• ODT Gun Show & Swap Meet - May 4, 2024! - Click here for info

Grand Jury will look at evidence of explosives used to take down WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 on 9/11

No aircraft hit building 7. It suffered 2 earthquakes I forget the magnitude but you could look that up if you wanted. It suffered damage from parts of the towers hitting it. The fire within can hardly be classified an office fire. A single column in the most vulnerable portion of the cantilever section brought it down. It could be viewed as a sort of Galloping Gertie type event.

The NIST report claim no structural damage contributed to the collapse. It claims office fires alone are what caused the structural failure and collapse.
 
I did explosves work.. no one I know of would go in that building and do that.

No way the towers were pre rigged. You couldn't know the aircraft impact wouldn't disrupt the circuits. I know of know remote system that has that sort of timing capability. I believe people would have had to have seen the charges as well given the structure.

No explosives demo team I ever heard of drops a building from the top down. Like the towers fell.

Building 7 fell across a street, didn't fall in its own footprint. As I understand it there has never been another building quite like building 7. 3 story loading dock, the electrical switching station within the building footprint, the cantilever system used to transfer weight around the switching station, the fuel storage (upstairs I think for gravity fuel feed which turned out to be a huge mistake when the tower collapse shook some fuel lines loose). Never seen a office fire with that much fuel.

Appreciate you taking the time to provide an informed opinion. The horror of the scene that day plus armchair demo expert theories (myself included) do not necessarily equal reality.

6bz
 
No aircraft hit building 7. It suffered 2 earthquakes I forget the magnitude but you could look that up if you wanted. It suffered damage from parts of the towers hitting it. The fire within can hardly be classified an office fire. A single column in the most vulnerable portion of the cantilever section brought it down. It could be viewed as a sort of Galloping Gertie type event.

Earthquake... so, a "Seismic event at that location", then, contributed to it?

The massive energy released when those massive towers collapsed next door, caused damage to tower 7?

I need to read back over the thread... someone I think brought up that point... need to recall who it was...
 
Yep, you watch tower 7 fall and you need to believe it was something other than just uncontrolled office fires. Some people think demolition, some people think earthquake, and you're both wrong according to the NIST report.
 
Yep, you watch tower 7 fall and you need to believe it was something other than just uncontrolled office fires. Some people think demolition, some people think earthquake, and you're both wrong according to the NIST report.

I think it is entirely plausible that a few million tons of debris smashing into the ground a few yards away, had an impact on tower 7.

That's a far cry from claiming that the US government got hundreds of people involved to secretly rig the towers to implode and then worked with the airlines and several hundred passengers who volunteered to die on those planes, and then shot our own Pentagon with a missile.
 
I think it is entirely plausible that a few million tons of debris smashing into the ground a few yards away, had an impact on tower 7.

That's a far cry from claiming that the US government got hundreds of people involved to secretly rig the towers to implode and then worked with the airlines and several hundred passengers who volunteered to die on those planes, and then shot our own Pentagon with a missile.

Sure, but you're both just speculating all the same. Uncontrolled Office fires alone caused the collapse, why bother looking into any more than that. It's all explained in the NIST report you just don't want to believe it.
 
Sure, but you're both just speculating all the same. Uncontrolled Office fires alone caused the collapse, why bother looking into any more than that. It's all explained in the NIST report you just don't want to believe it.

What you are trying to do, and failing, is evident. It's False Equivalency. Just stop.

Trying to pretend that because I or others bring up a point that may or may not be true, but likely is... and saying, "See you question the official report, that's all we are doing!"... Is misleading and disingenuous.

Pointing out something very obvious, that is entirely plausible. I mean, the impact of the other two towers coming down is what CAUSED the fire in tower 7. It is what damaged the underground infastructure that prevented the sprinklers from working, which is what allowed the fires to burn so long that they brought the building down... That much is obvious. While the NIST report says that the only thing that brought the tower down was fire, it ALSO mentions WHY that fire went on like it did, and it was directly related to the other towers collapsing, and the damage that they caused. The report acknowledges that. So you taking out the one line, cherry picking it, and taking it out of context and ignoring the rest, is dishonest.

To imply that us pointing that out, that we are questioning the official findings which is no different than the person claiming Bush murdered thousands of people in this massive inside job, is idiotic. It's dishonest, and says much about your character.

Think of a pedestrian being hit by a car. The police report, the OFFICIAL REPORT says "distracted driver caused it"... someone says, "Yeah, but he wasn't in the crosswalk, so maybe the pedestrian contributed to it"... technically he is questioning the official report and he may or may not be right. Pedestrians don't have the right of way if they are not in the crosswalk, perhaps...

Then the other guy claims, "No, this was a White House hit, because he knew that Trump is a Lizard person wearing human skin and the leader of the Illuminati and so he hired some guy to kill that person"...

Now following your logic, both are technically "questioning the official report"... but are they really the same? Are they in any way equal?
 
I don't recall saying bush did it, or anything about lizard people or holographic planes or any of that other garbage you've been accusing me of. It's cool though, I won't get but hurt and question your character over it.

Yes, I think it's entirely plausible the CIA and yes possibly bush had some involvement in the events that happened that day. But I've never mentioned any of the crazy conspiracies you keep trying to attribute to me.

And lol at your back tracking of seismic activity damaging the sprinklers and that's what you were originally implying. It's all good though, this subject seems to work you up a little too much Mr Smith.
 
I don't recall saying bush did it, or anything about lizard people or holographic planes or any of that other garbage you've been accusing me of. It's cool though, I won't get but hurt and question your character over it.

Yes, I think it's entirely plausible the CIA and yes possibly bush had some involvement in the events that happened that day. But I've never mentioned any of the crazy conspiracies you keep trying to attribute to me.

And lol at your back tracking of seismic activity damaging the sprinklers and that's what you were originally implying. It's all good though, this subject seems to work you up a little too much Mr Smith.

There is no backtracking. I came up with a plausible "theory" on what contributed to tower 7 falling. There is ample evidence to support it, including the NIST report that does support it, despite you saying it doesn't. I pointed it out to make a point that we can all make up theories. Mine just happens to hold more water, that's all...

I almost have to wonder if you are simply trolling for laughs?
 
Back
Top Bottom