect to that, I'll just point out one of the most easily exposed fallacies in your arguments:

Originally posted by: BeauJangles
Thermite doesn't explode...
Thermite compounds can be made to either incinerate or explode, as explained here:

Different categories of thermite materials are also available. The two most common types of these explosives and energetic materials are made with either hematite or magnetite.
Granted, anyone with a decent grasp of chemistry would not need this fact explained to them. Your other questions all have reasonable answers too, and you can find them yourself if you care to put the effort into doing so. As for here, I'd prefer to stick to the physics of WTC7 coming down, as that is the topic of this thread. That said, if you care to make a separate thread with your questions, I will be happy to go though them all again.
 

MikeMike

Lifer
Feb 6, 2000
45,885
66
91
i think every P&N mod posted in here, hey guys, post whatever you want, no one can moderate it!

and moonbeam, my post about the fire using up aailable oxygen was a question, im not a physics major, im decent at it, but im not a physics major... i was basically asking if it was possible for that to occur.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: kylebisme
Granted, anyone with a decent grasp of chemistry would not need this fact explained to them. Your other questions all have reasonable answers too, and you can find them yourself if you care to put the effort into doing so. As for here, I'd prefer to stick to the physics of WTC7 coming down, as that is the topic of this thread. That said, if you care to make a separate thread with your questions, I will be happy to go though them all again.

No, you can't have one without the other. It's all one discussion. CTs would love to break down this list into "things that can't be explained therefore there's a conspiracy" but either the planes were hijacked to coverup internal explosives or they weren't. If they were, it's a psycho nuts plan because of everything that could go wrong and makes zero sense. Like Chewbacca. He's a Wookie from the planet Kyshyyyk. What is a Wookie from the planet Kyshyyk doing on Endor with a bunch of Ewoks? That makes no sense. I rest my case.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: Modelworks
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Possessed Freak
Q: What brought down WTC7?
A: Gravity.

shhh...

Gravity is a neocon conspiracy.

If you think gravity is a conspiracy, just wait till the news leaks about fire.

I will probably be scared shitless just like that Samuel L Bronkowitz movie said I would. What was it called again? "That's Armageddon"?

 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
In the new found religions of global warming and 9-11 I am officially a denier and falser. I miss the days where I was considered a heathen and infidel by ancient religions :(
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,957
6,796
126
Originally posted by: Sclamoz
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Sclamoz
Originally posted by: kylebisme
Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
perhaps because they have no frickin clue what the insides of the WTC looked exactly like the day it was it. perhaps because they have no frickin clue what sort of wear and tear was on the steel beams of the WTC after the numerous years of use.

There are plenty of clues for those who understand the physics in question. The fact that it was standing until it fell proves that until the fall started the structure had over 100% of the resistive force to hold up the roof. The fact that shortly after their roof started to sag it fell with a period of free fall acceleration over a distance of approximately 105 feet proves that what had previously been over 100% of the resistive force to hold up the roof lost the ability to provide any notable resistive force at all. These facts together prove that an outside force removed approximately 105 feet of structural resistance, though I understand that it is a fact which many find difficult to accept.

You're right. For people who understand physics, rely on fact and don't put their faith in conspiracy theories they read on the internet there are plenty of clues as to why the WTC collapsed.

Such as?

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml

Double Trouble says lots of experts say no conspiracy. He takes on arrogance with that but still, if he's right that puts the ball over in his court, no? What sensible person that knows nothing would argue with folk qualified to assess assuming there isn't some strong reason to believe those experts don't have some agenda of their own?


You don't seem to use the same skepticism of experts when you post articles on written by experts on evolution and similar topics. I guess you can decide for us who has agendas and how doesn't.

Thanks for the link. I find it interesting that he stated what I thought myself above:

Once one storey collapsed all floors above would have begun to fall. The huge mass of falling structure would gain momentum, crushing the structurally intact floors below, resulting in catastrophic failure of the entire structure. While the columns at say level 50 were designed to carry the static load of 50 floors above, once one floor collapsed and the floors above started to fall, the dynamic load of 50 storeys above is very much greater, and the columns at each level were almost instantly destroyed as the huge upper mass fell to the ground

Remember too that it is the falling of the upper floors that takes the building down, because as soon as they begin to fall their weight is subtracted from what the lower floors have to support because those falling become weightless the moment they start the fall.

