Al_jazeera showing video of OBL/Al-Queda planning 9/11

[Looger]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Interpretation is part of debate. You are interpreting information as is he. But if you have no counter to his position that's fine...

i've stated what i thought, that WTC7 was a controlled demolition.

my 'disputed statement' was a response to ludicrous BS spewed by, as usual, Azure, who was feigning hurt based on his 'connection' to the attacks and his being offended by my avatar (which mysteriously disappeared by the way).

as no one died in the collapse i took issue with that.

WTC7 was not hit by a plane, went down SEVEN hours after.

[White Doors]

this is such crap.

I agree.

[Looger]

Originally Posted by White Doors

I agree.

wow. a real cerebral contribution.

[worth]

Originally Posted by Looger

listening to jones' radio show right now. how's that?

EDIT: seen "terrorstorm" yet? in the sig.

Yeah, i've seen it. Thought it was great. I don't listen to his show, although I visit his site daily along with others.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Looger

i've stated what i thought, that WTC7 was a controlled demolition.

my 'disputed statement' was a response to ludicrous BS spewed by, as usual, Azure, who was feigning hurt based on his 'connection' to the attacks and his being offended by my avatar (which mysteriously disappeared by the way).

as no one died in the collapse i took issue with that.

WTC7 was not hit by a plane, went down SEVEN hours after.

Fine, then respond to BBS's post with that type of post - instead of just dismissing it as insluting when there wasn't a single insult in it.

People are free to challenge your theories on whatever ground they choose as long as they keept he name calling out of it. You in turn can choose to either try to counter those positions or not. But don't try to claim that posts are insulting when they aren't.

[Looger]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Fine, then respond to BBS's post with that type of post - instead of just dismissing it as insluting when there wasn't a single insult in it.

People are free to challenge your theories on whatever ground they choose as long as they keept he name calling out of it. You in turn can choose to either try to counter those positions or not. But don't try to claim that posts are insulting when they aren't.

i did respond.

EDIT: the insult i referred to was from Azure, which is what BBS was referring to.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Having watched some of the video evidence put forth by lug here I must say that I am not impressed in the least. All of the "facts" seem to have the common link of being round half truths which have been manipulated to fit into the round hole, and then have a man blaring the word fact as if that somehow reinforces his arguement.

I can see how someone would be willing to fall into the pitfalls of this conspiracy theory crap - it is much easier to make excused to look for some other rationale some other reason as to why such an event occured.

FACT

[Frank the Tank]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

FACT

Now THAT is funny! Well done!

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by Looger

i've stated what i thought, that WTC7 was a controlled demolition.

my 'disputed statement' was a response to ludicrous BS spewed by, as usual, Azure, who was feigning hurt based on his 'connection' to the attacks and his being offended by my avatar (which mysteriously disappeared by the way).

as no one died in the collapse i took issue with that.

WTC7 was not hit by a plane, went down SEVEN hours after.

Hmm..... Well I think you answered your own riddle!

When the two towers fell the impact could be recorded on the richter scales thousands of miles away - is it not possible that the building next door to these buildings would have it structure weakened and there could be issues regarding the structural integrity of the building? Could there be fires which could have broken out due to the world trade centers next door failing to be there anymore and fires being present as a result.

Or could that be where the illuminati placed those who originally boarded the Flight 77 into WTC7? I think we have found the missing link there lug.

[Bleeding Red]

On WTC 7:

Jonathan Barnett, professor of fire protection engineering at the Worcester Polytechnic Institute in Massachusetts, calls such claims "bad science". Barnett was a member of the World Trade Centre Building Performance Study, one of the government groups that investigated the towers' collapse. Reluctantly, he has familiarised himself with the scholars' claims - many of them have emailed him. Yes, it is unusual for a steel structure to collapse from fire, Barnett agrees. However, his group and others argue that the planes' impact weakened the structures and stripped off the fireproofing materials. That caused the top floors of both towers to collapse on to the floors below. "A big chunk of building falling down made the next floor fall down, and then they all came down like a deck of cards," Barnett says.


