Trillion Dollar Conspiracy... 9/11 Mounting Evidence...

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

No I don't. You are the lost one, who doesn't even think about what is being typed.

You say firefighters being pulled is what Silverstein meant. Yet your Popular Mechanics article disputes that claim, saying none were in the building prior to collapse.

So which is mistaken? Silverstein's statement meaning firefighters (which is ridiculous) or your Popular Mechanics piece)?

originally posted by: hellobruce

That is just silly, so no one noticed the tonnes of explosives being installed, the km of wiring needed, the holes punched in the walls....

How do you know that nobody noticed? If this is what is keeping you from entertaining the idea of explosives being used, then get over it. It is very possible especially if the lease holder of the complex is involved.

Also what would have happened if 7 WTC was not severely damaged by the collapse of 1 WTC?

It wasn't, and they still did it. Barely mentioning it in the news was effective enough that most of the world did not know and a lot still don't know that WTC7 came down. I asked a new kid on site yesterday and he was suddenly a dear caught in the headlights. A brief conversation and BOOM! we have another truther on our side. Too easy!

Winning!

a reply to: Jchristopher5. No, I refer to FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro, the on scene commander who says that HE was the one that pulled his teams from the area. You worry too much about an egomaniac developer trying to project that he had some sort of say in what happened that day.

Oh, and I challenge you to find a single time that I have relied on Popular Mechanics. It has never been "my" article.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: MALBOSIA we already know you have a problem accepting reality. No need to keep confirming it.

And you still believe that the world is run by care bears and politicians and MSM tell the truth. They are the only ones that concluded the OS years before any official report.

How is it in la-la land?

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

Comment removed. My apology.

originally posted by: Jchristopher5
a reply to: cardinalfan0596

You are either hopeless or an asset, not sure which.

We are not allowed to call them shills or suggest they are paid posters. It is against the T&C. I know, right!?

a reply to: MALBOSIA and yet another falsehood. That no one knew about WTC 7. It, was all over the coverage that afternoon, FDNY had cleared a zone around it, they expected it to collapse at some point. The media, all had cameras trained on it, its collapse, was live. That people forgot about it over the years just proves that most people have the memory of a goldfish.

a reply to: MALBOSIA You can suggest whatever you want. It will never change the fact that your beliefs are in error.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: MALBOSIA and yet another falsehood. That no one knew about WTC 7. It, was all over the coverage that afternoon, FDNY had cleared a zone around it, they expected it to collapse at some point. The media, all had cameras trained on it, its collapse, was live. That people forgot about it over the years just proves that most people have the memory of a goldfish.

It happened in the afternoon when everyone was at work so live coverage was not much help. If the MSM had replayed the collapse a million times every day for 3 months like they did WTC 1 and 2 people would remember. I guess when the MSM WANT people to remember, they make sure people do and when the MSM don't want them to remember then they don't make them.

You insult peoples memory to deflect any responsibility of the MSM.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: MALBOSIA You can suggest whatever you want. It will never change the fact that your beliefs are in error.

Cause you, the MSM, politicians and 2 hacked reports with hair-string budgets say so?

a reply to: MALBOSIA It happened at 5:20pm Eastern time plenty of people saw it, in person and live on TV. And yes, it WAS repeated numerous times that night and in the days that followed. So, the comment about peoples goldfish memory stands.

a reply to: MALBOSIA Nope, it is me and the facts that say it.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: MALBOSIA Nope, it is me and the facts that say it.

Sometimes you say its facts, sometimes you say it is the most likely THEORY. Basically you just flip flop around to what whatever suits you. Wait! Is this John Kerry?

a reply to: MALBOSIA Wow. Talk about easily confused.... Okay, facts....
1. WTC 7, was heavily damaged when WTC1 collapsed...we know this from the numerous statements from the FDNY and from the limited photos/video we have.
2. We know that FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro ordered his men to leave WTC7, due to his fear the building was going to collapse, in his words, he "pulled the Engine Company out".
3. We know that Chief Nigro, ordered a collapse zone created around 7 and that a surveyor's transit was set up to measure 7's movement.
4. We know that the transit, showed the building was slowly shifting.
5. We know that approximately 5:20 Eastern time, WTC 7 finally collapsed.
6. We know that from the videos of the event, there was none of the string of firecrackers on steroids noises that you hear during an implosion when 7 collapsed.
7. We know that 7 did not fall into its own footprint from the way the north facade (a large section) draped itself across the pile on onto the debris in the WTC Plaza from the collapse of 1 and 2. We also know that a large section of 7, damaged the building at 30 West Broadway so badly that IT was torn down.

