"The towers couldn't have fallen that way..."

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by JPhish

 

So if you are ignoring experts, what exactly are you basing your opinion on?

Who said i was ignoring experts???

I will consider all information available to me, but use logic to deduce whether it is valid or not.

For example, i'm ignostic, but i've read the american/english king james bible and deduced that it is not the truth.

I've heard these "experts" claims about 9/11 and deduced that they are not the truth.

And who said that what i have stated is an opinion???

As far i know, everything i have stated are facts. You are free to challenge them WITH LOGIC if you wish.

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by malachi777

 

Don't show these goons the photos. They can find then by searching Google images. I just found some myself. The corner if the building is severely damaged to the point where the whole side is tilting. Good night!

If you had the proof you would have posted it, you see what you want to see.
The fact is there is no clear or close up photo of this alleged damage on WTC 7.
Funny how there is a close up photo on the Bank building across the street from WTC 1&2 that had a 5 or 6 story gash in it, yet it never fell.

*Wait a minute. Why do we have to keep showing you proof when, never in the ten years since this happened, nor throughout this whole thread, have any of you paranoid conspiracy fanatics shown us one photo, one video or proven one fact to us?

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
..
Here is a picture of the damage to WTC 7

If this damage was as severe as you claim it was. The building would not have fallen in the manner it did. It would have collapsed at the corner first which would tilt the building before collapse.

The building fell straight down. There was no lean as the building fell. The only thing the quote you provided proves is that there are people involved in the investigation that are actually part of the cover-up.

Cherry-picking much?...

First of all that photo is only showing ONE ANGLE of the damage, which DOES show WTC7 had damage from debris falling on it...

Second of all, if debris was able to open large holes on WTC7 then burning fuel would have spread the fires in many different areas in WTC7.... that plus the flammable materials in WTC7 and the storage of diesel fuel for the backup generators fed the fires which caused the collapse to an already weakened structure.

Originally posted by JPhish
...
The holes were likely made by some type of explosion, not a plane. Even in the videos it is clear the the CGI planes did not create the holes, they only appear AFTER the explosion. Watch the videos yourself if you don't believe me.

The only place that day where they conclusively used a plane for the black op was at the pentagon. Even then, it didn't crash into the pentagon, it flew over it.

Wow, and you call all you CLAIMED facts?...

Really?...

The holes COULD NOT have been made by ANY explosives... Are you now going to claim the explosives had AI (Artificial Intelligence) and were able to SELECT the form the holes would make?... PLEAAAASE reason if just a little bit....

where is the 25% gap in the computer simulation NIST made?
there isnt one, since the fire alone brought the building down according to NIST.
so would you stop with the 25% scoop?





all the simulations are wrong, btw

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Please provide any photo's you can find that show other angles of the damage to WTC 7.

I already asked you to provide a photo in a response to one of your earlier posts.

You seem to be the one cherry picking. At least I provided a photo to back up my statement.

Why don't you do the same?

reply to post by conar


I'm sorry, I just couldn't resist.

As we see the two are different. The real building, the left side flew BACK and to the LEFT. BACK and to the left. As we see in the footage. BACK and to the left. The other building it went forward and to the right.

Obviously there was another shooter.

reply to post by malachi777

*Wait a minute. Why do we have to keep showing you proof when, never in the ten years since this happened, nor throughout this whole thread, have any of you paranoid conspiracy fanatics shown us one photo, one video or proven one fact to us?

Actually I have provided quite a few photos and I also provided a few videos.

This is the kind of denial that just gets ridiculous.

You are the ones making claims that the facts don't support. So the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence of your far fetched claims.

reply to post by tinfoilman


The shooter must have been on the Lunar base. Where they triggered the Manhatten project and open up a wormhole that let the 4th dimensional demons through the stargate.

Originally posted by conar
where is the 25% gap in the computer simulation NIST made?
there isnt one, since the fire alone brought the building down according to NIST.
so would you stop with the 25% scoop?

Oooh, so now you are believing every the NIST report claimed?...

Ironic how you guys cherry-pick everything... sometimes you want to believe NIST and other times you don't...

I believe what I see from the pictures, and videos... WTC7 was hit by the debris of at least one of the towers...

And Shyam Sunder was interviewed by Popular Mechanics where he made those statements about how much the debris scooped out from WTC7.

FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom—approximately 10 stories—about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.


Read more: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories - Debunking the Myths - World Trade Center - Popular Mechanics
...

www.popularmechanics.com...

So would you stop claiming he didn't say this and it is "pseudo-science"?...

reply to post by malachi777

*Wait a minute. Why do we have to keep showing you proof when, never in the ten years since this happened, nor throughout this whole thread, have any of you paranoid conspiracy fanatics shown us one photo, one video or proven one fact to us?