I was agreeing, in general, with Double Trouble, that I would go with expert opinion, except if it were somehow tainted by some obvious bias. I did not suggest such bias exists in this case. I disagree that siding with experts gives me the right to arrogance, and that would be true even if I somewhere expressed such arrogance. In short I have no skepticism about the 9/11 experts. I simply stated under what conditions I would be skeptical.
 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
Originally posted by: BassBomb
Originally posted by: kylebisme

2) While WTC7's period of free fall acceleration was prevoisly denyed by the government agaencies which investgated the event, due to the widely avalable video evidence NIST was eventually persuaded to to admit this fact, as documented here:

Well, thats were I stoped reeding youre post.
Thanks for pointing out those errors. I'll go fix them now.

By the way, do you also refuse to listen to deaf people due to their pour enunciation?

Originally posted by: Possessed Freak
Q: What brought down WTC7?
A: Gravity.
It played its part, but gravity doesn't exert the force necessary to collapse onto itself with a rate of acceleration indistinguishable from free fall. Again, you need another force in the system to accomplish that.

Originally posted by: jonks
No, you can't have one without the other. It's all one discussion.
Sure, like how the universe came to be isn't explained by the theory of Evolution, and hence the Bible explains that all one discussion, theory of Evolution is false, eh?

Originally posted by: jonks
CTs would love to break down this list into "things that can't be explained therefore there's a conspiracy" but either the planes were hijacked to coverup internal explosives or they weren't. If they were, it's a psycho nuts plan because of everything that could go wrong and makes zero sense.
This thread isn't about a building which was hit with a plane. If you would like to discuss those that were, please create a new thread.

Originally posted by: jonks
Like Chewbacca. He's a Wookie from the planet Kyshyyyk. What is a Wookie from the planet Kyshyyk doing on Endor with a bunch of Ewoks? That makes no sense. I rest my case.
Rather, your arguments and many here are like "If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit."
 

TechBoyJK

Lifer
Oct 17, 2002
16,699
60
91
Hi,

As requested. I'll say right now. I'm bat shit crazy.

But not this crazy. (see below).

Please stop the frivilous, meritless 9/11 truther threads. There's absolutely no validity to any of it. Sorry. I've been there, done that. Listened to truthers with an open mind, and have never even been slightly convinced that it was anything other than a blunt force terrorist attack.


Originally posted by: kylebisme
What brought down WTC7 was a near instantaneous removal of approximately 8 stories of structural support. This is proven by the following two facts; (1) acceleration indistinguishable from free fall is only possible in absence of any notable resistive force, (2) WTC7 dropped with period of acceleration indistinguishable from free fall for approximately 105 feet. To substantiate these facts:

1) This is simply inhernet to the deffition of the term free fall, as documented here:

free fall
?noun
1. the hypothetical fall of a body such that the only force acting upon it is that of gravity.
Note they say "hypothetical" as there is always at lease some air in the way preventing a falling object to accelerate at the full acceleration of gravity, and the absence of even the any resistive force of air is only possible in the hypothetical case of a complete vacuum, but acceleration indistinguishable from free fall means that what little mass is in the way is not enough to provide any observable resistive force. For those who don't understand why this is, but would like to, I recommend starting here, and feel free to ask questions on this matter as needed.


2) While WTC7's period of free fall acceleration was prevoisly denyed by the government agaencies which investgated the event, due to the widely avalable video evidence NIST was eventually persuaded to to admit this fact, as documented here:

In Stage 1, the descent was slow and the acceleration was less than that of gravity. This stage corresponds to the initial buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. By 1.75 s, the north face had descended approximately 2.2 m (7 ft).

In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, as the buckled columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north face. This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0 m (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s.
...
From these facts, NIST suggests distinct stages where an initial buckling of columns on one face of the building allowed the point on the they measured roofline to drop approximately 7 feet, which then allowed for 105 feet of free fall to happen next. Note that while NIST only refers to the one point on the roofline, any video of the event will show that after the initial sagging of the roofline towards the middle, the entire roof falls symmetrically though the period of free fall and beyond, until notably asymmetrical resistive force well further down causes it to tilt. You can observe the fall of WTC7 from best two angles I've seen, compared to what little NIST released of their simulations, in this video.

