One million New Yorkers to see Building 7 fall (AE911truth)

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
At the end of the day, the fact still remains: WTC 7 stood for over 30 years without a problem, and it only fell after the wreckage from WTC 1 had hit it If you attempt to deny any of this then you will be lying, so it's unrealistic to dismiss the obvious corelation.

LOL what rubbish, you don't have ANY evidence that a gash on one side of a building can cause that building to globally collapse into it's footprint.

Please explain how outer walls can end up on top of the inner floors.



No amount of damage from WTC 1, or bombs, or flying fish, could cause the outer walls to end up on top of the debris pile. It is physically impossible for this to happen from a natural collapse. Not to mention symmetrical collapse is impossible from asymmetrical damage.

The ONLY way that is possible is from controlled demolition. The 'penthouse kink' is further evidence of this. In a controlled 'implosion' the inner columns are dropped slightly ahead of the outer ones. This leaves a space for the outer walls to fall into. Otherwise the outer walls would be forced to fall outwards (path of least resistance), and would end up outside of the debris pile and on the bottom.

How Building Implosions Work

Edit; be sure to press the red button on the 'How Building Implosions Work gif.

So the only obvious thing is you are making false claims, and btw there are two r's in correlation.

[edit on 8/23/2010 by ANOK]

reply to post by ANOK


Aww come on, ANOK. Don't bait him with the impacting debris bull crap.

I already informed "Dave" that everyone else, including NIST's WTC7 report, is already in agreement that the debris did not play a significant role in that collapse at all.


I just don't want anyone to give him a good opportunity to go on one of his epic rants, while I'm still waiting for a response from him:

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
If you refute the NIST report's explanation, that's fine, but whatever did cause the collapse, it was necessarily due to a problem caused by WTC 1 falling on it.

How do you figure that?

2nd line goes here.

Well, how do you figure it, "Dave"?

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
reply to post by ANOK

 

Aww come on, ANOK. Don't bait him with the impacting debris bull crap.

Sorry mate, I just can't help myself.

So Dave how do you figure that? Huh? Eh?

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
I already informed "Dave" that everyone else, including NIST's WTC7 report, is already in agreement that the debris did not play a significant role in that collapse at all.

What caused the fires?

Thank you!

Originally posted by Six Sigma
What caused the fires?

What do the fires have to do with anything?

No skyscraper has ever collapsed from fire, ever, out of hundreds of such fires, many of which burned for much longer and much more extensively than WTC7's.

And no problem! You're quite welcome.

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain

Originally posted by Six Sigma
What caused the fires?

What do the fires have to do with anything?

No skyscraper has ever collapsed from fire, ever, out of hundreds of such fires, many of which burned for much longer and much more extensively than WTC7's.

And no problem! You're quite welcome.

Truther Logic:

The Wright Brothers should have never got off the ground

We never should have got to the moon

William Kemmler should be alive!

Spain should not have won the world cup.

Originally posted by Six Sigma
Truther Logic:

The Wright Brothers should have never got off the ground

We never should have got to the moon

And the government could never have been responsible for something as massive as 9/11?

Oh... wait....


If all you want to do is trade comebacks, I'll be here for you all night.

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain

Originally posted by Six Sigma
What caused the fires?

What do the fires have to do with anything?

No skyscraper has ever collapsed from fire, ever, out of hundreds of such fires, many of which burned for much longer and much more extensively than WTC7's.

And no problem! You're quite welcome.

The steel section of Windsor Tower would disagree with you.

Guys, quit picking on Dave, you will hurt his feelings.

He will percieve you as the Wicked Witch of the West.

reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain

No skyscraper has ever collapsed from fire, ever, out of hundreds of such fires, many of which burned for much longer and much more extensively than WTC7's.

I love this stuff. All those architects and engineers and designers must be really angry what with them all out of business now because apparently you don't need to design anything anymore, all you need do is order up one "skyscraper" as they are all designed exactly the same and all react exactly the same regardless of the particular stresses and forces acting upon them.

And really - "hundreds" of skyscraper fires? I live in the middle of two large American metropolitan areas and I am hard pressed to remember more than a handful (maybe 4) in my 50+ years including those on Septmember 11, 2001.

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
What do the fires have to do with anything?

No skyscraper has ever collapsed from fire, ever, out of hundreds of such fires, many of which burned for much longer and much more extensively than WTC7's.

