| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
 Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 12:34 am Post subject: A new slant on WTC7 |
 |
|
"The NWO villians spent 8 hours trying to find an open Staples so they could get a paper shredder to destroy all that incriminating evidence in WTC 7. When no paper shredder could be obtained they decided to destroy the building instead.
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car."
(With thanks to the author. This text reproduced without any permission whatsoever.)
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car
Last edited by Ignatz on Thu Feb 08, 2007 9:00 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 11:55 am Post subject: Re: A new slant on WTC7 |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | "The NWO villians spent 8 hours trying to find an open Staples so they could get a paper shredder to destroy all that incriminating evidence in WTC 7. When no paper shredder could be obtained they decided to destroy the building instead.
So remember next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car."
(With thanks to the author. This text reproduced without any permission whatsoever.) |
lets assume a shredder was used instead of it being because of a disaster, when the last page had gone through the shredder what would their excuses of been? if anything shredding would of been more incriminating as there would be no possible excuse for all the paper work to vanish 
or am i wrong? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 12:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| p.s. i bet you dont pass my above comment on to the authour who obviously didnt think it through |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 9:06 pm Post subject: Re: A new slant on WTC7 |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | Ignatz wrote: | "The NWO villians spent 8 hours trying to find an open Staples so they could get a paper shredder to destroy all that incriminating evidence in WTC 7. When no paper shredder could be obtained they decided to destroy the building instead.
So remember next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car."
(With thanks to the author. This text reproduced without any permission whatsoever.) |
lets assume a shredder was used instead of it being because of a disaster, when the last page had gone through the shredder what would their excuses of been? if anything shredding would of been more incriminating as there would be no possible excuse for all the paper work to vanish
or am i wrong? |
It was a bit of a joke really, Marky, but intended to illustrate the absurdity of blowing up WTC7 as a way of destroying evidence.
But, to answer your point, these would be secret documents. So if they're shredded nobody is going to miss them except the owners. Shredding would be my method of choice to destroy documents (mind you - when Iran occupied the US embassy in Tehran they got 000's of students to re-assemble loads of shredded documents ! )
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 9:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Of course, the troofers have it absolutely right, "they" can make jet airliners and all their passengers disappear, they can fool the passengers nearest and dearest with fake phone calls, but they cannot possibly manage to dispose of incriminating papers except by blowing up the building they are. Doh!
You really, really, have to want to believe to be a troofer! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 4:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | Of course, the troofers have it absolutely right, "they" can make jet airliners and all their passengers disappear, they can fool the passengers nearest and dearest with fake phone calls, but they cannot possibly manage to dispose of incriminating papers except by blowing up the building they are. Doh!
You really, really, have to want to believe to be a troofer! |
with so many theorys being thrown around investigating or asking questions about these things is essential to know what is b*ll*ks and what aint. that dosnt mean most truthers agree with any of the things you pointed out. i myself believe there were planes at the twins the pentagon i have to say yes a plane but then there is a bit of doubt mainly because they will not release better footage(they have tons of cctv there has to be better). the only place i doubt the exsistance of a plane is shanksville crash site but i do believe there was a plane but it didnt crash where stated.
so your ridiculing session is a lie and dosnt fit what most truthers actually think.
as for the papers if they simply vanished when it came to the time of the investigastions taking place and no papers were there would that not raise awareness of the fact somebody is trying to hide something?
if the building just happened to fall down along with the rest of mr silversteins buildings what would it matter and would it be suspious that the paper work had disapeared due to the disaster that had unfolded?
a question if i may because there could of been more than one reson to collapse wtc7. how many buildings collapsed that did not belong to the wtc complex? because i hear other buildings took damage and had fires but they still stand. the plaza hotel is an example burnt for 19 hours and didnt collapse.
Last edited by marky 54 on Fri Feb 09, 2007 4:24 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 4:10 am Post subject: Re: A new slant on WTC7 |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | | Ignatz wrote: | "The NWO villians spent 8 hours trying to find an open Staples so they could get a paper shredder to destroy all that incriminating evidence in WTC 7. When no paper shredder could be obtained they decided to destroy the building instead.
So remember next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car."
(With thanks to the author. This text reproduced without any permission whatsoever.) |
lets assume a shredder was used instead of it being because of a disaster, when the last page had gone through the shredder what would their excuses of been? if anything shredding would of been more incriminating as there would be no possible excuse for all the paper work to vanish
or am i wrong? |
It was a bit of a joke really, Marky, but intended to illustrate the absurdity of blowing up WTC7 as a way of destroying evidence.
