oh.. i thought building 7 WASN'T a controlled demolition.

Yeah, and that was in 1912.

 

http://youtube.com/watch?v=CbepIw7218A

 

So in 1912 engineers would not have thought of a ship hitting an iceberg and penetrating the hull, but in the 1960's engineers would have thought of jetliners being purposely flown into the buildings at 500mph? Just a question.

 

freedictionary.com to the rescue

pull down
1. To demolish; destroy: pull down an old office building.
2. To reduce to a lower level.
3. To depress, as in spirits or health.
4. Informal To draw (money) as wages: pulls down a hefty salary.


Anything else you'd like to add?

 

Sorry, but EVERY claim made by the conspiracy idiots has been answered in great detail many times before here in these forums and hundreds of other places.

They just wait a while until the clamor does down, then bring up the same idiocy and already-disproven pathetic excuses for "assertions."

It's starting to get annoying.

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-09-11.html

Note that the chemtrailz crowd will not even have the courage to click/read the above link, I think last time the excuse was "the site's cookies give the CIA access to my BRAIN!!!" or maybe it was "the site uses hidden secret masked messages to turn me into a communist!!!" or that it helps to finance "OMG chemtrailz!!!" or something.

 

And never before 9/11 has a steel-frame building NOT collapse after getting hit by a 757 at 500mph, nor has a steel building with the unusual structural design of WTC 7 NOT collapse after burning for hours from a diesel fuel fed fire while suffering severe structural damage. Not once in the history of steel-frame buildings.

Well put. The collapses of the buildings is really basic science, and it's been explained scientifically to the complete satisfaction of the engineering and scientific world. So say otherwise is to simply ... LIE.

 

Lies so far in this thread:

"Silverstein admitted it" (Gravity and Rat)

Oh yeah, as long as you get to define what "pull" and "it" means. And as long as you admit that you are accusing the FDNY of murdering hundreds of their own. Which makes you about as much of a lowlife as is conceivably possible.

"Pull" doesn't mean blow up a building, it means pull it down with cables, like they did to WTC 6. I don't care what an online dictionary says, i care what industry professionals say. There isn't really any debate among the pros what pull means.

A dutch engineer says WTC7 was a CD (Rat)

A dutch engineer who did nothing more than watch a youtube video of a partially obscured building collapsing. With no sound. He did no other analysis. He also thinks WTC 1 and 2 were not controlled demolitions.

So in Rat's view he is an expert when he says WTC 7 was a CD, and a lying globalist pawn NWO agent when he says WC 1&2 weren't CD. When you're a conspiracy theorist its OK to be an spectacular hypocrite.

Never before have steel frame buildings collapsed due to fire (Rat)

First of all, steel frame buildings have collapsed due to fire. That's just a lie.

And secondly, Rat, do you think getting hit by a 250,000 pound plane travelling at 500 mile an hour carrying ten thousand gallons of jet fuel might have been a factor? Can we get your expert opinion on that?

A third building wasn't even hit by a plane yes still collaped.

One of the largest buildings in the world fell onto it, carving a gouge tens of stories high and starting fires which could not be fought and raged for hours. In your expert opinion Rat do you think a 110 story building collapsing on WTC 7 might have been a factor? Ya think?

The fires were minor and the building collapsed into its own footprint. (Rat)

Are the firefighters lying? They said the building had fires raging up and down the whole height of the building. The fire was out of control, they could not fight it. Rat calls this "minor fires".

Also, if you're wondering what the conspiracy theory definition of "in its own footprint" is, somehow means that in the process of collapse, buildings across the street are damaged. Sound like "in its own footprint" to you? Me neither.

Keep in mind the Pentagon is surrounded by cameras as it's one of the most heavily guarded buildings in the entire world. There are literally HUNDREDS of cameras surrounding the building. (Rat)

This is just made up facts. Ask any conspiracy theorist what makes the Pentagon the most heavily guarded building in the world, or for evidence of hundreds of cameras, and they will call you cointelpro and change the subject. And a bit of common sense - where do you think Pentagon security cameras are pointing - at blank walls and blue sky, or at entrances?

We also know that surveillance camera footage was confiscated from a nearby hotel and gas station just minutes after the building was struck. (Rat)

Minutes? Embellishment, I think. Or maybe he means hundreds of minutes.
Some of this video has already been released, and the rest is said to show nothing, which isn't so surprising since a camera pointed directly at the impact barely showed anything. Maybe we should ask Rat why he thinks hotels and gas stations would point their video cameras at anything other than their own premises?

Yeah, I know, Arabs with boxcutters outsmarted the best air defense system in the world with no fighter response for over an hour. (Rat)

This is a real cliche - boxcutters? Witnesses said they had knives and bombs. But who cares what the witnesses said? The conspiracy websites say boxcutters, so we must repeat what the conspiracy websites tell us to think. And since when is the best air defense system in the world defending Washington DC? NORAD points outwards. But you are not allowed to ask this question, only cointelpro questions the conspiracy. You must believe.

