P
pixelsmith
Guest
they were designed to withstand multiple airline strikes, they were not designed to withstand multiple terror attack insurance policies tho.
-
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!
WTC 7 tell me what you think of this video
- Thread starter stonehart
- Start date
Free episodes:
P
pixelsmith
Guest
towers 1 and 2 were to be torn down because of age and asbestos... it would have cost a lot of money so why not take out some terrorist attack policies out on them and knock em down... instead of paying a billion to take them down you can collect 4.5 billion profit and get rid of those pesky Enron court documents in building 7 at the same time.
P
pixelsmith
Guest
excellent web site for all your WTC questions. AE911Truth.org Download the blueprints and see how that thing was built. Only an idiot would buy the official story once you know the facts.
P
pixelsmith
Guest
but i guess Muadib would know more about these things than a bunch architects and engineers or airline pilots. Pilots For 9/11 Truth
Aardvark
Paranormal Maven
I am totally with you on this, pixilsmith. What pains me is how so many people that I respect, in this thread, are so eager to offer themselves as "idiots". Where has even a basic appreciation of things "scientific" gone?? Tis a sad day, indeed.
P
pixelsmith
Guest
there is no more science or laws of physics when it comes to controlling zombies. just tell them to believe and they do.
P
pixelsmith
Guest
idiot might be too harsh of a word... "ignorant fool" is a better phrase.
Muadib
Paranormal Adept
Yawn, you can find just as many people opposed to this as you can for it. I never said I bought either sides story 100% When you try to put forth the idea that WTC7 had to be a controlled demolition because there were only small fires, you're misrepresenting the facts. When you say it fell exactly at free fall speed you're misrepresenting the facts. When someone puts forth an idea like the frigging BBC was in on the conspiracy, not only is it completely retarded but it's also misrepresenting the facts. Something that happens a lot within the whole "truth" movement. But yeah, I'm the zombie, while you sit there and parrot conspiracy theory horseshit like it's your job. Go listen to some more Alex Jones so he can tell you what to think.
P
pixelsmith
Guest
if YOU had all the facts we wouldnt be having this discussion. i suggest you take a few years to go thru the blueprints, testimonials, evidence and then study metallurgy, do a few years of forge welding different materials, get some experience in demolition and construction, etc etc... then weigh that against the laws of physics and the official story and see what you think. you are seemingly a smart guy... you should figure it out eventually.
Muadib
Paranormal Adept
I've been studying and reading about 9/11 since it happened my friend, like I said before if you would've read my posts, there are things that simply don't add up, but they are present on both sides of the argument. What I've presented in this thread have been the facts, sometimes the facts support your position and sometimes they don't, anyone who has studied both sides of this argument would know that. So now not only are you an amateur climatologist (rofl), now you're an amateur metallurgist, architect, investigator, demolitions expert, structural engineer, physics professor, expert forge welder, and a construction expert? Gee, why don't I buy that? I think someone's inflating their resume just a tad.
Aardvark
Paranormal Maven
Muadib, let's be honest about this present thread. You have chosen to drag every dead cat and foul smelling fish that you can find into this exchange. And you have salted it with a few "real" facts so you can make that claim. There is a new DVD available that was produced by AE911TRUTH.org. It is titled "9/11:Explosive Evidence--The Experts Speak Out". This DVD covers WTC 1, 2 , and 7, but it's focus is on Bldg 7 and it brings forward the "scientific" facts about that atrocity. The Architects and Engineers are taking the high road in this pursuit of the TRUTH. Why don't you join them??? Watch the DVD....
Muadib
Paranormal Adept
Show me what "dead cats and foul smelling fish" I've brought into this argument, which facts have I gotten incorrect? I've seen the DvD you're talking about, it isn't new, it's been on youtube for almost a year, for almost every point they bring up, there's another that directly refutes them. For every engineer that says it was some kind of inside job, you can find one that says it's not. You and Pixel are acting like this thing is cut and dry when it is anything but. My position from the beginning has been there are facts in favor of both arguments. Sorry I don't swallow everything the so called "truth" community puts out there whole but there you have it. Now, show me the dead cats and foul smelling fish that you say I've drug out.
Aardvark
Paranormal Maven
I was speaking figuratively about the "cats and fish". If the Angel of Loren can speak figuratively, and then chuckle, the process is good enough for me. We will leave the location of the smelly beasts as an exercise for the readers. I am sure a few will be able to catch the stench.
I do not appreciate that you attempt to make me a card carrying member of some "Truth Community". There are way to many hoaxers and nuts that have claimed membership and do not deserve any attention, so just don't go there. I do support the direction taken by the "Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth" and the evidence that they have developed and presented.
Muadib
Paranormal Adept
Exactly, you make assertions about my factual accuracy and then completely fail to back them up. Nice try my friend. As to your other issue, I don't appreciate your attempt to lie about my factual accuracy and then when called on it, refuse to back it up. You can't back it up, because all I've done are present the facts and make no pronouncements, people are free to make up their own mind. You didn't bother to read the whole thread before trying to paint me as someone who just buys whatever the government tells me and then you have the gall to say I'm not interested in truth. Please.