But, to answer your point, these would be secret documents. So if they're shredded nobody is going to miss them except the owners. Shredding would be my method of choice to destroy documents (mind you - when Iran occupied the US embassy in Tehran they got 000's of students to re-assemble loads of shredded documents ! ) |
it didnt sound like a joke to me you were saying why collapse wtc7 when you could just shred them and then you prove shredding is a bad way to do things by giving an example of students pieceing them back together.
all im trying to point out mr iggy is fire and then collapse of the entire building would be a better method. even if all the documents were taken out and hidden somewhere you have the perfect excuse for them to just vanish. they mush of been burnt and turned to ash we will never beable to recover them what a shame.
im just pointing out why shredding is not good when investigastions were taking place into certain companys and some of the paper work just happened to be there, if the paperwork was the reason why they collapsed the building then shredding would not stop people investigating they would get to the point of trying to get there hands on information that was no longer there raising more awareness to a crime than the building falling down on 9/11.
this is of course if that was the only reason for collapsing wtc7, it may not be the reason at all or just one of a few reasons why. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 11:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | Of course, the troofers have it absolutely right, "they" can make jet airliners and all their passengers disappear, they can fool the passengers nearest and dearest with fake phone calls, but they cannot possibly manage to dispose of incriminating papers except by blowing up the building they are. Doh!
You really, really, have to want to believe to be a troofer! |
with so many theorys being thrown around investigating or asking questions about these things is essential to know what is b*ll*ks and what aint. that dosnt mean most truthers agree with any of the things you pointed out. i myself believe there were planes at the twins the pentagon i have to say yes a plane but then there is a bit of doubt mainly because they will not release better footage(they have tons of cctv there has to be better). the only place i doubt the exsistance of a plane is shanksville crash site but i do believe there was a plane but it didnt crash where stated.
so your ridiculing session is a lie and dosnt fit what most truthers actually think.
as for the papers if they simply vanished when it came to the time of the investigastions taking place and no papers were there would that not raise awareness of the fact somebody is trying to hide something?
if the building just happened to fall down along with the rest of mr silversteins buildings what would it matter and would it be suspious that the paper work had disapeared due to the disaster that had unfolded?
a question if i may because there could of been more than one reson to collapse wtc7. how many buildings collapsed that did not belong to the wtc complex? because i hear other buildings took damage and had fires but they still stand. the plaza hotel is an example burnt for 19 hours and didnt collapse. |
marky, why don't you try replying to the things posted, not imaging what they might be and replying to that? Thanks.
I know notihng of a Plaza Hotel fire. If you are talking about the Hotel Windsor in Madrid, the fire truthers often lie about, the steel upper stories of the hotel did collapse and can be seen lying on the concrete lower portion. The concrete core remained intact. It is a good example of how steel-framed buildings can collapse in a fire. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 7:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | Of course, the troofers have it absolutely right, "they" can make jet airliners and all their passengers disappear, they can fool the passengers nearest and dearest with fake phone calls, but they cannot possibly manage to dispose of incriminating papers except by blowing up the building they are. Doh!
You really, really, have to want to believe to be a troofer! |
with so many theorys being thrown around investigating or asking questions about these things is essential to know what is b*ll*ks and what aint. that dosnt mean most truthers agree with any of the things you pointed out. i myself believe there were planes at the twins the pentagon i have to say yes a plane but then there is a bit of doubt mainly because they will not release better footage(they have tons of cctv there has to be better). the only place i doubt the exsistance of a plane is shanksville crash site but i do believe there was a plane but it didnt crash where stated.
so your ridiculing session is a lie and dosnt fit what most truthers actually think.
as for the papers if they simply vanished when it came to the time of the investigastions taking place and no papers were there would that not raise awareness of the fact somebody is trying to hide something?
if the building just happened to fall down along with the rest of mr silversteins buildings what would it matter and would it be suspious that the paper work had disapeared due to the disaster that had unfolded?
a question if i may because there could of been more than one reson to collapse wtc7. how many buildings collapsed that did not belong to the wtc complex? because i hear other buildings took damage and had fires but they still stand. the plaza hotel is an example burnt for 19 hours and didnt collapse. |
marky, why don't you try replying to the things posted, not imaging what they might be and replying to that? Thanks.