Any other video of the event in existence will show the same period of free fall, and please don't hesitate to dig up more to see for yourself, and post whatever videos of the event you like. Regardless, such video evidence demonstrates that for the period of free fall, not only were the north face columns not providing any notable support, neither were those of any other face, or all of the mass that made up the floors and everything else in the building.

How exactly that complete removal of structural resistance was accomplished would require a proper investigation, as the ones we've had so far have only obscured the fact that impact damage and office fires simply can't explain anything of the sort. To view clearly visible examples of a near instantaneous removal of multiple stories of structural support for comparison sake, see the hydraulically initiated demolitions in this video. As for examples of where free fall acceleration can be observed without removal some distance of structural support by an outside force; you simply won't find even a one, as it is physically impossible.

So, we are all left with a choice here; have faith in the offical story of the fall of WTC7, or accept the fact that the offical story stands in contradction to demonstatable physical reality. Which do you choose?

 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
Please stop the frivilous, meritless 9/11 truther threads.
Please either present your reasoning for taking issue with what I've brought up here, or quit pretending like you have some.
 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
From your PFI thread

Originally posted by: Pulsar
Dude, seriously? That's your single fact?

Very clearly, you are NOT an engineer.

On August 21, 2008, NIST released its draft report on the causes of the collapse of 7 World Trade Center, beginning a period for public comments.[32] In its investigation, NIST utilized ANSYS to model events leading up to collapse initiation and LS-DYNA models to simulate the global response to the initiating events.[44] NIST determined that diesel fuel did not play an important role, nor did the structural damage from the collapse of the twin towers. But the lack of water to fight the fire was an important factor. The fires burned out of control during the afternoon, including on floor 13, where a critical interior column buckled. With the buckling of that column, adjacent columns also failed along with the floor structure above. This triggered a vertical progression of floor failures to the roof. The collapse then progressed east-to-west across the structure, and ultimately the entire structure collapsed. The fires, fueled by office contents, along with the lack of water, were the key reasons for the collapse.[45]

Structural members are only strong in a certain direction. For instance, if you take a drinking straw (column), it's actually quite strong if you try to collapse it vertically but keep it in column. You can easily rest your hand on it and it will hold your hand up. However, the second it goes out of column, the plastic folds, and it becomes literally ORDERS of MAGNITUDES (x100 or x1000) easier to collapse it.

Structural members in buildings are NO different. Once they buckle, they have absolutely no strength. When you start talking about the weight of 30 stories of material above that, the amount they can slow that fall is statistically completely insignificant - or to put it another way, totally immeasurable because their effect is so minimal once they've lost structural cohesiveness.

You clearly don't even understand the most basic tenants of engineering. Rigidity, structural support, bending momemnts, etc. Your "single" fact is one of the single biggest FAILS of the entire WTC conspiracy.

You're a nutjob. Go away.

-Signed, an engineer with 25 years of experience.

Please explain how your video is able to disprove the NIST report identified above.
What you are claiming is external interference, NIST covers in detail using engineering and physics without any hocus pocus.

Please demonstrate the NIST report is false in order to allow this thread to continue

Senior Anandtech Moderator
Common Courtesy

I had adressed that in the OP:

Originally posted by: kylebisme
2) While WTC7's period of free fall acceleration was previously denied by the government agencies which investigated the event, due to the widely available video evidence NIST was eventually persuaded to to admit this fact, as documented here:

In Stage 1, the descent was slow and the acceleration was less than that of gravity. This stage corresponds to the initial buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. By 1.75 s, the north face had descended approximately 2.2 m (7 ft).

In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, as the buckled columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north face. This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0 m (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s.
...
From these facts, NIST suggests distinct stages where an initial buckling of columns on one face of the building allowed the point on the they measured roofline to drop approximately 7 feet, which then allowed for 105 feet of free fall to happen next. Note that while NIST only refers to the one point on the roofline, any video of the event will show that after the initial sagging of the roofline towards the middle, the entire roof falls symmetrically though the period of free fall and beyond, until notably asymmetrical resistive force well further down causes it to tilt. You can observe the fall of WTC7 from best two angles I've seen, compared to what little NIST released of their simulations, in this video.

