Page 25 of 25 FirstFirst ... 1522232425
Results 361 to 372 of 372
  1. #361
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    3,032

    Default Re: Building 7 (WTC) Collapse (different angle)

    Quote Originally Posted by biayyatch
    Also remember that the Madrid Tower didn't have a plane flying into it.

    And WTC 7 had an aircraft fly into it? News to me.
    Last edited by ImmortalD24; 10-01-2010 at 02:01 AM.

  2. #362
    Saw a basketball once
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    4

    Default Re: Building 7 (WTC) Collapse (different angle)

    No, but it did suffer damage from falling debris. My point was that the top half of the Windsor building, the half that used steel columns collapsed due to fire, even though it wasn't hit by anything.

  3. #363
    NBA sixth man of the year miller-time's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    7,722

    Default Re: Building 7 (WTC) Collapse (different angle)

    Quote Originally Posted by ImmortalD24
    And WTC 7 had an aircraft fly into it? News to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by biayyatch
    No, but it did suffer damage from falling debris. My point was that the top half of the Windsor building, the half that used steel columns collapsed due to fire, even though it wasn't hit by anything.

  4. #364
    Administrator insidehoops's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    17,435

    Default Re: Building 7 (WTC) Collapse (different angle)

    Quote Originally Posted by GOBB
    Controlled demolition yet not one dropped a dime on anything huh?
    This is my take on it.

    I don't buy it.

    I don't believe that some of the biggest buildings in the world would be wired up in the manner the made-up conspiracies say, and not one person who wasn't evil heard about it or was involved in it and didn't talk about it or report it.

    As for personal stuff, I saw both buildings fall with my own eyes while on the street. Not up close or anything, but maybe a 10-12 minute walk away. And I don't pretend to know what a giant "controlled demolition" would actually look like, but the last thing I was thinking as it was happening was "gee, that doesn't look right." (But again, I realize that this particular point is not worth much.)

    But, yeah, until there's actual concrete proof of something different, I stick with the original mainstream version of the story

    Jeff

  5. #365
    College superstar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,272

    Default Re: Building 7 (WTC) Collapse (different angle)

    I don't like debating the whole staged demolition theory. All the evidence is pretty much gone or destroyed. For every engineer that proves the official story, there's another that can debunk it. I'm not an expert in this type of science, so I can't really comment other than IMO it could have happened either way.

    I sometimes believe that the staged demolition theory might be a false theory used to throw people off, and have the masses believe that any sort of conspiracy is too far fetched. The things that people need to focus more on are the holes in the intelligence and radar, whether the perpetrators could actually fly the planes at a high enough level to accomplish the attacks, the world history of state sponsored false flag terrorism (yes the U.S. has done this, Gulf of Tonkin anybody?), compartmentalization, also the policies and wars that have emerged out of and following this event.

    You look into these areas, and you should be able to find more than enough documented evidence that in the very least will make you somewhat question the official story.
    Last edited by Norcaliblunt; 10-01-2010 at 01:10 PM.

  6. #366
    Hume>Kunt.
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,492

    Default Re: Building 7 (WTC) Collapse (different angle)

    Quote Originally Posted by Norcaliblunt
    I don't like debating the whole staged demolition theory. All the evidence is pretty much gone or destroyed. For every engineer that proves the official story, there's another that can debunk it. I'm not an expert in this type of science, so I can't really comment other than IMO it could have happened either way.

    I sometimes believe that the staged demolition theory might be a false theory used to throw people off, and have the masses believe that any sort of conspiracy is too far fetched. The things that people need to focus more on are the holes in the intelligence and radar, whether the perpetrators could actually fly the planes at a high enough level to accomplish the attacks, the world history of state sponsored false flag terrorism (yes the U.S. has done this, Gulf of Tonkin anybody?), compartmentalization, also the policies and wars that have emerged out of and following this event.

    You look into these areas, and you should be able to find more than enough documented evidence that in the very least will make you somewhat question the official story.
    How can you debunk a story when all the evidence is gone? Your post is a mess.

