|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 13, 2006 4:59:23 GMT -4
Post then and I'll explain them.
See, this is what I mean about you making up your mind before finding out the facts. You don't bother finding out what's actually going on, you simply jump onto the bandwagon of the group spouting something that meets with your version of the world. Heck, not so long ago one of the members here had you believing in a conspriacy theory he was busy making up as he went along.
The reason I know that you haven't bother looking for facts in this matter is because at least one of the photos I mentioned is posted to the very first page of this thread. If you haven't even read this thread, or know what damage was done and claimed to have been done to what, and why, how can you possibly hope to explain anything?
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Jan 13, 2006 17:11:24 GMT -4
No, PW, this is actually about you being a jackass. If you want someone to look at particular photos, it is customary to tell them which ones. When I want comments on something specific I always give that information, even if I posted the photo or comment just a page previous.
You seem to have a problem where I'm concerned for some reason. You are also posting deliberately misleading statements like someone had me believing in a non-existent conspiracy. Are you talking about Rocketdad thing? If you want to refresh your memory, go back and see that I told him I couldn't find any information on his Group W and asked for him to tell me about it. Nobody with half a brain would say that because I requested information on a topic that I was suckered in, but you don't let the facts stand in your way, do you?
You're so tiresome.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Jan 13, 2006 21:33:51 GMT -4
Secondly, we saw what happened. All the evidence points to planned demolition. That's why it would take faith for me to believe the building was destroyed by fire. The evidence for the fire theory just isn't very good. As for perceptions, I could say the same about you--that you're so conditioned to believe the government story line that you can't see the evidence that's right in front of you. Were not conditioned by the government to believe this. I don't believe many things the government says. Not does the evidence point to controlled demo. The fact of the matter is that no civil enginers or architects anywhere in the world have said that the towers were brought down by controlled demolition. There were 2 civil engineers who said the collapses looked liked controlled demo with in days of 9-11. But their assessments were based only on seeing video clips and before much data was in. One of those two said he was wrong and the other has not been heard from since. There are a handful of scientists who say the believe it was controlled demo but they are chemists, electrical engineers, and theoretical physicists. i.e. they don't posses the expertise to properly analyze the case. Nor I believe are there any controlled demolition experts who back the idea that controlled demolition brought down the WTC. Name one civil engineer or architect who backs your theories. Name one explosives or controlled demo expert. Strange if it was so obviously demolition there wouldn't be experts from places like Iran, Cuba, Iraq (pre-invasion), China, Pakistan or France lining up to say so. As for your interpritation of Silverstein's coment explain to us why he would consult the fire cheif if he had already decided to demo the building
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Jan 13, 2006 21:39:14 GMT -4
No, PW, this is actually about you being a jackass. This from a person who complained about abusive posts This kind of hypocrisy is very common among CTs the complain about being abused but then insult others. [
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 13, 2006 21:41:02 GMT -4
The only problem I have with you is that you make up your mind before looking at the evidence, then claim that you're right. No one in the entire debate, on other side, claims that WTC 7 wasn't partially damaged by the collapse of WTC 1, except you. The begining of this thread was all about the damage that was done and exctly how serious it was. That's why the photos and diagrams were posted, yet they seemed to have escaped your notice. And it's not just this one. Over your time here you have repeatedly make claims or positioned yourself in a stance, then gone and looked for supporting evidence.That's what is tiresome. If you want to have a discussion, fine I'm all for it, but at least get to know the ground on both sides before you start, especially the bits that are actually agreed on.
As to the explosives, I'm still waiting on your answers there. What physical evidence of explosives were there, or eyewittness tesimony of seeing explosives being installed, or actually installed?
