9/11 conspiracy debunking videos


thomaska
#61
You people really should just take Logic at hisher's word...after all take a look at this proof that MI5 planned the london attacks..

(old, but still funny to me)

 
Logic 7
#62
Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeperView Post

Aside from the fact that anyone being in a position to take such a video would have been killed by the debris I don't think there is such a video.....and you seem to disregard photos taken of that building afterwards....people with blinders only see what they want to see...


And you guys are the best exemple of this.
 
Logic 7
#63
Quote: Originally Posted by hermanntrudeView Post

So you're an engineer, AND you were right there watching?

the fact is, mr logic, that several of the accounts we've heard are rather more believable, plausible, even, than your random pontification.


You would rather believe someone than believing your own eyes, you don't have to be an expert of whatever you want to understand that building 7 wasnt smashed at all, however what can i expect from the loyalists?
 
DaSleeper
#64
Quote: Originally Posted by Logic 7View Post

And you guys are the best exemple of this.

And I'll bet your mommy always said "Everybody is out of step but my son"
 
lone wolf
#65
Quote: Originally Posted by Logic 7View Post

You would rather believe someone than believing your own eyes, you don't have to be an expert of whatever you want to understand that building 7 wasnt smashed at all, however what can i expect from the loyalists?

Whoa! These eyes - my own BTW - have been calling up beam, column and girder schedules and studying panel specs for WTC's 1, 2 and 7 for almost a month now - and have been getting rather annoyed at what space this head couldn't get itself into.

There are NO girders. All spans between perimeter and core are a system of OWSJ/floorpan and poured slab. In a conventional steel structure, to get the sort of fall I watched - with my own eyes, BTW - would have required some help to sever structural components.

These eyes have watched WTC catch airplanes and fall so often this head is starting to worry every time the water bomber flies over my roof. I can hear every creak, groan, snap, bang and roar - and I was almost a thousand miles away.

In my opinion, from an engineering standpoint, though as a whole the structure is incredibly sound and stable for its mass, structural integrity is too entirely dependent on too little support.

That's why, IMHO, the damned building fall down go boom - once its structure was compromised.

Loyalists? In the USA? Okay....

Wolf
Last edited by lone wolf; Sep 12th, 2007 at 06:37 PM..
 
DaSleeper
#66
Mr. illogical 7 check out this web site.......without blinders on.....if possible
www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm (external - login to view)
 
Just the Facts
#67
Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeperView Post

Mr. illogical 7 check out this web site.......without blinders on.....if possible
www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm (external - login to view)

Here's another page from the same site. The video at the very bottom wraps it up nicely.

www.debunking911.com/pull.htm (external - login to view)
 
gopher
+1
#68
If it was debris from the falling towers that knocked down Tower 7, the building should have keeled over rather than imploded.

But miracles do happen, don't they?
 
Just the Facts
#69
Quote: Originally Posted by gopherView Post

If it was debris from the falling towers that knocked down Tower 7, the building should have keeled over rather than imploded.

But miracles do happen, don't they?

Why would it keel over. It was a 40-plus story building, not a garbage can. Saying it should have keeled over is baseless.
 
gopher
+1
#70
But, I suppose, it is perfectly OK to say it imploded because it got hit at its base with flying debris.

Like I said, miracles do happen ...
 
Just the Facts
#71
Quote: Originally Posted by gopherView Post

But, I suppose, it is perfectly OK to say it imploded because it got hit at its base with flying debris.

Like I said, miracles do happen ...

It didn't "implode", it collapsed into a heap. It's perfectly OK to say so because I watched....Millions watched....it happen.
 
gopher
+1
#72
... yup, very thoughtful of that heap of falling mass to miss the buildings that were closer to Towers 1,2 ...


miracles

miracles!
 
Just the Facts
#73
Quote: Originally Posted by gopherView Post

... yup, very thoughtful of that heap of falling mass to miss the buildings that were closer to Towers 1,2 ...


miracles

miracles!

Now you're just babbling.
 
gopher
+1
#74
Oh sure. Debris just conveniently bypasses a couple of buildings so that it can take down Tower 7. Very thoughtful, indeed.
 
lone wolf
#75
If you drop a handful of nuts from the top of a step ladder do they all hit the floor at the same place?

Wolf
 
Logic 7
#76
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolfView Post

Whoa! These eyes - my own BTW - have been calling up beam, column and girder schedules and studying panel specs for WTC's 1, 2 and 7 for almost a month now - and have been getting rather annoyed at what space this head couldn't get itself into.