I know notihng of a Plaza Hotel fire. If you are talking about the Hotel Windsor in Madrid, the fire truthers often lie about, the steel upper stories of the hotel did collapse and can be seen lying on the concrete lower portion. The concrete core remained intact. It is a good example of how steel-framed buildings can collapse in a fire. |
no the plaza hotel in ny is said to of burnt for 19 hours, i mentioned it in the hope you could clarify it or not ect. and i did post in relation to you thinking its dumb to bring a building down to get rid of evidence.
we have to remember it may not be why wtc7 was bought down at all, it just goes under the coincidence section, coincidences cannot be proved untill investigated so no point argueing about this fact but on the premise that it is dumb to bring the building down to get rid of evidence and make paperwork disapear im just pointing out it not as dumb as you think.
i mentioned the plaza because its strange that only the wtc complex collapsed and no other buildings so wtc7 collapse could of had something to do with wanting to bring the whole thing down to rebuild a less costly to run building/s. so i mentioned the plaza and am asking if any other buildings collapsed other than the wtc complex. but again even if only the wtc complex collapsed it just an other coincidence that cannot be proved unless an investigastion into 9/11 took place and maybe not even then.
why ask you? your a critic for god sakes you will not favour my opinons so i get a truer picture. or problems and faults are more likely to be picked out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
truthseeker john
Validated Poster
Joined: 02 Oct 2006
Posts: 577
Location: Yorkshire
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 10:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
yes thats proberbly it thanks for clearing that up for me.
when i heard it mentioned it must of been careless wording because it sounded like they were implying it was in ny near the wtc.
thanks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 7:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Right, so One Meridian Plaza did not collapse, but, from that link:
"All interior firefighting efforts were halted after almost 11 hours of uninterrupted fire in the building. Consultation with a structural engineer and structural damage observed by units operating in the building led to the belief that there was a possibility of a pancake structural collapse of the fire damaged floors."
WTC7 burnt for 7 hours, with no firefighting efforts, and extensive damage, the firefighters, just as with One Meridian Plaza, thought it might collapse. They were right.
The poor fool of a structural engineer who looked at One Meridian Plaza believed that there was a possibility of a pancake structural collapse. If only he had consulted the troofers here, he would know that such a thing is impossible! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 1:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | Right, so One Meridian Plaza did not collapse, but, from that link:
"All interior firefighting efforts were halted after almost 11 hours of uninterrupted fire in the building. Consultation with a structural engineer and structural damage observed by units operating in the building led to the belief that there was a possibility of a pancake structural collapse of the fire damaged floors."
WTC7 burnt for 7 hours, with no firefighting efforts, and extensive damage, the firefighters, just as with One Meridian Plaza, thought it might collapse. They were right.
The poor fool of a structural engineer who looked at One Meridian Plaza believed that there was a possibility of a pancake structural collapse. If only he had consulted the troofers here, he would know that such a thing is impossible! |
so we can compare totally differant buildings when it suits? cool how come it DIDNT collapse then? the only reason i mentioned it was because when i heard about it, it sounded like the person was saying it was there in ny near the wtc and i had'nt heard of it before. it was never mentioned it was in pennsylvania. there is a bloody big differance between 11 hours and almost an hour and hour an half wtc 7 burnt for 7 hours and wasnt a rageing inferno if it was show something, im suprised how little fire actually is there especially at the point of collapse. also note they expected structual collapse of DAMAGED FLOORS! where did they expected the whole buiding to come down to ground level? because it should of been obvious the building would of collapsed totally after almost an hour should'nt it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 12:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | Right, so One Meridian Plaza did not collapse, but, from that link:
"All interior firefighting efforts were halted after almost 11 hours of uninterrupted fire in the building. Consultation with a structural engineer and structural damage observed by units operating in the building led to the belief that there was a possibility of a pancake structural collapse of the fire damaged floors."
WTC7 burnt for 7 hours, with no firefighting efforts, and extensive damage, the firefighters, just as with One Meridian Plaza, thought it might collapse. They were right.
