Zeitgeist, 9/11, and Other Conspiracies

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

Negative. There wasn't enough force to take down a building, there was enough force to leave serious structural damage and cause fires to perforate the building which would lead to serious structural damage, especially if they were able to rage through out the day with no real attempts to stop it.

However, what the outward structural damage indicates is that it wasn't an internal explosion that brought about the fires and eventual collapse of the building. It was the pelting of debris that caused the fire and did the structural damage. It was the fire that weakened everything else to allow the building to pancake.

You're out gunned, I'd give up.

You mean the fire that took all of 8 floors on WTC7? China recently had a building, estimated to be 100ft shorter than WTC7 that was completely engulfed in flames on ALL floors and did not collapse.
http://www.infowars.com/fire-consume...-not-collapse/

When you watch the WTC7 building collapse, you can clearly see that the middle of the top of the roof sinks in before the collapse occurs.....thereby making the building fall onto its own footprint and causing minimal damage to surrounding buildings. Quit watching Fox News.

[photon]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Jesse Ventura has experience in demolition from his days as a Navy SEAL and he insists that ALL the WTC buildings were "controlled demolition". He is one of very few political folk down there who speaks the truth of 9/11.

Go and watch some Las Vegas demolitions on youtube and then watch WTC 7 go down........exactly the same.

Appeal to authority and affirming the consequent.

[photon]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

You mean the fire that took all of 8 floors on WTC7? China recently had a building, estimated to be 100ft shorter than WTC7 that was completely engulfed in flames on ALL floors and did not collapse.

One building that was engulfed did not collapse therefore all buildings that are engulfed cannot collapse? Do you not see how this is faulty reasoning?

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Why would somebody collapse that building?

After everything that had already happened that day, knocking down Building 7 is like scoring an empty-netter in a 10-0 hockey game. What's the point? The conspirators had already won. Mission: Accomplished. Why did they risk it all to knock down a building that none of us had ever even heard of? They knew everyone in the world was watching.

Were the 9/11 plans in there?

Businessman Larry Silverstein had a 99 year lease on WTC buildings 1,2 and 7. Interestingly, the lease was renewed for 99 years again 6 WEEKS ahead of 9/11 and there was an insurance clause added for a 7 billion dollar payout in case of a "terrorist attack".........he was paid out 4 billion dollars in the end.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by photon

One building that was engulfed did not collapse therefore all buildings that are engulfed cannot collapse? Do you not see how this is faulty reasoning?

WTC 7 was not engulfed with Flames, only 8 floors were. Look at the video of that Chinese building.......the entire thing is an inferno.

[photon]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

You mean the fire that took all of 8 floors on WTC7?

That's more than 8 floors.

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

[mikey_the_redneck]

How come WTC 6 didn't suffer any damage then? It is directly in between number 1 and 7. How come no beams destroyed the structure of those other buildings?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Businessman Larry Silverstein had a 99 year lease on WTC buildings 1,2 and 7. Interestingly, the lease was renewed for 99 years again 6 WEEKS ahead of 9/11 and there was an insurance clause added for a 7 billion dollar payout in case of a "terrorist attack".........he was paid out 4 billion dollars in the end.

Aah, so it was good ol' fashioned Jewish Lightning, was it?

I haven't heard that one before.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

You mean the fire that took all of 8 floors on WTC7? China recently had a building, estimated to be 100ft shorter than WTC7 that was completely engulfed in flames on ALL floors and did not collapse.
http://www.infowars.com/fire-consume...-not-collapse/

When you watch the WTC7 building collapse, you can clearly see that the middle of the top of the roof sinks in before the collapse occurs.....thereby making the building fall onto its own footprint and causing minimal damage to surrounding buildings. Quit watching Fox News.

There is not outward structural damage on your Chinese building. No outward structural damage means no weakening on the outer supports that are holding the faces of the building up. Look at the floors in the middle of the Chinese building that are buckling. This is what happened at WTC7, but because the WTC7 building was weakened it couldn't support the weight of the collapse.

I can also bet the Chinese building wasn't as old.

Stop listening to conspiracy theorists who omit facts and science to make their case.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by photon

That's more than 8 floors.

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

I can already see holes in your site there photon. Seeing this quote and looking at the map make me question it.

"while building 7 wasn't hit by an airliner, it was hit by the large perimeter columns of the Tower collapse. It was 400 ft away but the towers were more than 1300 ft tall. As the tower peeled open, it easily tilted over to reach building 7. Below is evidence showing that conspiracy theorists are wrong."