There are NO girders. All spans between perimeter and core are a system of OWSJ/floorpan and poured slab. In a conventional steel structure, to get the sort of fall I watched - with my own eyes, BTW - would have required some help to sever structural components.
e
These eyes have watched WTC catch airplanes and fall so often this head is starting to worry every time the water bomber flies over my roof. I can hear every creak, groan, snap, bang and roar - and I was almost a thousand miles away.

In my opinion, from an engineering standpoint, though as a whole the structure is incredibly sound and stable for its mass, structural integrity is too entirely dependent on too little support.

That's why, IMHO, the damned building fall down go boom - once its structure was compromised.

Loyalists? In the USA? Okay....

Wolf


I don't expect from a loyalist to think by themselves.

Secondly ,the damned building fell down, almost at free fall speed(demolition evidence), now the official story says, the debris from wtc 1 smashed wtc 7, which would have compromised the structure, however when you look at all videos from the collapse, you got to be some kind of naive to believe that, cause wtc1 debris barely touch wtc7.

Now there must be something else to support the claim that building 7 was demolish by explosives, besides the way it fell, besides it was barely touch by the debris, and that something else is Larry Sylverstein, building 7 owner, who admits in a PBS documentary that they demolish the building with explosives.


pull it (external - login to view)


definition of pull (external - login to view)


You just can't refute this.



Now there will be some retard who will say, he meant to get the firefighter out of the building(which by the way took a year to get that explanation from sylverstein), which is impossible, cause the building was evacuated since 11h30 in the morning, according to 9-11 report and fema report.
 
karrie
#77
Quote: Originally Posted by Logic 7View Post



Now there will be some retard who will say, he meant to get the firefighter out of the building(which by the way took a year to get that explanation from sylverstein), which is impossible, cause the building was evacuated since 11h30 in the morning, according to 9-11 report and fema report.


Well then I must be some retard, because it seemed pretty evident to me that he meant to pull the effort off the building and not risk anymore human life in trying to save the structure.

*** But I would suggest that the only person with a learning disability is one who needs to resort to anticipatory name calling in order to try to get a leg up in a discussion***
 
lone wolf
#78
Well you already know what it wasn't. I see a hollow in that downward plume of dust - what I referred to as a tongue. To me, that indicates something very solid is within and is messing with airflow. Two frames beyond, the dust cloud radiates - splashes if you will - in all directions from the area of WTC 7's hidden face. That is indicative of impact. What hit? I don't know. I can only assume it was a portion of outside wall panels Anyone who was standing there will not likely speak of it to tell us for certain.

Debris wouldn't have to take out the whole front to weaken the structure - just snap several columns. I don't care how miraculous the method of construction, no building can defy gravity. I don't know this for a fact. I am merely looking at evidence - evidence YOU provided - with my own eyes.

If George Bush wants to buy my testimonial for a couple of million dollars, I will graciously and in good conscience accept because I have seen, studied, and drawn my own conclusion about the evidence. Don't ever get the idea that I swallow the official story - just the parts that seem like truth. More power to you if you can determine and prove anything else. I promise to listen.

Wolf

EDIT: Pardon my English - but clarify "loyalist"
Last edited by lone wolf; Sep 13th, 2007 at 01:37 PM..Reason: Additional
 
Logic 7
#79
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolfView Post

Well you already know what it wasn't. I see a hollow in that downward plume of dust - what I referred to as a tongue. To me, that indicates something very solid is within and is messing with airflow. Two frames beyond, the dust cloud radiates - splashes if you will - in all directions from the area of WTC 7's hidden face. That is indicative of impact. What hit? I don't know. I can only assume it was a portion of outside wall panels Anyone who was standing there will not likely speak of it to tell us for certain.

Debris wouldn't have to take out the whole front to weaken the structure - just snap several columns. I don't care how miraculous the method of construction, no building can defy gravity. I don't know this for a fact. I am merely looking at evidence - evidence YOU provided - with my own eyes.

If George Bush wants to buy my testimonial for a couple of million dollars, I will graciously and in good conscience accept because I have seen, studied, and drawn my own conclusion about the evidence. Don't ever get the idea that I swallow the official story - just the parts that seem like truth. More power to you if you can determine and prove anything else. I promise to listen.

Wolf


IF everything you say is true, then building 6 wouldnt have survived, at all


A building can't just fell down the way building 7 did, by having couple debris hitting one side of the building, that is just a fact, try harder.
 
Logic 7
#80
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolfView Post

If you drop a handful of nuts from the top of a step ladder do they all hit the floor at the same place?