The poor fool of a structural engineer who looked at One Meridian Plaza believed that there was a possibility of a pancake structural collapse. If only he had consulted the troofers here, he would know that such a thing is impossible! |
so we can compare totally differant buildings when it suits? cool how come it DIDNT collapse then? the only reason i mentioned it was because when i heard about it, it sounded like the person was saying it was there in ny near the wtc and i had'nt heard of it before. it was never mentioned it was in pennsylvania. there is a bloody big differance between 11 hours and almost an hour and hour an half wtc 7 burnt for 7 hours and wasnt a rageing inferno if it was show something, im suprised how little fire actually is there especially at the point of collapse. also note they expected structual collapse of DAMAGED FLOORS! where did they expected the whole buiding to come down to ground level? because it should of been obvious the building would of collapsed totally after almost an hour should'nt it? |
Wasn't the whole point of your recent posts comparing different buildings? Of course different buildings react in different ways, but again and again you troofers rubbish the idea of a progressive collapse even being possible, now you are whinging that Meridian Plaza did not collapse! The point is the structural engineer called in by the firefighters thought that it might. Progressive collapse is something to be considered. Savvy? Don't quibble about floors, of course any progressive collapse is going to start with the floors, it was the floors collapsing that pulled down the towers.
Do you want me to quote again all the firefighters who said there were a lot of fires at WTC7? Of course the troofers know better because there are no pictures of raging fires, so there can't have been any. If it is not on a computer screen it does not exist, the foundation of NPT. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 1:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | Right, so One Meridian Plaza did not collapse, but, from that link:
"All interior firefighting efforts were halted after almost 11 hours of uninterrupted fire in the building. Consultation with a structural engineer and structural damage observed by units operating in the building led to the belief that there was a possibility of a pancake structural collapse of the fire damaged floors."
WTC7 burnt for 7 hours, with no firefighting efforts, and extensive damage, the firefighters, just as with One Meridian Plaza, thought it might collapse. They were right.
The poor fool of a structural engineer who looked at One Meridian Plaza believed that there was a possibility of a pancake structural collapse. If only he had consulted the troofers here, he would know that such a thing is impossible! |
so we can compare totally differant buildings when it suits? cool how come it DIDNT collapse then? the only reason i mentioned it was because when i heard about it, it sounded like the person was saying it was there in ny near the wtc and i had'nt heard of it before. it was never mentioned it was in pennsylvania. there is a bloody big differance between 11 hours and almost an hour and hour an half wtc 7 burnt for 7 hours and wasnt a rageing inferno if it was show something, im suprised how little fire actually is there especially at the point of collapse. also note they expected structual collapse of DAMAGED FLOORS! where did they expected the whole buiding to come down to ground level? because it should of been obvious the building would of collapsed totally after almost an hour should'nt it? |
Wasn't the whole point of your recent posts comparing different buildings? Of course different buildings react in different ways, but again and again you troofers rubbish the idea of a progressive collapse even being possible, now you are whinging that Meridian Plaza did not collapse! The point is the structural engineer called in by the firefighters thought that it might. Progressive collapse is something to be considered. Savvy? Don't quibble about floors, of course any progressive collapse is going to start with the floors, it was the floors collapsing that pulled down the towers.
Do you want me to quote again all the firefighters who said there were a lot of fires at WTC7? Of course the troofers know better because there are no pictures of raging fires, so there can't have been any. If it is not on a computer screen it does not exist, the foundation of NPT. |
no the whole point of my original post was
1. find out about the plaza ie: was it in ny near the wtc like implied or seemingly implied. which after asking was cleared up by dogsmilk.
2. ask if anyother buildings collapsed other than the wtc complex or was it just the wtc complex.
so lets leave it there because it wasnt to bitch and moan about how long the plaza stood ect ect originally.
as for pictures of raging fire how many videos do you see it in when wtc7 collapses?
what a day today some people need to get laid and chill a little and stop jumping to conclusions or assuming and going straight on the defensive(no i dont just mean you) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 11:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
This theory about a conspiracy to destroy documents at WTC 7 is so half baked it is completely ridiculous. Apparently, unspecified CIA/SEC documents which may have been incriminating might have been stored at WTC 7. Just by alluding to this possibility, a convincing motive for controlled demolition has been established for troofers.
Apparently some people believe that when you trade United Airlines options on the CBOE, a little piece of paper is printed out on a computer at WTC 7 and filed away in a drawer. The guy probably puts a backup floppy in box somewhere as a precaution. No other records exist of these trades, there is no data redundancy, no offsite backups, no central data warehousing, nothing.
So just by alleging that a document might exist, without saying what it is, without explaining how destroying the building would erase the existance of this unspecified incriminating activity, we have ourselves a conspiracy theory that is much more convincing that anything those crazy shill scientists and engineers are writing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 11:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | This theory about a conspiracy to destroy documents at WTC 7 is so half baked it is completely ridiculous. Apparently, unspecified CIA/SEC documents which may have been incriminating might have been stored at WTC 7. Just by alluding to this possibility, a convincing motive for controlled demolition has been established for troofers.