I find this answer to be intellectually lazy, especially after all the posts your fellow truthers have been posting here with such self-assured fervor. If your conviction is that simply becuase no other skyscraper ever fell from fire that NO skyscraper can ever fall from fire, then it necessarily means that these "controlled demolitions" stories are likewise ludicrous becuase no occupied building has ever been successfully demolished by secret controlled demolitions without the occupants noticing anything. I defy you to provide even ONE example thereof.

Therefore, the only thing you have shown is that neither the fires OR controlled demolitions could have been responsible for the destruction of WTC 7, and it was the result of some as-yet undiscovered cause. I can live with that. Can you?

reply to post by GoodOlDave


I find this answer to be intellectually disingenuous, not straightforward or candid; it exudes a false appearance of frankness; "philistine" at its best Dave.

In fact I am quite disappointed especially from a man sends subliminal messages via his name on ATS GoodOldDave.

The neat thing about showing the WTC7 implode is it helps people understand that the government and nanny state are not GOD

Originally posted by ANOK
LOL what rubbish, you don't have ANY evidence that a gash on one side of a building can cause that building to globally collapse into it's footprint.

You're right, I don't...namely because I never said it was the gash that caused the collapse. I SAID the impact caused the chain reaction of events that led to the collapse. If you're going to quote me then quote me correctly, otherwise you're only wallowing in strawman misrepresentation.

As for the evidence that the damage from falling wreckage from WTC 1 leading to the collapse of WTC 7, the NIST report documented the most likely scenario on how fires created enough loss of structural integrity that caused a collapse, and it's self evident that falling wreckage from WTC 1 started the fires to begin with. I certainly hope you're NOT saying that building A falling on building B wouldn't cause fires to start, because you're only making yourself look like a laughing stock. The fact remains that the building stood perfectly solid for decades until WTC 1 fell on it and started all these fires, so the only one who refuses to see that there's a correlation is you.

The ONLY way that is possible is from controlled demolition. The 'penthouse kink' is further evidence of this. In a controlled 'implosion' the inner columns are dropped slightly ahead of the outer ones. This leaves a space for the outer walls to fall into. Otherwise the outer walls would be forced to fall outwards (path of least resistance), and would end up outside of the debris pile and on the bottom.

...but as your friend virginisrisesagain has shown, if an event has never happened in the past, it suggests that it most likely can't ever happen. Thus, unless you can show how anyone previous has ever successfully planted concealed controlled demolitions in an occupied building without the occupants noticing, that idea is necessarily false too. Thank you for pointing this out to me, virginia.

At the end of the day, my point still stands- for you to get others on board with these secret "controlled demolitions in WTC 7" conspiracies, you're necessarily going to have to heavily edit the information these posters and flyers will contain and leave out lots of information. I absolutely guarantee they're NOT going to mention that wreckage from WTC 1 fell onto WTC 7 becuase most people recognize that building A falling on building B is a pretty weird event and that all bets are off on what should or should not have happened afterwards.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


you aint kidding ive taken a new stance on these truthers bunch of fn idiots with zero common sense hey you freaks i was standing right there and your gonaa tell me what happened good luck with that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[edit on 24-8-2010 by triplescorpio]

Originally posted by slugger9787

I find this answer to be intellectually disingenuous, not straightforward or candid; it exudes a false appearance of frankness; "philistine" at its best Dave.

??? Huh? How exactly does my stance on these conspiracy stories of yours even remotely mean that I despise or underappreciate art and beauty? Did you even know what the word means?

In fact I am quite disappointed especially from a man sends subliminal messages via his name on ATS GoodOldDave.

Ya gotta be one hard core paranoid person to be seeing secret conspiracies to take over the world in my ATS handle, dude...but that's neither here nor there. The fact is, you conspiracy people don't have even a microbe of any actual tangible evidence showing conspiracy so to keep these conspiracy stories alive you have to resort to manufacturing your own, in this case, the blatant double standards you need to set up for yourselves.

Apparently, it's impossible for a skyscraper to fall from fire becuase no other building has ever fell from fires, and yet a plot to sneak in and destroy an occupied building without anyone noticing or leaving any evidence behind is plausible despite it never happening before in all of recorded human history. Also, I've mentioned this several times and not a single person has been able to deny it- the people putting these NYC fliers out under the guise of "teaching people about WTC 7" are NOT going to mention that wreckage from WTC 1 fell on WTC 7 becuase they want to make the collapse sound as mysterious and spooky as possible. In short, they're being con artists.