On what video evidence do you see the tower "easily tilt over" as in "over WTC6 to reach WTC7".................that is rubbish!

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Aah, so it was good ol' fashioned Jewish Lightning, was it?

I haven't heard that one before.

What are you getting at here?

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

How come WTC 6 didn't suffer any damage then? It is directly in between number 1 and 7. How come no beams destroyed the structure of those other buildings?

Yeah, that building has no structural damage and fire what so ever. Nevermind the fact it was only 8 stories tall, which is a lot smaller than WTC7 and would allow for a lot of debris coming from higher up to miss it.

Your argument is horrible, no seriously. Absolutely bad.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by photon

One building that was engulfed did not collapse therefore all buildings that are engulfed cannot collapse? Do you not see how this is faulty reasoning?

History teaches us photon.
http://www.infowars.net/articles/mar...07BBC_WTC7.htm

Quote;
"Aside from the fact that previous to 9/11 no steel framed building in history had ever collapsed due to fire damage, Building 7, otherwise known as the Salomon Brothers building, was intentionally designed to allow large portions of floors to be permanently removed without weakening the structural integrity of the building.
What this amounted to, as the Times pointed out, was that WTC7, specifically designed to be deconstructed and altered, became "a building within a building". An extraordinary adaptable and highly reinforced structure for the modern business age.
This is of course also partially the reason why in 1999 the building was chosen to house Mayor Rudolph Giuliani's $13 million emergency crisis centre on the 27th floor.
Remember that on 9/11 only eight floors of the building were subject to sporadic fires. The official NIST report failed to comprehensively identify how the building could have collapsed symmetrically into its own footprint given the damage that it had sustained."

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

Yeah, that building has no structural damage and fire what so ever.

lol, checkmate perhaps.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

Yeah, that building has no structural damage and fire what so ever. Nevermind the fact it was only 8 stories tall, which is a lot smaller than WTC7 and would allow for a lot of debris coming from higher up to miss it.

Your argument is horrible, no seriously. Absolutely bad.

Boy, you would think #6 would be powdered right into the ground.
http://www.infowars.net/articles/mar...07BBC_WTC7.htm

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

History teaches us photon.
http://www.infowars.net/articles/mar...07BBC_WTC7.htm

Quote;
"Aside from the fact that previous to 9/11 no steel framed building in history had ever collapsed due to fire damage, Building 7, otherwise known as the Salomon Brothers building, was intentionally designed to allow large portions of floors to be permanently removed without weakening the structural integrity of the building.

Was it designed to have large amounts of structural damage and fires raging for 7+ hours? I don't think so.

Remember that on 9/11 only eight floors of the building were subject to sporadic fires. The official NIST report failed to comprehensively identify how the building could have collapsed symmetrically into its own footprint given the damage that it had sustained."

I like how this thread has already answered these questions yet you keep repeating the. That's neat.

[mikey_the_redneck]

My viewpoint may not be bulletproof, but there are ALOT of holes in the story.
-Like the Larry Silverstein story.
-The fact that 1st responding fire fighters witnessed explosions on the basement, and first 2 floors after only the first plane had hit on the 80th floor??
-No formal investigation has occured with anyone under oath.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Boy, you would think #6 would be powdered right into the ground.
http://www.infowars.net/articles/mar...07BBC_WTC7.htm

How would you know what to expect in an unprecedented situation?

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

Was it designed to have large amounts of structural damage and fires raging for 7+ hours? I don't think so.






I like how this thread has already answered these questions yet you keep repeating the. That's neat.

No it hasnt been answered because none of you are demolition experts, and your sources could be as inaccurate as you claim mine are. WTC 7 fell PERFECTLY on its own foot print.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Boy, you would think #6 would be powdered right into the ground.
http://www.infowars.net/articles/mar...07BBC_WTC7.htm

Your link has NOTHING to do with building six. It's a red herring to the what we are currently talking about (Building six). You said building six was fine, and should have taken the damage building seven did. I have proven it did take damage.

The difference was size (less weight, less area to hit). It allowed more debris to travel over top of it, and because it weighed less, when they top floor buckled (and you can clearly see that it did) the supports were able to hold it still.

I could ask you the square root of 64 at this point and your answer would be "9/11 was an inside job."

This is sad =\.