Apparently some people believe that when you trade United Airlines options on the CBOE, a little piece of paper is printed out on a computer at WTC 7 and filed away in a drawer. The guy probably puts a backup floppy in box somewhere as a precaution. No other records exist of these trades, there is no data redundancy, no offsite backups, no central data warehousing, nothing.
So just by alleging that a document might exist, without saying what it is, without explaining how destroying the building would erase the existance of this unspecified incriminating activity, we have ourselves a conspiracy theory that is much more convincing that anything those crazy shill scientists and engineers are writing. |
which of course is just as speculative as claiming the building was bought down to get rid of evidence. i agree that it may not be a reason at all, but if it was CD'ed on purpose the fact is any reason why is just speculation. there is speculation, coincidence and evidence claiming the building came down because of papers isnt evidence on that i agree.
but anything claiming it was the reason why or wasnt the reason why is just speculation. the fact that paperwork was held there to investigate some big companys (enron for example) and some of it was lost in the collapse is a coincidence but again not evidence.
nobody as yet as offically came up with the reasons why it even collapsed
we can all use evidence to claim we know but as yet it is not on the record so cannot be proven true or false untill we have an offical explanation, untill nist release a report which dosnt contain any errors distortions or exagerations, we dont even know why the building collapsed. we can only judge from the evidence anything else is just speculation or coincidence and that goes for both sides. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 10:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | the fact that paperwork was held there to investigate some big companys (enron for example) and some of it was lost in the collapse is a coincidence but again not evidence. |
But what it? The only references I can find for that are from websites like unexplained-mysteries.com which cite no sources.
Keep in mind that Enron went bankrupt after 9/11, and the whole top management was convicted and imprisoned. Doesn't look like a very successful cover up. That's my point, this innuendo is passed around but nobody gives it a two second common sense test. | Quote: | | we dont even know why the building collapsed |
We don't have the official collector's edition autographed hardcover, but the basis for the collapse is pretty well understood, at least within the engineering community, and supported by phsical evidence and eyewitness accounts. You can pretend that the world's engineers await an explanation for this great mystery, but that's not really the case. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 10:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | | Quote: | | the fact that paperwork was held there to investigate some big companys (enron for example) and some of it was lost in the collapse is a coincidence but again not evidence. |
But what it? The only references I can find for that are from websites like unexplained-mysteries.com which cite no sources.
Keep in mind that Enron went bankrupt after 9/11, and the whole top management was convicted and imprisoned. Doesn't look like a very successful cover up. That's my point, this innuendo is passed around but nobody gives it a two second common sense test. | Quote: | | we dont even know why the building collapsed |
We don't have the official collector's edition autographed hardcover, but the basis for the collapse is pretty well understood, at least within the engineering community, and supported by phsical evidence and eyewitness accounts. You can pretend that the world's engineers await an explanation for this great mystery, but that's not really the case. |
how many experts that do work or rely on goverment contracts will be honest? anyone saying that building didnt come down just like a CD is a barefaced lier. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
OK, so you have no idea where the Enron story came from. May as well have been completely fabricated, not that that would keep you from going back to the same website and reading their next exciting story. | Quote: | | how many experts that do work or rely on goverment contracts will be honest? |
I would not cover up mass murder for the sake of a government contract. Again, you are ignoring a long history of whistleblowing. | Quote: | | anyone saying that building didnt come down just like a CD is a barefaced lier. |
Just like a CD, in the sense that... well in the sense that it fell down. So in that sense it looked like a CD (at least the part we could see). And ignoring the the fact that the penthouse collapsed first, which wouldn't happen in a CD (of course that could have been a pre-CD CD, designed to keep it from looking like a CD, in which case whether or not it looks like a CD becomes irrlevant because you're having it both ways). And ignoring the widely reported eyewitness accounts of damage and instability, which don't fit with a CD. Oh and ignoring the lack of visible and audible explosions which precede a CD. And ignoring the fact that engineers and CD experts don't think it looks like a CD. Other than that, exactly like a CD in the sense that looking like a CD means falling down.
And then we ignore the fact that a CD would require a wild conspiracy, imagining new kinds of explosives, sneaking agents laying thousands of charges without being detected. All to demolish a building which would have been demolished anyway and which nobody can come up with a reason or motive for CDing anyway.
