What happened to the building 7 controlled explosion thread?

I don't believe in that shit but if it was taken down thats shady....

 

I'm sure it was because the thread was full of inaccuracies regarding the matter. I applaud the forums for removing such a thread.

 

just like my rant on cheech and chong disappeared..

I think cheech and chong was in on 9/11 anyways did you see all that smoke?...


"site was hacked a while back some threads were attacked and vanished"

 

Still kinda weird imo....

 

You should believe Building 7 was a controlled explosion because it was.

 

yeah what the fuck kind of building just fucking falls like that perfectly.

one with bombs in it. duh.

 

World Trade Center 7 Report Puts 9/11 Conspiracy Theory to Rest

The final report is in.

 

Propaganda.

 

Surely you can do better than that.

 

Building 7 collapsed exactly like planned demolitions, it was a text book 'pull'. I doubt fires at random segments of the building would cause it to fall the way it did, I doubt fire would case the building to fall at all.

Also there's good reason why they wanted the building taken out, it had all those investigations about criminal activity by certain organizations in it.

 

You mean that's what the conspiracy websites told you? Because demolitions experts don't even use the word "pull", except in the context of hooking up actual cable to a building and pulling it over, which obviously isn't what WTC 7 looked like.

I'm sure you think that. But what are your qualification to make that kind of judgment? Can you explain why fire couldn't have made this building fall either (fast forward to about 0:45)?

Ever head of a paper shredder? Bit easier than wiring the entire building with explosives and blowing it up. Bit more subtle too.

Would it be safe to assume that you rejected the entire NIST report without reading a single word of it or even looking at the cover?

 

"I'm sure you think that. But what are your qualification to make that kind of judgment? Can you explain why fire couldn't have made this building fall either (fast forward to about 0:45)?"

That building crumbled slightly, it didn't collapse down perfectly like it was demolished, infact I think that video proves my point more than it does yours. You're right, I'm not qualified at all, but I know that to in my eyes, building 7 didn't look like it would tumble that way due to fire, and apparently a lot of people say that as well.

look at it, fire doesn't make something collapse like that, it's more like in the vid you showed, building 7 was text book demolition, no one can deny that's not what it looked like.

"Ever head of a paper shredder? Bit easier than wiring the entire building with explosives and blowing it up. Bit more subtle too."

A lot more suss though, there are camera's security logs, it'd be easy to follow the trail of whoever shredded those documents. also it's not practical to shred that much, they'd have to do it in secrecy, over a long period, easier and less suspicious to take it all down in one blow under the disguise of the building being burnt down.

 

Maybe you should watch it again. It didn't crumble slightly, the section with the worst fires collapsed down perfectly - exactly what you say cannot happen.

A lot of other people who make engineering judgements based on zero training and watching a youtube video. But when actual engineers, like the people behind the NIST report, look at it they come to a different conclusion. Which is more relevant?

This is complete hearsay.

Textbook demolitions have clearly visible and very audible, series of charges being set off prior to the collapse, there is no sign of that at WTC 7. There is also no explanation for why eyewitness testimony by firefighters would indicate the building looked highly unstable and at risk of collapse before it actually fell. Don't firefighters know anything about buildings and fires? Are they all liars?

Maybe in 1925 when all the papers would be in a big file marked "Enron" filed under 'E' in a filing cabinet. Not in 2001, when documents are electronic and backed up. This is just idle speculation, nobody have ever been able to name a single case that was dismissed because documents were lost at WTC 7. In fact you can't even seem to name any cases yourself, just vaguely referring to "certain organisations".

I'm asking you again - have you read a single word of the NIST report or are you so confident of your ability to do engineering analysis based on casual viewing of YouTube videos that you don't see any need?

 

Ah, Hiptastic, you little troll...glad to see you back here defending your paymasters. How's life in the upper echelons?

As for "doing better than that", I will for her right now:


State-sponsored propaganda.

 

Without a doubt.

 

Let's see how immediately he replies or if he's been given the day off.

 

So between the two of you, you still can't come up with anything other than sneering? Pretty sad.

 

How would demolitions be placed without notice? For a controlled explosion of that magnitude, the time requred in man hours would be extremely long. You'd either need a large team of people or one person taking weeks. The supplies needed for a controlled explsion would be significant as well. You'd need either strong radio detonators, lots of wiring, or timed fuses. Additoinally, to bring down a building of thats size, you'd need a good deal of exposives to placed in critical locations. The nature of a fire spanning the entire floor structures seems the most plausible. Also, if the government was interested in making the event more spectacular than it already was, why the relatively plain looking collapse of an empty structure? As I stress before, if the US wanted an excuse to start a war, there were many easier and cheaper options that could have been employed.

 

haha, stupid me, thinking the government has access to "teams of people" and "radio detonators, wiring, timid fuses", and "explosives".

if the US wanted an excuse to start a war? that "if" pales in comparison to the fact the US damn well used it as an excuse and milked it in every way possible. there are records of Bush discussing War in the Middle East before 9/11. why talk about it if it isn't serious enough to discuss with your nation? thats the way it should be. furthermore, why not go to War if you want to? why wait until the biggest attack on US soil which coincidentally happens less than a year later? why on one hand plot an Invasion of the Middle East while training supplying them money on the other? why split it in two, and befriend one side on behalf of the CIA?

just educate yourself, only you can do it for you. and I say all of this because I really care, not because I'm a troll who is insecure about my beliefs *cough* Hiptastic

 

Quote:

You missed the point. They have to get all these people into the building to do very disruptive work for very long periods of time, totally unnoticed. Pre wiring a building for demolitions normally involves stripping the building down to the core, no just hiding little bombs in the janitor's closet. Quote:

Newsflash: there have been wars in the middle east before 9/11. Quote:

Your writing is so vague and confusing its hard to see what you are claiming. But you have the same problem as everyone else trying to push this conspiracy - if 9/11 was intended to get us into Iraq, there would have been an Iraq connection. The Bush administration tried - and very publicly failed - to tie Iraq to 9/11.

Troll... isn't that people who rely on personal attacks, like you and Pahana?