Actor/Comedian Hal Sparks Speaks Out In Support of 9/11 Truth

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
The building in China didn't have a passenger jet hit it.

4) WTC 7 fell for the same reason WTC 6 was crushed- critical damage from the immense amounts of falling debris from the collapsing north tower.

Neither did WTC7 Dave.

If you are going to play for the OS side Dave , you have to follow the rules.

That crzy misleading conspiracy site called NIST, says the collapsing towers had NO effect on the collapse of WTC7.

It was fires alone,

I KNOW DAVE... WE DONT BELIEVE IT EITHER

Welcome to the TRUTH MOVEMENT Dave.

Originally posted by Sean48

If you are going to play for the OS side Dave , you have to follow the rules.

That crzy misleading conspiracy site called NIST, says the collapsing towers had NO effect on the collapse of WTC7.

I was giving a ten second synopsis. If you want the full NIST analysis, then falling wreckage from WTC 1 hit WTC 7, ignited uncontrolled fires, and destroyed the water supply for the fire extinguisher system. The fires caused a progression of failure of structural integrity from uneven thermal expansion until the surviving supports could no longer hold the weight of the building.

Technically, it wasn't the fires alone. It was from a chain of events that grew worse and worse, starting from the damage from falling wreckage and ending with critical structural overload. It fell the same way as a controlled demolition becuase structural failure occurred in the same location that CDs are usually applied- near the bottom.

Anything else you'd like to know? NIST doesn't need to rely on innuendo, taking quotes out of context, and five degrees of separation, "Kevin Bacon" association games to get its point across like the conspiracy theorists have to, so if I have an answer, I'll post it.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Anything else you'd like to know? NIST doesn't need to rely on innuendo, taking quotes out of context, and five degrees of separation, "Kevin Bacon" association games to get its point across like the conspiracy theorists have to, so if I have an answer, I'll post it.

I think this game is more like "Hundred Degrees of NIST's Official Findings".

I'm not sure, but I think if you can get to the truth in 100 steps from their official findings, you win a Carnival cruise. Don't quote me on that though.

Peace

[edit on 8-2-2010 by Dr Love]

Originally posted by Dr Love
I think this game is more like "Hundred Degrees of NIST's Official Findings".

On the contrary, all of the reports I've read from FEMA to NIST to Thomas Eagar's, all acknowledge the buildings collapsed from the same thing- fires were causing irregular thermal expansion on critical supports until they could no longer support the weight of the building. The debate is over the exact part of the building that failed first, and the reason for the debate is obvious- reconstructing the physical progression of the collapse is like reassembling a giant jigsaw puzzle with most of the pieces missing.

Another thing they all agree on: there was a direct relation between the fires, the damage they were causing, and the collapse, becuase the initial structural failure all began in the locations where the fires were burning- the points of impact of the planes in WTC 1 and 2, and floors 5-9 of WTC 7. Why the conspiracy theorists insist on ignoring this blatant observation is beyond me.

The question therefore is, does this Hal Sparks guy actually address any of these points, or does he simply parrot the mindless "it looked like a controlled demolition" paranoia those damned fool conspiracy web sites are pushing out? The answer to that will be the answer to whether we should take his word any more seriously than any of the other no-name conspiracy people parroting the same nonsense. To me, this thread being called, "Hal Sparks speaks out in support of Loose Change" would have been a more apt description.