Other than those few weaknesses, you've got a pretty good theory going. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | OK, so you have no idea where the Enron story came from. May as well have been completely fabricated, not that that would keep you from going back to the same website and reading their next exciting story. | Quote: | | how many experts that do work or rely on goverment contracts will be honest? |
I would not cover up mass murder for the sake of a government contract. Again, you are ignoring a long history of whistleblowing. | Quote: | | anyone saying that building didnt come down just like a CD is a barefaced lier. |
Just like a CD, in the sense that... well in the sense that it fell down. So in that sense it looked like a CD (at least the part we could see). And ignoring the the fact that the penthouse collapsed first, which wouldn't happen in a CD (of course that could have been a pre-CD CD, designed to keep it from looking like a CD, in which case whether or not it looks like a CD becomes irrlevant because you're having it both ways). And ignoring the widely reported eyewitness accounts of damage and instability, which don't fit with a CD. Oh and ignoring the lack of visible and audible explosions which precede a CD. And ignoring the fact that engineers and CD experts don't think it looks like a CD. Other than that, exactly like a CD in the sense that looking like a CD means falling down.
And then we ignore the fact that a CD would require a wild conspiracy, imagining new kinds of explosives, sneaking agents laying thousands of charges without being detected. All to demolish a building which would have been demolished anyway and which nobody can come up with a reason or motive for CDing anyway.
Other than those few weaknesses, you've got a pretty good theory going. |
you keep using the term wild conspiracy and imagining. simple facts the building feel like a CD.
the building had squibs going up the sides.
the building had a crimp.
the building fell into a neat enough pile.
no steel skyscrapper has never fell due to fire alone in totallity.
now it may of not been CD'ed but some of the facts point to the same charateristics as a CD. so where is the WILD conspiracy theory when no offical source has come up with an explantion?
the penthouse falling first is suspect to some people and they believe it points to the central collumns being cut first.
the stupid papers your going on about is just speculation, even if WTC7 was CD you are just speculating that it was not because of the papers, just the same as some people speculate it was because of the papers.
i think i made my postion on the papers clear. read above i said the papers/evidence being a reason is just speculation hopefully i will not have to keep repeating myself. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 12:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | pepik wrote: | OK, so you have no idea where the Enron story came from. May as well have been completely fabricated, not that that would keep you from going back to the same website and reading their next exciting story. | Quote: | | how many experts that do work or rely on goverment contracts will be honest? |
I would not cover up mass murder for the sake of a government contract. Again, you are ignoring a long history of whistleblowing. | Quote: | | anyone saying that building didnt come down just like a CD is a barefaced lier. |
Just like a CD, in the sense that... well in the sense that it fell down. So in that sense it looked like a CD (at least the part we could see). And ignoring the the fact that the penthouse collapsed first, which wouldn't happen in a CD (of course that could have been a pre-CD CD, designed to keep it from looking like a CD, in which case whether or not it looks like a CD becomes irrlevant because you're having it both ways). And ignoring the widely reported eyewitness accounts of damage and instability, which don't fit with a CD. Oh and ignoring the lack of visible and audible explosions which precede a CD. And ignoring the fact that engineers and CD experts don't think it looks like a CD. Other than that, exactly like a CD in the sense that looking like a CD means falling down.
And then we ignore the fact that a CD would require a wild conspiracy, imagining new kinds of explosives, sneaking agents laying thousands of charges without being detected. All to demolish a building which would have been demolished anyway and which nobody can come up with a reason or motive for CDing anyway.
Other than those few weaknesses, you've got a pretty good theory going. |
you keep using the term wild conspiracy and imagining. simple facts the building feel like a CD.
the building had squibs going up the sides.
the building had a crimp.
the building fell into a neat enough pile.
no steel skyscrapper has never fell due to fire alone in totallity.
now it may of not been CD'ed but some of the facts point to the same charateristics as a CD. so where is the WILD conspiracy theory when no offical source has come up with an explantion?
the penthouse falling first is suspect to some people and they believe it points to the central collumns being cut first.
the stupid papers your going on about is just speculation, even if WTC7 was CD you are just speculating that it was not because of the papers, just the same as some people speculate it was because of the papers.
i think i made my postion on the papers clear. read above i said the papers/evidence being a reason is just speculation hopefully i will not have to keep repeating myself. |
simple facts the building feel like a CD.
Well it fell from the bottom up. The towers fell from the top down, yet troofers still claim that was CD, so obviously it makes no difference.
the building had squibs going up the sides.