All I'M doing is pointing out your disingenuous methods so don't blame me if you're painting yourselves into a corner with these stunts of yours.

Originally posted by triplescorpio
you aint kidding ive taken a new stance on these truthers bunch of fn idiots with zero common sense hey you freaks i was standing right there and your gonaa tell me what happened good luck with that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[edit on 24-8-2010 by triplescorpio]

Good GOD you must have one hell of a story to tell. Were you there to see the second impact?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by slugger9787

I find this answer to be intellectually disingenuous, not straightforward or candid; it exudes a false appearance of frankness; "philistine" at its best Dave.

??? Huh? How exactly does my stance on these conspiracy stories of yours even remotely mean that I despise or underappreciate art and beauty? Did you even know what the word means?

I find this answer to be intellectually disingenuous, not straightforward or candid; it exudes a false appearance of frankness; "philistine" at its best Dave.

Yes I know what the word means.
Again Dave, you do a lot of veiled name calling, aspertion casting, juvenile baiting and other tactics to stir up and evoke emotional responses in other posters.

The group that is going to show the colapse of WTC7 to New York residents has genuine integrity in mind.

Originally posted by slugger9787
Yes I know what the word means.
Again Dave, you do a lot of veiled name calling, aspertion casting, juvenile baiting and other tactics to stir up and evoke emotional responses in other posters.

On the contrary, I'm not here to insult anyone or make people feel bad. My thorough disgust is reserved for the con artists behind those damned fool conspiracy web sites (I.E. Dylan Avery) becuase it's their deliberate disinformation campaign that's causing all this needless bickering over this stupid conspiracy horse [censored] to begin with. I'm simply here to point out the disinformation these snake oil peddlers are pushign out. I invite you to prove me wrong when I say the people who are behind this NYC flyer campaign are almost certainly going to edit and manipulate the information they'll be handing out. Their goal isn't to "educate NYers about WTC 7". Their goal is to get others to believe something suspicious is going on.

As for name calling, someone posting that my ATS name is a scheme to send out subliminal messages to advance some secret conspiracy is still being pretty hard core paranoid, dude, regardless of whatever pretty sounding word it is you want me to use.

Originally posted by hooper
And really - "hundreds" of skyscraper fires? I live in the middle of two large American metropolitan areas and I am hard pressed to remember more than a handful (maybe 4) in my 50+ years including those on Septmember 11, 2001.

There were more than 4 major fires before 9/11 in the WTC complex alone. There was a major fire in WTC7 in 1988. There were multiple major fires in the WTC Towers, the first I remember being in '75 or '76 and the last being around '96. This information is even buried somewhere in the NIST report. Hell even the Banker's Trust building that was damaged on 9/11, and was since being deconstructed, suffered a major fire a few years ago. There's 4 off the top of my head and not including the Caracas Tower, First Meridian Plaza, First Interstate Bank, Windsor Tower (and the only steel that failed in it was the thin exterior after a full day of insane burning -- does NOTHING to validate the idea that much less intense fires could fail much thicker steel in much less time), and who knows what else that I've never heard of. It was Dr. Niels Harrit on Coast to Coast that was talking about the hundreds of cases of skyscraper fires, and frankly there is nothing you can say that would redeem your own credibility or diminish his in comparison to yourself. You're "hooper" on the ATS forums. Don't flatter yourself. Living between cities isn't a qualification. It doesn't mean you're special. Ever seen "Jaywalking"? I've seen your kind of "reasoning" here plenty enough anyway.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


"Dave" you totally dodged my post to you and responded to something I said to someone else instead.

Be a man and follow up on your own posts and responses.

Read:

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
If you refute the NIST report's explanation, that's fine, but whatever did cause the collapse, it was necessarily due to a problem caused by WTC 1 falling on it.

How do you figure that?

How do you figure it, "Dave"?


Btw, you're the one pushing snake oil on a "damned fool conspiracy web site." What makes you have such an interest in socializing every day with a bunch of "damned fools" anyway?

Things that make you go "HMMMM."

[edit on 24-8-2010 by VirginiaRisesYetAgain]