Any other video of the event in existence will show the same period of free fall, and please don't hesitate to dig up more to see for yourself, and post whatever videos of the event you like. Regardless, such video evidence demonstrates that for the period of free fall, not only were the north face columns not providing any notable support, neither were those of any other face, or all of the mass that made up the floors and everything else in the building.
 

BeauJangles

Lifer
Aug 26, 2001
13,941
1
0
Originally posted by: kylebisme
Originally posted by: BeauJangles
Hey friend,

Okay, here are some easy questions for you.
They are all easy questions, but ones I already typed out answers to last time you asked them, and lost that reply as the thread was locked while I wrote it. With respect to that, I'll just point out one of the most easily exposed fallacies in your arguments:

Originally posted by: BeauJangles
Thermite doesn't explode...
Thermite compounds can be made to either incinerate or explode, as explained here:

Different categories of thermite materials are also available. The two most common types of these explosives and energetic materials are made with either hematite or magnetite.
Granted, anyone with a decent grasp of chemistry would not need this fact explained to them. Your other questions all have reasonable answers too, and you can find them yourself if you care to put the effort into doing so. As for here, I'd prefer to stick to the physics of WTC7 coming down, as that is the topic of this thread. That said, if you care to make a separate thread with your questions, I will be happy to go though them all again.

Right. Well, I was camping last weekend and I found Jimmy Hoffa's body, but I forgot where it was...

Your bolded point: we ARE talking about the #7. This is what you don't understand -- there is a mountain of evidence that points to the fact that nothing more than airplanes + terrorists brought down 3 buildings in New York, damaged the Pentagon, and crashed into a field in PA. What you are doing is plugging your ears and yelling "blah blah blah" as loud as possible to this mountain of evidence and then picking through the pieces and finding the weakest parts of the story.

I agree there are questions about what exactly happened in #7, but when we contextualize the entire story, there's no way that explosives were responsible for anything we saw. There is no evidence of explosives, either in the rubble or seen by a single solitary human being. Like I tried to explain to you before, when buildings are wired for demolition they are chocked FULL of stuff. Explosives are strapped to load-bearing beams. There are detonation cords everywhere that all run to a central system that triggers each explosion carefully and systematically to cause the building to fall in on itself. The wiring and planning would have taken months and REQUIRED that huge parts of the exterior structure of WTC 1 & 2, and huge parts of the interior structure of 7 to be nearly gutted. I fail to remember a single person who said, "yeah, there were these construction guys gutting my office and strapping things to beams."

Secondly, I've never heard of thermite exploding, and maybe someone with an actual degree in chemistry can chime in. I've only ever seen it used for welding or cutting and I thought it was explicitly used for those purposes because it doesn't actually explode but produces intense heat. Again, I could be wrong, but that doesn't take away from the fact that there's no reason for these guys to use thermite rather than real explosives to take down ANY of the WTC towers.

Your other questions all have reasonable answers too, and you can find them yourself if you care to put the effort into doing so.

Stop passing the buck just because you can't actually answer any of these questions. It's not my job to disprove your "theory" about what happened. As someone challenging the accepted view, you should realize that the burden of proof lies on you.

So start proving instead of pussy-footing around.

 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,957
6,796
126
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Money
its quite funny how sceptics have the largest share of the vote in the poll, yet 90% of posts are from OMG TIN FOIL HATS 4 U HAHA

i am fully convinced all these people decrying `truthers` simply bash and reiterate the lies to convince themselves that 9/11 really was done by angry afghanis.

after all, i too wish that 9/11 was not a false flag attack, but unfortunately, all the evidence points to that being the case

I think most people realize 9-11 was carried out by a bunch of angry Saudi's. They saw the biggest events unfold with their own eyes on live TV. Then watched as the leader of the group who organized it dicsussed it on video.

Now I am sure this is where somebody tells us Bin Laden is a CIA plant from the 80s and Bush personally detonated the explosives that really took down the towers after he remote controlled the planes and cruise missile that hit the pentagon all while reading a childs book in Florida to pre school kids. The man is a damned mastermind obviously!

And I'm sure that if some nut says the sky is blue you will say it's green, right. Your post says nothing.

That is backwards. I am the one saying the sky is blue, the nut\truther comes up with some conspiracy where the sky is green.