The trade towers were designed to sustain MULTIPLE strikes from airliners without collapsing (Rat)

They did sustain airline strikes without collapsing. That's why everyone below the impact was able to excape, saving tens of thousands of lives. It was the fires the buildings couldn't survive.

 

Oh boy, you've been waiting a long time to bust out those gems, haven't you? Nice and practiced, very nice.

I accepted the fact, yes fact, that 911 was totally systematic long ago. It's really not hard to believe, and the facts and evidence to back it up is overwhelming. I mean, sure by now "scientists" have come out on both sides of the debate, so really it's just what you want to believe.

You, 'hiptastic', are quite clearly too scared to believe the truth, and that makes me sad.

-Mike

 

So basically you're saying that although you can't make up a single coherent point to back up your theory, you're sad I won't believe it?

 

No, what I'm saying is that no matter how coherent or obvious or factually based of a point that is brought up, you still won't believe it.

Why would you believe anything that I say anyway? That's right.. you wouldn't, so why should I bother?

Basically, your head is deeply entrenched up your anus. And that is what is sad.

-Mike

 

And this is coming from a Democrat koolaid drinker who supports warhawk Hillary. You are probably more brainwashed than even Pepik. I have read what the guy from Skeptic has to say and it's pure propaganda that ignores 2/3 of the evidence.

Oh, and Pepik, please show us some examples of other highrise buildings that have collapsed from fire. I mean, I am sure you will ignore the highrise fire in Madrid from a few years ago that raged for literally days but never collapsed.

 

This is a real cliche - boxcutters? Witnesses said they had knives and bombs

and prey tell what witnesses? the dead ones?

 

You are quite frankly a major moron. I make myself look bad for arguing with you, but I can't help but defend myself when people put words in my mouth.

But I don't hold Silverstein's words as a key piece of evidence and I have admitted that. I said that maybe by some chance he wasn't referring to the bringing down of the buildings. If that was the case, then what exactly was he referring to? I believe the footage speaks for itself, combined with the testimony of the people in the area and the fact that it was leaked that the building had collapsed before it did, suggesting scripting.

I am also aware of the footage of WTC-6 being "pulled" with cables.

But we are talking about WTC-7. Not the towers. Where did I say he's a globalist pawn?? Why are you making things up that I never said?? Oh, because you're a disingenuous tool? I thought so.

So where is the evidence??

But in the last paragraph you implied that the impact had nothing to do with it and it was fire which brought the buildings down. So which is it??

No, because we were told that fire, not structural damage, brought the building down. I have seen the strangely carved out gash on the one side of the building, but that doesn't explain the perfectly uniform collapse of the building in six seconds.

I never heard this. And besides, firefighters were out of the building hours before it was brought down. So how can they say what the fires were like inside the building before the collapse when all the photographic evidence show a few small pockets of fire scattered over a few floors?

Well, when you bring a building down in such a condensed area as New York City, there is going to be some damage to the neighboring buildings. When the debris hits the ground at such a high rate of speed, some of it is going to go flying and hit the neighboring buildings. That is just common sense. The overwhelming majority of the building fell into its footprint as any controlled demolition would, into a neat pile. I mean, just look at the photos shot from the helicopters following the collapse.

At a building such as the Pentagon, every inch of the building is going to be under surveillance. This isn't Wallmart we're talking about.

Do you like playing stupid??

The fact is it was confiscated. I am not sure on the exact time, but it was confiscated nonetheless. I don't think it was hundreds of minutes. I think it was within an hour.

And what about parking lot cameras? The one on the Sheraton was said to have a clear view of the side of the Pentagon which was struck.

The conspiracy sites say boxcutters? So you're saying the official story made no mention of boxcutters? This is a fabrication of conspiracy websites??

Boxcutters, knives... same thing. They both cut. And obviously the bombs didn't work, or else the planes would have never reached their targets.

 

But you didn't say highrise. You said no steel framed building has ever collapsed due to fire. Are you changing your story now that you have been proved wrong? What happened to that famous Rat research?

This is complicated so follow closely: I did not say that all highrises that catch fire will collapse. You see its a complicated world Rat and not all buildings are built the same, and not all fires are the same.

Also, which part of the Madrid building was hit by a 250,000 pound plane travelling at 500 mile an hour carrying ten thousand gallons of jet fuel ? Oh that's right, none of it. I asked you before if maybe this was a relevant fact, but you ignored the question because it is inconvenient for your theories.

The other interesting thing is that despite having no airplane impact, the Madrid building did have a partial collapse - and it happened after only two and a half hours into the 26 hour fire (which you describe as "literally days" - ha ha ha, typical Rat, always stretch the truth). What part of the building collapsed? The part that had a structure similary to the WTC - steel frame. How you think this supports your theory I have no idea.

Well you said that maybe he had "pretended" to say that or that he was referring to "pulling his finger". That sounds like smug sarcasm to me, but now you just want to be vague. Do you have an actual opinion or not?