Ah yes, the so-called squibs at the top of the building, while it collapsed at the bottom. Very convincing!
the building had a crimp.
Yes, it had deformed before it fell, enough to make some people believe, quite rightly, that it was about to collapse.
the building fell into a neat enough pile.
And your point is?
no steel skyscrapper has never fell due to fire alone in totallity.
It was not fire alone, there was a huge gash in the building from the falling towers, there was no attempt to control the fire, and the diesel have still have been pumped around
now it may of not been CD'ed but some of the facts point to the same charateristics as a CD. so where is the WILD conspiracy theory when no offical source has come up with an explanation?
The explanation will be that the building fell because of damage and fires, all that is outstanding is exactly how that happened
the penthouse falling first is suspect to some people and they believe it points to the central collumns being cut first.
The sun rising in the East is suspect to some people! It points to the central columns collapsing first, no evidence for them being cut
the stupid papers your going on about is just speculation, even if WTC7 was CD you are just speculating that it was not because of the papers, just the same as some people speculate it was because of the papers.
i think i made my postion on the papers clear. read above i said the papers/evidence being a reason is just speculation hopefully i will not have to keep repeating myself
The building being CDed is also speculation, is it not? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 12:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | | pepik wrote: | OK, so you have no idea where the Enron story came from. May as well have been completely fabricated, not that that would keep you from going back to the same website and reading their next exciting story. | Quote: | | how many experts that do work or rely on goverment contracts will be honest? |
I would not cover up mass murder for the sake of a government contract. Again, you are ignoring a long history of whistleblowing. | Quote: | | anyone saying that building didnt come down just like a CD is a barefaced lier. |
Just like a CD, in the sense that... well in the sense that it fell down. So in that sense it looked like a CD (at least the part we could see). And ignoring the the fact that the penthouse collapsed first, which wouldn't happen in a CD (of course that could have been a pre-CD CD, designed to keep it from looking like a CD, in which case whether or not it looks like a CD becomes irrlevant because you're having it both ways). And ignoring the widely reported eyewitness accounts of damage and instability, which don't fit with a CD. Oh and ignoring the lack of visible and audible explosions which precede a CD. And ignoring the fact that engineers and CD experts don't think it looks like a CD. Other than that, exactly like a CD in the sense that looking like a CD means falling down.
And then we ignore the fact that a CD would require a wild conspiracy, imagining new kinds of explosives, sneaking agents laying thousands of charges without being detected. All to demolish a building which would have been demolished anyway and which nobody can come up with a reason or motive for CDing anyway.
Other than those few weaknesses, you've got a pretty good theory going. |
you keep using the term wild conspiracy and imagining. simple facts the building feel like a CD.
the building had squibs going up the sides.
the building had a crimp.
the building fell into a neat enough pile.
no steel skyscrapper has never fell due to fire alone in totallity.
now it may of not been CD'ed but some of the facts point to the same charateristics as a CD. so where is the WILD conspiracy theory when no offical source has come up with an explantion?
the penthouse falling first is suspect to some people and they believe it points to the central collumns being cut first.
the stupid papers your going on about is just speculation, even if WTC7 was CD you are just speculating that it was not because of the papers, just the same as some people speculate it was because of the papers.
i think i made my postion on the papers clear. read above i said the papers/evidence being a reason is just speculation hopefully i will not have to keep repeating myself. |
simple facts the building feel like a CD.
Well it fell from the bottom up. The towers fell from the top down, yet troofers still claim that was CD, so obviously it makes no difference.
the building had squibs going up the sides.
Ah yes, the so-called squibs at the top of the building, while it collapsed at the bottom. Very convincing!
the building had a crimp.
Yes, it had deformed before it fell, enough to make some people believe, quite rightly, that it was about to collapse.
the building fell into a neat enough pile.
And your point is?
no steel skyscrapper has never fell due to fire alone in totallity.
It was not fire alone, there was a huge gash in the building from the falling towers, there was no attempt to control the fire, and the diesel have still have been pumped around
now it may of not been CD'ed but some of the facts point to the same charateristics as a CD. so where is the WILD conspiracy theory when no offical source has come up with an explanation?
The explanation will be that the building fell because of damage and fires, all that is outstanding is exactly how that happened
the penthouse falling first is suspect to some people and they believe it points to the central collumns being cut first.