You are saying that if some people say one thing others will say another, each side fully convinced they are arguing the sky is the color they think it is. It tells us nothing as to who is correct.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,957
6,796
126
Originally posted by: Born2bwire
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
Posts like this one always force me to stop and look around to try and spot the lunatics near me. I know you're always out there somewhere, but I really wish you'd carry signs that say "I'm batshit fucking crazy, please stand back."

LOL... :laugh:

I wish I remember the comic's name that came up with this joke, but...

What's the difference between my ex and Charles Manson? Charles Manson has the courtesy to look as batshit-crazy as he is when you first meet him.

Would that your joke told us something about the theme. Nice joke though.
 

manowar821

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2007
6,063
0
0
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: amdhunter
Originally posted by: kylebisme
What brought down WTC7?

Crazy ass Muslims.

They aren't Muslims, they are fanatical religious deviates who lie about the meaning of their religion.

So... They're religious people. They're all deviants who deviate from the deviations of deviations in original religious stories/teachings, and in the end, the original stories are plagiarisms of astrological bullshit from pre-egypt. Don't make it sound like religious fanatics are any different, especially when a chunk of our country thinks "god is on our side" when it comes to the middle east.

So now we have one more fairytale religion to follow - The religion of 9/11, the day that physics suspended it's stranglehold on our lives and allowed us to begin our holy-war on those who are not yet assimilated by the oligarchy.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: kylebisme
Originally posted by: jonks
CTs would love to break down this list into "things that can't be explained therefore there's a conspiracy" but either the planes were hijacked to coverup internal explosives or they weren't. If they were, it's a psycho nuts plan because of everything that could go wrong and makes zero sense.
This thread isn't about a building which was hit with a plane. If you would like to discuss those that were, please create a new thread.
No, I'm afraid not. It's all part of the same event. I know you'd love to just focus on one particular thing, point out ambiguities or discrepancies or merely things we don't know for sure about a building collapsing and flat out ignore the context that shows how irrelevant it is. Your "questions" about WT7 are completely irrelevant since you can't answer the "why". If planes took down the TT, why didn't they use one on WT7? If you're going to blow up buildings anyway, why use planes on only some of them? Why launch a missle at the pentagon? Why crash a plane in a field and hide the bodies of the hundreds on board while also calling the families of the victims pretending to be on the plane and getting the voices right? When you look at all that transpired that morning (the planes that hit the TT, the purported "missile" fired at the pentagon, the plane that crashed in the middle of nowhere) then claiming that because there are some unanswered questions about the nitty gritty details of the collapse at WT7 throws everything else we know into question, well, that's cuckoo talk.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,059
73
91
Originally posted by: kylebisme

Topic Title: What brought down WTC7

I have it on good authority that YOU did it all by yourself with your little toy chemistry set and a pea shooter. Al Qaeda is pissed that you sullied their name. They plan to retalliate by blowing up your house using a fake pizza delivery car and stuffing the crust with explosive turds.

Be afraid. Be VER-R-R-R-RY AFRAID! :laugh:
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: WildHorse
Well the owner said this.

Silverstein: Things just keep getting worse and worse, you're right there. Listen, fellas, about that building complex ...

Cheney: Yes?

Silverstein: Do you think you could make sure that the WTC-7 building goes down, too? See, the thing is, I just signed a new insurance deal with Industrial Risk Insurers, this could all work out very nicely for me ...

Cheney: Larry, it's such an amazing coincidence, we were just talking about that. As it happens, we need to destroy the building to get rid of the evidence anyway. So say no more about that, we'll take care of it.

Wolfowitz: Well, say no more until it happens. Then you might just want to casually mention near a PBS camera that you're planning on "pulling" the building.

Silverstein: What does "pulling" mean?

Cheney: Well, it's not a demolition term, but some will say it is. We're thinking you might just want to make a little admission in that direction.

Silverstein: Before my insurance investigation is concluded? At exactly the time when such an admission would cost me my entire settlement? Consider it done!

All: Thanks, Larry.

Silverstein: You bet, fellas! See you on the links. Mazel tov! Oh, hey, Paul--

Wolfowitz: Yes?

Silverstein: Pull my finger, Paul! Pull it!

Wolfowitz: You bet I'll "pull it," you mensch!

/Matt Taibbi *smooch*
 
Status
Not open for further replies.