Wolf


They won't, however the problem with your explanation, is the fact that wtc 1, 2 and 7 collapse basically on its own footprint, so there was no resistance when it fell, so the step ladder is irrelevent to the collapse.
 
lone wolf
#81
There HAD to be enough resistance to cause debris to be blown around the site. That's a lot of wind to move a single ten thousand pound panel. At freefall speed, it would take nine seconds for roof to kiss sidewalk. Do your own counting. Compressed air, metallic elasticity, bending moments can't be avoided in any sort of collapse - even with explosives.

As for the step ladder analogy just drop your nuts on the floor. They are going to spread during their fall and land in a larger pattern than the size of the palm of your hand. Set up a half dozen pill bottles and I bet some that weren't directly under your nuts when you dropped then will be hit.

Wolf
 
DaSleeper
#82
Quote: Originally Posted by gopherView Post

Oh sure. Debris just conveniently bypasses a couple of buildings so that it can take down Tower 7. Very thoughtful, indeed.

The building between 1&2 were not as high as wtc7 and probably by being closer, was damaged more on top......if you damage just the top of a building it will not necessarily collapse.....but damage a building at the base and the weight plus get a bunch of transformers burning and exploding inside..........

I know you hate G.W. but don't let that hatred make you believe every conspiracy that comes along
 
gopher
+1
#83
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolfView Post

If you drop a handful of nuts from the top of a step ladder do they all hit the floor at the same place?

Wolf


If you are standing two feet from where they fall, you are likelier to get hit than someone standing ten feet away.
 
gopher
+1
#84
Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeperView Post

The building between 1&2 were not as high as wtc7 and probably by being closer, was damaged more on top......if you damage just the top of a building it will not necessarily collapse.....but damage a building at the base and the weight plus get a bunch of transformers burning and exploding inside..........

I know you hate G.W. but don't let that hatred make you believe every conspiracy that comes along


As I noted previously, those buildings in closer proximity were likelier to get damaged from falling debris.

Just because you hate the USA and love Bush doesn't mean you have to accept everything the White House liar has to say. As for beliefs in conspiracy, I hope you still don't believe there are WMD all over Iraq.
 
TenPenny
#85
Quote: Originally Posted by Logic 7View Post

You would rather believe someone than believing your own eyes

Doctor, my eyes have seen the years
Through the slow parade of tears without crying
Now I want to understand
I have done all that I could
To see the evil and the good without hiding
You must help me if you can
  • Doctor my eyes
    Tell me what is wrong
    Was I unwise to leave them open for so long?
As I've wandered through this world
As each moment has unfurled
I've been waiting to awaken from this dream
People go just where they will
I never notice them until I've got this feeling
That it's later than it seems
  • Doctor my eyes
    Tell me what is real
    I hear their cries
    Just saying "It's too late for me"
Doctor my eyes
Cannot be disguised
Is this the prize for having learned how not to cry?
 
Just the Facts
#86
Quote: Originally Posted by gopherView Post

As I noted previously, those buildings in closer proximity were likelier to get damaged from falling debris.

Not true. If someone throws a grenade at you, and you have no time to get out of it's range, the best thing to do is lie down a few feet from it.

The debris clearly radiated outward.

There is also randomness. I can provide you with cases of people who died from a single gunshot wound. I can also provide you with cases of people who were shot three four or five times, and lived. Some people fall five stories and die, some fall 10 stories and walk away. **it happens.
 
gopher
+1
#87
The debris clearly radiated outward.


Of course, it was two buildings that fell. Thus, according to you, lightning struck twice.

Miracles ... miracles.
 
DaSleeper
#88
Quote: Originally Posted by gopherView Post

Just because you hate the USA and love Bush doesn't mean you have to accept everything the White House liar has to say. As for beliefs in conspiracy, I hope you still don't believe there are WMD all over Iraq.

I hate the U.S. and like Bush????? Man you really assume a lot
Hey....here's one for you to peruse.......

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...95518760933323



I like to play devil's advocate sometimes......Naaah! I just like a good laugh once in a while..........
 
YoungJoonKim
#89
lol yes miracles happen.
Lovely miracles :P
Its like 3000 people (nearly) were destined to die because WTC is so bad structurally weeee
 
gopher
+1
#90
``here's one for you to peruse``

Perhaps later if I remember ...
 

Similar Threads

5
Videos
by darkbeaver | Sep 30th, 2008
0
videos debunking creationism
by ShintoMale | May 12th, 2008
356
9/11: Debunking The Myths
by I think not | Jun 12th, 2006
2
Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories
by Vanni Fucci | Dec 29th, 2004
no new posts