The collapse of WTC 7 was also unusual, he admits. However, firefighters do not usually let a fire rage unabated for seven hours as they did on the morning of September 11, because they had prioritised the rescue of victims. "The fact that you don't have evidence to support your theory doesn't mean that the other theory is true," Barnett says. "They just made it up out of the blue."



http://http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/worldwide/story/0,,1864657,00.html

[Looger]

Originally Posted by Bleeding Red

On WTC 7:

Jonathan Barnett, professor of fire protection engineering at the Worcester Polytechnic Institute in Massachusetts, calls such claims "bad science". Barnett was a member of the World Trade Centre Building Performance Study, one of the government groups that investigated the towers' collapse. Reluctantly, he has familiarised himself with the scholars' claims - many of them have emailed him. Yes, it is unusual for a steel structure to collapse from fire, Barnett agrees. However, his group and others argue that the planes' impact weakened the structures and stripped off the fireproofing materials. That caused the top floors of both towers to collapse on to the floors below. "A big chunk of building falling down made the next floor fall down, and then they all came down like a deck of cards," Barnett says.


The collapse of WTC 7 was also unusual, he admits. However, firefighters do not usually let a fire rage unabated for seven hours as they did on the morning of September 11, because they had prioritised the rescue of victims. "The fact that you don't have evidence to support your theory doesn't mean that the other theory is true," Barnett says. "They just made it up out of the blue."



http://http://education.guardian.co....864657,00.html

just so we're clear:

WTC-7, a hardened over-engineered building set up for its defense establishment tenants, comes down in classic controlled demolition style, with the center columns being blown and the building falling into itself, in 6.2 seconds?

due to a seven hour moderate fire, while similar buildings had survived far longer and far hotter fires?

just so we're clear.

EDIT: i must be an anti-semite.

[KevanGuy]

Originally Posted by Looger

due to a seven hour moderate fire, while similar buildings had survived far longer and far hotter fires?

Link?

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by Looger

just so we're clear:

WTC-7, a hardened over-engineered building set up for its defense establishment tenants, comes down in classic controlled demolition style, with the center columns being blown and the building falling into itself, in 6.2 seconds?

due to a seven hour moderate fire, while similar buildings had survived far longer and far hotter fires?

just so we're clear.

SO you don't believe the professor? Why don't you come up with evidence that disputes his educated answer to it?
Just so we are all clear.

[Looger]

Originally Posted by White Doors

SO you don't believe the professor? Why don't you come up with evidence that disputes his educated answer to it?
Just so we are all clear.

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?doc...845273&q=WTC+7

[photon]

It wasn't just the fire, it could have also been part of one of the the main WTC towers falling against it.

EDIT: http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_damage.html

[White Doors]

That link makes my explorer crash. Why can't they just have nice 'facts' in black and white?

[Looger]

Originally Posted by KevanGuy

Link?

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/anal...are/fires.html

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/anal...collapses.html

http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/...xplaining.html

here's a few links to a 'conspiracy theory' site - i could google something but it wouldn't be an article i'm familiar with, kinda out of time right now.

[KevanGuy]

Originally Posted by photon

It wasn't just the fire, it could have also been part of one of the the main WTC towers falling against it.

EDIT: http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_damage.html

Here is a pic of the south side of WTC 7. Looks like a fair amount of damage to me.

http://www.debunking911.com/WTC72.htm

[KevanGuy]

Originally Posted by Looger

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/anal...are/fires.html

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/anal...collapses.html

http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/...xplaining.html

here's a few links to a 'conspiracy theory' site - i could google something but it wouldn't be an article i'm familiar with, kinda out of time right now.

Cool, thanks for those. I guess there will still be some doubt in my mind until we can find links that show there were only fires in WTC 7 and not structural damage from debris via the initial aircraft impact as well as the collapse of two 110 storey towers in the immediate vicinty.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Looger

i did respond.

EDIT: the insult i referred to was from Azure, which is what BBS was referring to.

Which insult?