Now, theory, based on the penthouse dropping in advance of the rest of the building, that suggests a MASSIVE internal failure, that likely led to the brief, near free fall speed part of the main collapse which slowed after that space filled and the building...split....around that with a large section of it falling South across the WTC Plaza and a smaller section falling North to damage 30 W. Broad.

Steel framed buildings just do not fall like this. The most blatant is Building 7.

People who actually examine the evidence and then believe the "official story" really puzzle me. I have studied the evidence and I felt like most who actually do so would know the official story was BS. But, apparently not.

originally posted by: Jchristopher5
Steel framed buildings just do not fall like this.

.

According to whom? What experience do you have in buildings collapsing after massive damage?

I have studied the evidence

Have you? So you went to the WTC site and examined the debris, you went to Fresh Kills and examined the debris.... or did you just read and believe a silly truther conspiracy site?

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: Jchristopher5
Steel framed buildings just do not fall like this.

.

According to whom? What experience do you have in buildings collapsing after massive damage?

I have studied the evidence

Have you? So you went to the WTC site and examined the debris, you went to Fresh Kills and examined the debris.... or did you just read and believe a silly truther conspiracy site?

Bruce, I have studied the evidence and listed and read to the same lame stream media as you have for thirteen years. The question is have you read Jim Maars book, or David Ray Griffin in the subject?

It is unless to debate with you. You have made up your mind, it's like talking to a wall. We have discussed, in this thread, the liberty tower. It burned to its core and was demolished much later. But, it didn't crumble.

I am done trying to discuss this with you and cardinal fan.

originally posted by: Jchristopher5

You say firefighters being pulled is what Silverstein meant. Yet your Popular Mechanics article disputes that claim, saying none were in the building prior to collapse.

That's right. No one was in the building at the time of collapse. This is because, HOURS EARLIER, when Silverstein talked to the fire chief, he agreed that pulling the guys out of harms way was the smart thing to do.

So which is mistaken? Silverstein's statement meaning firefighters (which is ridiculous) or your Popular Mechanics piece)?

Of course there's a third option, one which you have not considered.

You are misrepresenting the timeline, building a strawman to argue against, and setting up a false choice fallacy.

The third choice is that Larry and the FDNY talked hours before the collapse. The FDNY made a courtesy call to a very influential real estate developer in NYC and called Larry to inform him that they were abandoning 7 to the fires. He agreed with him.

Any FDNY captain would tell Larry to go f himself if Larry tried to tell him what to do. That much is certain.

originally posted by: Jchristopher5
Bruce, I have studied the evidence

So you did go to the WTC site and Fresh Kills....?

The question is have you read Jim Maars book, or David Ray Griffin in the subject?

No, I have not read books by well known conspiracy theorists, who see everything as a conspiracy.

It is unless to debate with you. You have made up your mind, it's like talking to a wall.

You are the one who has made their mind up, ignoring the evidence.... preferring to run with silly theories like $2.3 trillion was missing (when only truthers made the claim money was missing), you also totally ignore the physical evidence of a 757 found at the Pentagon, you also ignore the DNA from all the passengers found at the Pentagon. You claim the WTC buildings fell into their own footprint, totally ignoring all the damage they did to other buildings at the WTC. So as we can see your mind is made up by ignoring all the evidence.

LMAO. Sorry I can't believe anyone would say WTC-7 collapsed due to damage caused by the Demo of WTC-1 and it's collapse.

It's way too obvious and in your face. From the numerous videos and the witness testimonies!

Repeaters seem to be doing their best to deny the truth. They will NOT repeat anything other than the Official Story.

The proof of the obvious Demolition is there. Why do repeaters deny it?