Well if it speaks for itself, what is it saying? And can you explain why you need to script people to say that a building had collapsed? Like otherwise all these journalists that had flocked to lower Manhattan and were giving the attacks 24 hour live uninterupted coverage wouldn't bother reporting a collapsing 47 storey building?

So you agree with Jowenko that WTC 1 and 2 were definitely not controlled demolitions, and the vast array of conspiracy theories about them being controlled demolitions are complete bullshit? Do you agree with this Rat? Speak up.

McCormick Place, a steel framed convention center, collapsed in 1967 after a small electical fire got out of control. The Sight and Sound theatre in Pennsylvania collapsed in 1997. You can watch this building collapse - even though its concrete and steel structure should have been more resistant to fire than the WTC buildings.

I'm so shocked a scholar like you wouldn't know. The impact weakened the building, dislodged fireproofing and destroyed sprinkler sytems. Thus it was a combination of fire and damage from impact. Or at least that's what engineering professionals and fire safety experts say, I have no expertise on the subject.

Again, I'd put it down to both. And the very unique structure of WTC 7. Two questions though: when you say six second collapse, you mean ignoring the collapse of the penthouse, right? Most conspiracy theorist ignore that because it makes the collapse time longer, which is inconvenient for their theories. Also, what do you think of the firefighters that said the building looked seriously unstable and that a collapse was possible or even likely? Were they all liars?

You never heard that eyewitness FDNY testimony - lots of it - describes raging infernos! Well now that you know, surely this must change your view on the collapse. Or does it?

That's true, in that sense it was similar to a CD - the collapse was mostly symmetrical, and quite fast. But that doesn't prove a CD.

Do you like just making things up and then expecting us to believe it? You don't have the credibility to get by on say so. Can you actually prove that security cameras are pointed at the lawn and the sky, which is what you must believe?

Ah, so minutes turns into I dunno, I'm not sure, I think less than an hour. Typical Rat, always playing loose with the facts. Note that you didn't even bother trying to find the correct time, probably because you couldn't back it up at all.

Says who? And if it had another blurry view of a far off object appearing in one frame, would you care?

Well a knife can be a lot bigger and more dangerous than a boxcutter. But as usual you love to exaggerate. Plus I did more research and found they seem to have pepper spray too.

Here's something you obviously didn't think of, Sherlock: they were lying about the bombs. They said they had them but they were probably boxes of nothing. But when hijackers have knives and claim to have bombs, isn't that enough to hijack a plane pre-911?

 

It should be noted that there has been a statement regarding his remarks.

http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Sep/16-241966.html

It should also be noted there has been a statement regarding this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html

I'm sure this not news to either one of you, but just thought i'd add it.

 

Also, I'd like to point out the things you skipped over because you couldnt defend.

Never before have steel frame buildings collapsed due to fire (Rat)

This statement, besides being false, ingores a 250,000 pound plane travelling at 500 mile an hour carrying ten thousand gallons of jet fuel. This is a totally dishonest way to present what happened to these two buildings. If your case is so strong, why are you always so dishonest?

A third building wasn't even hit by a plane yes still collaped.

Again, please explain why you don't think its worth mentioning the impact of a collapsing 110 storey building. Isn't that dishonest?

Keep in mind the Pentagon is surrounded by cameras as it's one of the most heavily guarded buildings in the entire world. There are literally HUNDREDS of cameras surrounding the building. (Rat)

As we have seen, literally hundreds of cameras turns out to be literally made up.

We also know that surveillance camera footage was confiscated from a nearby hotel and gas station just minutes after the building was struck. (Rat)

Minutes, or at least that's the time Rat made up for convenience.

Yeah, I know, Arabs with boxcutters outsmarted the best air defense system in the world with no fighter response for over an hour. (Rat)

Since when is the best air defense system in the world defending Washington DC? NORAD points outwards. No comment from Rat.

Oh and a little more research shows the first fighter was scrambled after half an hour. I apologise, you got so much wrong I can hardly keep track of it all.

The trade towers were designed to sustain MULTIPLE strikes from airliners without collapsing (Rat)

They did sustain the impact without collapsing. No acknowlegement from Rat.

 

Thanks. The think is I try to focus on the logic of it. Sure BBC can come up with excuses years later, but conspiracy theorists will dismiss anything like that as part of the conspiracy.

The logical problem is harder for them to dismiss. How exactly does it make sense for the conspirators to alert the media - let alone in advance - that a giant building has collapsed? Why would they need to ? It makes no sense at all, but conspiracy theorists don't seem be giving it much thought.

 

Yes, I appreciate it can be dismissed and I'm sure it will.
But they have a right to reply.
They are unlikely to here, personally
So there it is.

 

I am not going to continue this back and forth with you, Hip. I feel as though I've said my piece. If someone other than yourself has an issue they would like to address, that's fine, but I am not going to waste my time arguing about it. You are set in your beliefs, so why should I care?

 

And the winner by TKO in the 5th round..... HIPTASTIC!