  7. #367
    I Run NY. niko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    25,644

    Default Re: Building 7 (WTC) Collapse (different angle)

    Quote Originally Posted by insidehoops
    This is my take on it.

    I don't buy it.

    I don't believe that some of the biggest buildings in the world would be wired up in the manner the made-up conspiracies say, and not one person who wasn't evil heard about it or was involved in it and didn't talk about it or report it.

    As for personal stuff, I saw both buildings fall with my own eyes while on the street. Not up close or anything, but maybe a 10-12 minute walk away. And I don't pretend to know what a giant "controlled demolition" would actually look like, but the last thing I was thinking as it was happening was "gee, that doesn't look right." (But again, I realize that this particular point is not worth much.)

    But, yeah, until there's actual concrete proof of something different, I stick with the original mainstream version of the story

    Jeff
    Plus if you were like me, this is ALL anyone talked about for weeks. I knew way way too much about what happened, when they fell, who was inside, what it was like for the fireman nearby, etc. Then once the conspiracy talk got hot, everything got totally rewritten. All these "facts" were information first reported long after everything was done. (Note: i did not see them fall, but i was within earshot quite a long distance away. The fact other buildings fell strikes me as less than schocking.)

    And again everyone, the fact you think WTC 7 was part of some grand conspiracy is amazing. It's WTC 7! Who the **** would pick that building?

  8. #368
    Future D1 Dad
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    9,950

    Default Re: Building 7 (WTC) Collapse (different angle)

    i used to buy into the conspiracy theory about this but not really now.

  9. #369
    I Run NY. niko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    25,644

    Default Re: Building 7 (WTC) Collapse (different angle)

    Quote Originally Posted by jbot
    i used to buy into the conspiracy theory about this but not really now.
    i just don't get why it's such a ridiculous convuluted conspiracy. If it was Bush knew attack was coming, allowed it to further his middle east agenda, it makes sense. Debateable, but makes sense. But there are missles firing, buildings wired to blow up, etc.

  10. #370
    College superstar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,272

    Default Re: Building 7 (WTC) Collapse (different angle)

    Quote Originally Posted by Jello
    How can you debunk a story when all the evidence is gone? Your post is a mess.
    How can you prove a story either?

    My point is most of the "physical" evidence from the World Trade Center sites are gone by now, so IMO it is a dead end debate. Unless you are an expert in plane wrecks, engineering, physics, or demolition. Then you can speculate based on your expertise, for which there are thousands doing so on each side of the debate.

    As for the circumstantial or documented evidence in regard to intelligence agency blunders, military ops, an understanding of compartmentalization, the method of false flag terror, and current political policies driven from the event, then IMO there is plenty of evidence for anyone to be skeptical of the official version.

    But to each his own.

  11. #371
    Sixers|Eagles|Phillies GOBB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Illadelph live 215
    Posts
    44,772

    Default Re: Building 7 (WTC) Collapse (different angle)

    Quote Originally Posted by Norcaliblunt
    How can you prove a story either?

    My point is most of the "physical" evidence from the World Trade Center sites are gone by now, so IMO it is a dead end debate. Unless you are an expert in plane wrecks, engineering, physics, or demolition. Then you can speculate based on your expertise, for which there are thousands doing so on each side of the debate.

    As for the circumstantial or documented evidence in regard to intelligence agency blunders, military ops, an understanding of compartmentalization, the method of false flag terror, and current political policies driven from the event, then IMO there is plenty of evidence for anyone to be skeptical of the official version.

    But to each his own.
    So did Dog the Bunty hunter help find the demo crew that rigged those buildings?

  12. #372
    College superstar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,272

    Default Re: Building 7 (WTC) Collapse (different angle)

    Quote Originally Posted by GOBB
    So did Dog the Bunty hunter help find the demo crew that rigged those buildings?
    F if I know and no one will ever know that's the point. Lol.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •