lancemoody
Skeptic
---
Last edited:
-
NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
Building 7
- Thread starter lancemoody
- Start date
Free episodes:
P
pixelsmith
Guest
Wtc7
oh boy... seriously?! you must have run across a popular mechanics article or something.
Why not start with motive this time around?
Who had the most to gain?
What would be gained by WTC7 being destroyed?
What was in WTC7 that needed to be destroyed?
If you follow the money, where does it lead?
oh boy... seriously?! you must have run across a popular mechanics article or something.
Why not start with motive this time around?
Who had the most to gain?
What would be gained by WTC7 being destroyed?
What was in WTC7 that needed to be destroyed?
If you follow the money, where does it lead?
Double Nought Spy
May I please go back to the zoo now?
Wtc7
Priceless! You start a new thread where you still duck the question of What do you think happened to Building 7? and even have the balls to post a priggish line about "abandoned points." You are a piece of work, for sure!
Priceless! You start a new thread where you still duck the question of What do you think happened to Building 7? and even have the balls to post a priggish line about "abandoned points." You are a piece of work, for sure!
There was some request to discuss this topic in another unrelated thread and I am game (for at least a little while).
It won't do any good but I suggest trying to be succinct and to back up claims with relevant references. If you decide to just spam 50 links, asking folks to go and read the equivalent of a novel to ferret out the one supporting item, you will lose my respect (yes, I mean it, don't act all petulant) but you will additionally lose most readers.
Please don't change the topic to another when the chips are down and an open question is on the table. I plan to mark such lapses like thisABANDONED POINT
I earlier said that I was unwilling to discuss 9/11 with Pixelsmith but I want to withdraw that stipulation until the name calling starts in this thread.
Let's start anyway with as little rhetoric as possible and see what happens...
Thanks,
Lance
Double Nought Spy
May I please go back to the zoo now?
Wtc7
Well that should keep you busy and out of trouble for a while. Good luck!
Well that should keep you busy and out of trouble for a while. Good luck!
Angel of Ioren
Friendly Skeptic
Wtc7
DNS, Lance posted pictures and stated some valid points. Argue against what he presents, not him.
I don't think he ducked the question at all. To me it's clear that Lance thinks the damage that happened to the building caused it to collapse. look at the pictures. One can't deny that there was damage.
DNS, Lance posted pictures and stated some valid points. Argue against what he presents, not him.
I don't think he ducked the question at all. To me it's clear that Lance thinks the damage that happened to the building caused it to collapse. look at the pictures. One can't deny that there was damage.
P
pixelsmith
Guest
Wtc7
First you could supply a link to who this "one person called the facts of the case" is.
First you could supply a link to who this "one person called the facts of the case" is.
Angel of Ioren
Friendly Skeptic
The Pair of Cats
a.k.a Philip Deane
Wtc7
Lance. The damage you have shown is hardly going to affect it in any considerable way. Are you saying that what looks like minor damage ultimately caused WTC 7 to collapse?
Lance. The damage you have shown is hardly going to affect it in any considerable way. Are you saying that what looks like minor damage ultimately caused WTC 7 to collapse?
P
pixelsmith
Guest
Wtc7
Second you could tell us how the building was originally constructed and then what was done to it a few years later to make it a fortified command center bunker to be used in case of a terrorist attack. It was a heavily fortified structure WITHIN the WTC7 structure itself. It was no ordinary building.
Please carry on.
Second you could tell us how the building was originally constructed and then what was done to it a few years later to make it a fortified command center bunker to be used in case of a terrorist attack. It was a heavily fortified structure WITHIN the WTC7 structure itself. It was no ordinary building.
Please carry on.
Double Nought Spy
May I please go back to the zoo now?
Wtc7
If he has no problem with the official story, then why can't he just say so? I know a lot of respectable people who would say that. Why all the drama?
