9/11 conspiracy debunking videos
- Thread starter Toro
- Start date
:lol: Very few damage? Where are those buildings now? If there was very few damage, they must have been cleaned up and put back into service, right?
Just because they didn't completely collapse doesn't mean there was very few damage.
Hey Wally,
See Logic's illustration on the other thread which shows that Tower 7 wasn't even close to getting hit with as much debris as the other buildings did. If falling debris was the cause of its collapse, those other buildings would have gone down in one fell swoop. Think for yourself and take off the right wing blinders.
BTW, in case you missed it, there are no WMD in Iraq.
Surprise!!
See Logic's illustration on the other thread which shows that Tower 7 wasn't even close to getting hit with as much debris as the other buildings did. If falling debris was the cause of its collapse, those other buildings would have gone down in one fell swoop. Think for yourself and take off the right wing blinders.
BTW, in case you missed it, there are no WMD in Iraq.
Surprise!!
You're correct about the WMD in Iraq, and we're all very cross about it. I doubt anyone can deny that Bush went into Iraq under false pretences, knowingly or not.
You then state that because WTC 7 was one of many buildings hit by debris, all the buildings (or none) should have fallen, and hence imply that WTC 7 must have had some help.
This statement contains two implicit assumptions:
first, you assume that all debris is alike. That if a building was hit by one part of the debris-cloud it'd be affected just exactly the same as if it were hit by another part.
This is clearly not true. The tallest towers didn't totally disintegrate into convenient chunks of equal size. The cloud that fell contained some thin parts and some thick parts, as well as the occasional giant chunk of steel. It seems quite logical to me that one building closer to "ground zero" might get hit by less giant chunks than another further out, just because of the uneven distribution of debris in the cloud.
second, you assume all the buildings were built to the exact same standards and capable of withstanding the exact same pressures and trauma. This is obviously not true. For a start, there is much talk of the WTC buildings being constructed differently to all the others. I'm no engineer but I'd say that means that their resistance to being trampled on by giant chunks of falling steel and concrete is probably different to that of other nearer buildings such as the deutsche bank. I'd also like to point out that in general, buildings constructed more recently tend to be worse constructed, simply because it's cheaper. Was WTC7 one of the newer buildings in the area?
Was WTC7 one of the newer buildings in the area?
Yes it was. But that doesn't mean it was any cheaper than the other buildings. And while I certainly am no engineer, it follows logically that those buildings in closer proximity would have suffered far more damage and were likelier to collapse than Tower 7. At any rate, for myself as one untrained in that line of work, I find the writings of those who say it was imploded to make a lot more sense than those skeptics who insist that debris wondrously bypassed the other buildings in order to deliberately topple that tower so that we could be stimulated to engage in these continued controversies. However, if you still insist that those skeptics are correct, that is your business.
Yes it was. But that doesn't mean it was any cheaper than the other buildings. And while I certainly am no engineer, it follows logically that those buildings in closer proximity would have suffered far more damage and were likelier to collapse than Tower 7. At any rate, for myself as one untrained in that line of work, I find the writings of those who say it was imploded to make a lot more sense than those skeptics who insist that debris wondrously bypassed the other buildings in order to deliberately topple that tower so that we could be stimulated to engage in these continued controversies. However, if you still insist that those skeptics are correct, that is your business.
They were talking about explosion going on in wtc 7, normal, just like those.
WTC7 Security Official Details Explosions Inside Building
Can anyone of you tell me, how come this building 7 was reinforce in 1989 with 200 millions of investment? and still collapse because of fire in 2001?
incredible how naive peoples there is ....
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...25751C0A96F948260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print
incredible how naive peoples there is ....
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...25751C0A96F948260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print
the only government conspiracy..is the flight that crashed in the field!!!! i was watching the news when the attacks were just being relized..on the news a reporter stated that the U.S Air force Shot down a 757 that was believed to be hi-jacked...,but i have never heard that statement since.it has been hushed,and denied..my daughter and i both heard this while watching live coverage...as for the twin towers they fell under heat, 2000 degree the structure was very weak steal melts at around 2300 ..notice they feel from the top down,and did not start to colapse from the bottom up. and #7 had major damage...the pentagon was hit by a 757..no doubt..think about it if this was not true then where did all the passengers dissapear to,and why arent their family's looking for them..why would americans say my loved one was on the plane that crashed into the pentagon?...no wonder other countrys hate america with americans like rosie o'donnel crap we don't stand a chance..besides the only thing rosey knows is where to buy AAA batteries at wholesale prices.
Ummm...because they realized it was erroneous. There were also reports that a truck bomb had gone off at the pentagon. These things happen. Even the tinfoil hats don't make a big deal about the truck bomb reports.