That is completely untrue, and you know that.

I and many ATSers have a history of providing credible evidence when posting most of our 911 Topics.

Originally posted by impressme
Thermite Proven! Jones Science Proves Red Thematic Material not just Red Paint Chips

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by impressme
Steven Jones Tells 9/11 "Debunkers" to Put up or Shut up!

www.abovetopsecret.com...

So, your opinion is completely wrong.

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

 

Please provide any photo's you can find that show other angles of the damage to WTC 7.

I already asked you to provide a photo in a response to one of your earlier posts.

You seem to be the one cherry picking. At least I provided a photo to back up my statement.

Why don't you do the same?

I provided the statement from the lead NIST investigator... Just because there wasn't a photo showing the whole damage doesn't mean there wasn't damage...

Let me make a similar analogy...

Care to show me a photo that clearly shows who shot JFK?

And does the fact that no such photo exists, showing the shooter shooting JFK, does it mean it didn't happen?...

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Oooh, so now you are believing every the NIST report claimed?...

So you are saying NIST is wrong?
We need a new investigation?

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by tinfoilman

 

The shooter must have been on the Lunar base. Where they triggered the Manhatten project and open up a wormhole that let the 4th dimensional demons through the stargate.

That's the sort of claim you people keep making...

And then you try to project your dellusions on us...

Simply A.M.A.Z.I.N.G....

BTW, keep patting each other in the back, you actually believe that proves your point...

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


You are the one who claims I was cherry picking by providing a photo.

Typical that you change the subject and still don't provide any picture of your own.

Originally posted by conar

So you are saying NIST is wrong?
We need a new investigation?

Sure, YOU want to provide the millions of dollars from YOUR pocket?...

That was the statement from the lead investigator of NIST, why they didn't post it in their reports is only open to SPECULATION... Perhaps a portion of the scientists didn't think it was enough damage to be mentioned, and it would have probably stayed standing if there weren't fires, just like the towers COULD have survive the plane impacts, at least for a few more hours, if there weren't fires at the towers, but the fires occurred, and all these factors together, alongside others such as the shockwave form the explosion, the collapsing debris hitting other buildings etc caused the towers to collapse...it wasn't imaginary explosives...

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

 

You are the one who claims I was cherry picking by providing a photo.

Typical that you change the subject and still don't provide any picture of your own.

I didn't claim...it is true... You are claiming that because you only see some damage in that photo that it couldn't have been worse... I am not the one making a claim with no corroborating evidence... What I am saying comes directly from the lead investigator of NIST.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

 

Please provide any photo's you can find that show other angles of the damage to WTC 7.

I already asked you to provide a photo in a response to one of your earlier posts.

You seem to be the one cherry picking. At least I provided a photo to back up my statement.

Why don't you do the same?

I provided the statement from the lead NIST investigator... Just because there wasn't a photo showing the whole damage doens't mean there wasn't damage...

Let me make a similar analogy...

Care to show me a photo that clearly shows who shot JFK?

And does the fact that no such photo exists, showing the shooter shooting JFK, does it mean it didn't happen?...

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Well, in all fairness. We do have video of JFK being shot, so we all pretty much agree that he was shot. What we don't have is a picture of the guy as he was shooting him.

Now if you'll notice, when conspiracy theorists argue about JFK, they argue about who shot him and if it was Oswald or not. And yes, since there is no photo of Oswald shooting the President, many people do in fact claim that it indeed did not happen that way.

And while that's completely irrelevant, It would appear to be a very similar situation.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by conar

So you are saying NIST is wrong?
We need a new investigation?

Sure, YOU want to provide the millions of dollars from YOUR pocket?...

That was the statement from the lead investigator of NIST, why they didn't post it in their reports is only open to SPECULATION... Perhaps a portion of the scientists didn't think it was enough damage to be mentioned, and it would have probably stayed standing if there weren't fires, just like the towers COULD have survive the plane impacts if there weren't fires at the towers, but the fires occurred, and all these factors together, alongside others such as the shockwave form the explosion, the collapsing debris hitting other buildings etc caused the towers to collapse...it wasn't imaginary explosives...

edit on 28-9-2011 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)

So you agree NIST was wrong, and the truth is still out there. Cool, then we are on the same page.
We need to look for explosives and explosive theories though, because WTC 7 went into freefall. So we have to look into all possibilities if we want to follow the scienctific method
en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by JPhish


I read some of your posts, but even by the standards of most truthers you are in the category of far out theories or considered a disinfo agent with your no-plane theory. Although I must say it isn't that much more far out than the controlled demolition theory those same truthers believe in. Both theories have no evidence in favor and plenty of evidence against.