If he has no problem with the official story, then why can't he just say so? I know a lot of respectable people who would say that. Why all the drama?
P
pixelsmith
Guest
The Pair of Cats
a.k.a Philip Deane
Wtc7
One would think that buildings of that calibre would have been built to withstand such damage hwether you call it minor or major. And if this damage caused it to fall , why didn't it topple sideways instead of straight down?
One would think that buildings of that calibre would have been built to withstand such damage hwether you call it minor or major. And if this damage caused it to fall , why didn't it topple sideways instead of straight down?
P
pixelsmith
Guest
Wtc7
Please tell us how the damage in on corner causes a global instantaneous collapse straight down (and at free fall speed for part the way) neatly into its own footprint. with the damage in one corner it should have toppled to one side.
---------- Post added at 03:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:40 PM ----------
i guess it was the same magical office fires that brought WTC1 and 2 down into their own footprints as well....
Please tell us how the damage in on corner causes a global instantaneous collapse straight down (and at free fall speed for part the way) neatly into its own footprint. with the damage in one corner it should have toppled to one side.
---------- Post added at 03:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:40 PM ----------
i guess it was the same magical office fires that brought WTC1 and 2 down into their own footprints as well....
Double Nought Spy
May I please go back to the zoo now?
Wtc7
You said I wanted to discuss this. I only asked what your opinion was on the official reason for the collapse of #7. Why on Earth you couldn't just say you accept the official report is beyond me. But thanks for coughing it up eventually.
You said I wanted to discuss this. I only asked what your opinion was on the official reason for the collapse of #7. Why on Earth you couldn't just say you accept the official report is beyond me. But thanks for coughing it up eventually.
Angel of Ioren
Friendly Skeptic
P
pixelsmith
Guest
Wtc7
You completely ignored my post about it being rebuilt as a fortified command bunker in case of terror attacks. This is important to establish as it was not like any other building in the complex. It was built to withstand direct explosive type attacks.
---------- Post added at 03:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:55 PM ----------
ANd WTC1 and 2 were designed to withstand multiple airliner impacts.
You completely ignored my post about it being rebuilt as a fortified command bunker in case of terror attacks. This is important to establish as it was not like any other building in the complex. It was built to withstand direct explosive type attacks.
---------- Post added at 03:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:55 PM ----------
ANd WTC1 and 2 were designed to withstand multiple airliner impacts.
P
pixelsmith
Guest
Wtc7
I guess an architect would be better at assessing the situation.
---------- Post added at 04:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:18 PM ----------
There was minimal damage to the well built structure is what I am saying.
I guess an architect would be better at assessing the situation.
---------- Post added at 04:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:18 PM ----------
There was minimal damage to the well built structure is what I am saying.
P
pixelsmith
Guest
Wtc7
The bunker added to the integrity of the building.
Are actually going somewhere with this topic? Where were we? oh yes there was a little damage in the corner of the building and some magical office fires were about to start randomly throughout the building.
The bunker added to the integrity of the building.
Are actually going somewhere with this topic? Where were we? oh yes there was a little damage in the corner of the building and some magical office fires were about to start randomly throughout the building.
Angel of Ioren
Friendly Skeptic
Wtc7
I wouldn't call a 10 story gash a little damage in the corner. Maybe you don't think it wasn't the only thing to cause the building to collapse, but at least be honest and acknowledge that there was a more than a little damage.
If we're not honest with each other's evidence, this becomes a pointless exercise. Both side of the argument need to do this.
I wouldn't call a 10 story gash a little damage in the corner. Maybe you don't think it wasn't the only thing to cause the building to collapse, but at least be honest and acknowledge that there was a more than a little damage.
If we're not honest with each other's evidence, this becomes a pointless exercise. Both side of the argument need to do this.
P
pixelsmith
Guest
Wtc7
I am wondering why you would not start out with motive and who stood to profit...
I am wondering why you would not start out with motive and who stood to profit...