|
|
|
Post by kalchawla on Jan 14, 2006 2:27:55 GMT -4
I'm going to jump in here for a moment...I have other priorities with this forum which will be spelled out later...because the "evidence " is plain here. I have seen the tape of the collapse of Building 7 and have seen, over and over, the "cattails" of the demolition charges going off in synch with the collapse of the building. I saw the "before" and "after' of the small fires in the building, fires which were of no consequence whatsoever as the firefighters said. I then saw the "center column" collapse of a professional demolition. These charges were set many weeks before the building was "pulled" , simply because it takes that long to set them up. Additionally, there is a list posted of the occupants of the building which includes the CIA and the NYC Emergency management office...all on a direct line with the flight of the final aircraft to hit the towers. I saw what DH saw....I also saw what I was witness to in Las Vegas some years ago when a demolition occured of a large hotel, roughly the same size as building 7, with all the same "cattails" blasting out of each floor, and the "center column" being blown first to direct the collapse of the building inside itself... a certain safety measure used on all demolitions of this kind, and YES, building 7 was demolished professionally. The photos at the beginning of this thread are inadequate at best...go to the site and see the evidence, plainly, in front of you. So many years ago...9/11/2001, I saw all this on live tv and couldn't see the details...now I have.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 14, 2006 4:28:48 GMT -4
kalchawla, I'm going to ask you exactly the same question I did Dead Hoosiers.
What physical evidence of explosives were there, or eyewittness tesimony of seeing explosives being installed, or actually installed?
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jan 14, 2006 9:12:06 GMT -4
I have seen the tape of the collapse of Building 7 and have seen, over and over, the "cattails" of the demolition charges going off in synch with the collapse of the building.
What expertise do you have to determine this from the viewing of a tape? Care to provide some credentials? Or is this just a personal opinion.
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Jan 14, 2006 9:40:27 GMT -4
...I have other priorities with this forum which will be spelled out later... One of those "priorities" should be CHANGING YOUR USER NAME. The idea that ANYONE would have the "balls" to use the name, and the image of a dead astronaut...an actual scientist, as their user name, when it is PAINFULLY obvious that you not in any way a scientist is SICK.
|
|
|
Post by bughead on Jan 14, 2006 11:13:33 GMT -4
Oh, THAT kalchawla. I had misses the connection. I second the motion. All opposed?
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on Jan 14, 2006 11:42:55 GMT -4
Do we really have a generation now that thinks anybody off the street can come to highly technical opinions about complex and potentially counter-intuitive things simply by watching a video of an event posted on a website?
What the heck is wrong with our education system?
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Jan 14, 2006 12:48:31 GMT -4
I saw the "before" and "after' of the small fires in the building, fires which were of no consequence whatsoever as the firefighters said. Can you provide us with any quotes from firefighters saying the fires in WTC 7, "were of no consequence whatsoever"? I've seen quotes taken out of context for the towers but nothing along those lines for 7. The photos and video clips of 7 were all taken from one side (with only a few exceptions) and were taken outside and a quite a distance away, thus they are of little value in determining the extent of the fires. Wouldn't it have made sense for them to start fires to make the collapse seem more "plausible"? No one disputes that the collapse resembled controlled demo that does not mean that it was controlled demo. How did they do this without anybody seeing anything? . Why would the CIA want to destroy their own NYC HQ? If this is at all relevant it makes CTs less likely. Do you think the NYC government was in on it? Relevance? I've been to 'ground zero' several times what exactly can one see there that backs your beliefs? I have a friend who lived very close to the WTC he thinks CTs are absurd. Where did you "see the details"? What details were they? How old are you? If you think that 9/11/01 was "So many years ago" I imagine you are quite young.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Jan 14, 2006 12:50:00 GMT -4
No, PW, this is actually about you being a jackass. This from a person who complained about abusive posts This kind of hypocrisy is very common among CTs they complain about being abused but then insult others. Editted to fix some typos
|
|
|
Post by Retrograde on Jan 14, 2006 13:07:00 GMT -4
Do we really have a generation now that thinks anybody off the street can come to highly technical opinions about complex and potentially counter-intuitive things simply by watching a video of an event posted on a website? Well, there have always been people who believe that attitude is more important than substance. Probably it's just that the wide availability of the internet these days means they are more visible to us...
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Jan 14, 2006 14:11:54 GMT -4
[explosion] "Did you hear that?" "Keep your eye on that building, it'll be coming down soon." www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/911.wtc.7.coming.down.soon.wmvPW, Guilty as charged. As in this case, my belief is usually that the "evidence" for the official viewpoint makes no sense. Most of the members here already have that opinion covered. Here's my comment on the pic you referred to. I see that the building is damaged. I don't think that damage is sufficient to cause the building to collapse because buildings closer to Ground Zero which sustained greater damage did not collapse. You object to the way I go about upholding my viewpoint. That's the way I do things and it's not going to change. Why not petition the admins to have me banned because you don't think I measure up? Or just ignore me.
|
|