The sun rising in the East is suspect to some people! It points to the central columns collapsing first, no evidence for them being cut
the stupid papers your going on about is just speculation, even if WTC7 was CD you are just speculating that it was not because of the papers, just the same as some people speculate it was because of the papers.
i think i made my postion on the papers clear. read above i said the papers/evidence being a reason is just speculation hopefully i will not have to keep repeating myself
The building being CDed is also speculation, is it not? |
if you think the building didnt look like a CD then thats your opinon. however i find it hard to see why people cannot understand WHY people did think it looked like CD when it was just like one. seeing as though there is no offical results yet are you not speculating that it wasnt a CD? or do you know they will make the results match the OCT no matter how bizzare they have to make the findings? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 9:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | no steel skyscrapper has never fell due to fire alone in totallity. |
Including WTC 7.
Is there some prize for being the 1,000,000th conspiracy theorist to repeat this mistake?
Don't you feel embarassed that after so many years , you are still making huge errors about basic facts like this? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 1:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | | Quote: | | no steel skyscrapper has never fell due to fire alone in totallity. |
Including WTC 7.
Is there some prize for being the 1,000,000th conspiracy theorist to repeat this mistake?
Don't you feel embarassed that after so many years , you are still making huge errors about basic facts like this? |
NO EXPLAIN-ATION HAS BEEN GIVEN FOR WTC7 or will you continue to ignore this?
whos the conspiracys theorist? you claim wtc7 collapsed due to fire with no investigastion being completed and fail to show me any part of the offical story that explains collapse after the point of collapse, the only explaination ive seen is the pancake explaination. you however claim this is wrong but cannot show what im getting wrong.
you fail to address anything i link and just ignore them and then have the cheek to call me the conspiracy theorist when almost every point you make are based on assumptions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 11:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | NO EXPLAIN-ATION HAS BEEN GIVEN FOR WTC7 or will you continue to ignore this? |
Lots of explanations are out there. Not an official, final answer, but there is a lot of analysis out there.
| Quote: | | whos the conspiracys theorist? you claim wtc7 collapsed due to fire with no investigastion being completed |
You really are slow. You say that no building has ever collapsed due to fire alone, Bushwhacker points out that nobody is claiming it was fire alone, I point out that nobody claims it was fire alone, and the next thing you say is that we are claiming it collapsed due to fire alone! Are you complely nuts? Stop listing to what conspiracy websites tell you the official story is! | Quote: | | and fail to show me any part of the offical story that explains collapse after the point of collapse, the only explaination ive seen is the pancake explaination. |
Wrong building, that's WTC 1 and 2. Getting your conspiracies mixedup again. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 12:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | | Quote: | | NO EXPLAIN-ATION HAS BEEN GIVEN FOR WTC7 or will you continue to ignore this? |
Lots of explanations are out there. Not an official, final answer, but there is a lot of analysis out there.
| Quote: | | whos the conspiracys theorist? you claim wtc7 collapsed due to fire with no investigastion being completed |
You really are slow. You say that no building has ever collapsed due to fire alone, Bushwhacker points out that nobody is claiming it was fire alone, I point out that nobody claims it was fire alone, and the next thing you say is that we are claiming it collapsed due to fire alone! Are you complely nuts? Stop listing to what conspiracy websites tell you the official story is! | Quote: | | and fail to show me any part of the offical story that explains collapse after the point of collapse, the only explaination ive seen is the pancake explaination. |
Wrong building, that's WTC 1 and 2. Getting your conspiracies mixedup again. |
the thing you rely on is ridicule, yet is the offical story is true where is your proof? i was refering to WTC1 and WTC2 when i mentioned pancaking i thought even you would be bright enough to know i was refering to them, but obviously not. you told me i was wrong about pancaking then tell me it was WTC1 and WTC2 that pancaked.
oooppppsss you made a mistake there didnt you?
so you tell me im wrong about pancaking then in that post say pancaking refers to WTC1 and WTC2, see you dont notice you mistakes when your talking b*ll*cks do you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 12:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
No, I said getting your conspiracies mixedup again.
Nice try idiot. | Quote: | | i was refering to WTC1 and WTC2 when i mentioned pancaking i thought even you would be bright enough to know i was refering to them, but obviously not |
Really? Lets read the original quote: | Quote: | | you claim wtc7 collapsed due to fire with no investigastion being completed and fail to show me any part of the offical story that explains collapse after the point of collapse, the only explaination ive seen is the pancake explaination. |
Kind of tricky when you change topics mid (incoherent) sentence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