I'll even give you an example about the 9/11 truth movement and factual accuracy, in that video and every 9/11 conspiracy video I've seen, and I've seen a lot of them, they make a point of showing the collapse and the puffs of smoke that are coming out of the building on the way down as proof that there are explosions taking place. This is pure bullshit. A building that big is full of air, so naturally as the floors collapse that air has to go somewhere and it's being forced out underneath the collapse, exactly as it should be. This is so simple that it's ridiculous and yet every 9/11 truth video shows the collapse sequence and then highlights what is basically air being forced out underneath the collapse as proof of demolition. Since you have no examples of my so called factual inaccuracy, what do you have to say about this factual inaccuracy from your own side?
P
pixelsmith
Guest
i guess i need to restate what i have said many times here on these forums. do NOT, i repeat do NOT believe a word i say.
P
pixelsmith
Guest
you are the one full of bullshit.
Muadib
Paranormal Adept
If we're not supposed to believe anything you say, why bother putting forth your ridiculously inflated credentials? Stick to what's being presented in the thread.
Muadib
Paranormal Adept
Prove it.
Muadib
Paranormal Adept
From debunking911.com:
Conspiracy theories are often built around anomalies which are difficult to prove either way. The "assumptionists" are convinced they know what the anomaly is. One such anomaly is the so called "Squibs".
They say this anomaly is an explosive charge going off and a sure sign of Controlled Demolition. It's often followed by more video of charges going off in real Controlled Demolitions. But if we examine the anomaly closely, we see these [would be] explosives work in reverse to an explosive blast. They tend to spurt out and then increase with time. An explosive works in reverse to this. Its strongest point is the moment the charge is set off. It doesn't increase its explosive strength with time.
So what is this then? Why would debris jet out of windows far below the collapse?
It could be a number of things, by themselves or in combination. One reasonable explanation is a buildup of pressure caused by the compression of air between the floors as they pancaked, (Please read the link to explain the NIST / Pancaking issue) pushed debris out of the already broken windows and/or open vents. Another is falling debris like elevators or elevator parts/motors and/or columns free falling down the elevator shafts and slamming into lower floors creating debris. In a sense the floors are large plungers and the towers are just one big Syringe during the collapse.
During the pancake, the floors acted like a plunger in a Syringe. The towers skin and windows became the tube of the Syringe. The increased pressure blew the windows out as each massive acre of floor compressed air between them. It's said that the towers were about 95% air. But not all the air went so easily out the window space. There was just as much window as there was steel perimeter columns. So the air takes the path of least resistance to the core. The core is collapsing and thick debris is preventing the air from going up. Its next path of least resistance would be to go down the core. The air pushed though the core any way it could and the pressure built up. It forced its way out on lower floors wherever it could. According to the survivors of at least one tower, a hurricane wind blows through the staircase which is located in the core
Of course, I expect the conspiracy theorists to say this was just the explosives which caused the high wind ("He even says explosions!") but they have no evidence of explosives. We do have evidence of pancaking. The ejecta coming out of the windows of the pancaking floor was uniform across the floor and light in color. It was coming out of every floor window until the falling debris obscured its view. Controlled demolition has staggered ejecta because the charges are only on some columns. You also always see at least [some] before the collapse and not [only] during it. There are none of these jets of debris before collapse.
Conspiracy theories are often built around anomalies which are difficult to prove either way. The "assumptionists" are convinced they know what the anomaly is. One such anomaly is the so called "Squibs".
They say this anomaly is an explosive charge going off and a sure sign of Controlled Demolition. It's often followed by more video of charges going off in real Controlled Demolitions. But if we examine the anomaly closely, we see these [would be] explosives work in reverse to an explosive blast. They tend to spurt out and then increase with time. An explosive works in reverse to this. Its strongest point is the moment the charge is set off. It doesn't increase its explosive strength with time.
So what is this then? Why would debris jet out of windows far below the collapse?
It could be a number of things, by themselves or in combination. One reasonable explanation is a buildup of pressure caused by the compression of air between the floors as they pancaked, (Please read the link to explain the NIST / Pancaking issue) pushed debris out of the already broken windows and/or open vents. Another is falling debris like elevators or elevator parts/motors and/or columns free falling down the elevator shafts and slamming into lower floors creating debris. In a sense the floors are large plungers and the towers are just one big Syringe during the collapse.
During the pancake, the floors acted like a plunger in a Syringe. The towers skin and windows became the tube of the Syringe. The increased pressure blew the windows out as each massive acre of floor compressed air between them. It's said that the towers were about 95% air. But not all the air went so easily out the window space. There was just as much window as there was steel perimeter columns. So the air takes the path of least resistance to the core. The core is collapsing and thick debris is preventing the air from going up. Its next path of least resistance would be to go down the core. The air pushed though the core any way it could and the pressure built up. It forced its way out on lower floors wherever it could. According to the survivors of at least one tower, a hurricane wind blows through the staircase which is located in the core
Of course, I expect the conspiracy theorists to say this was just the explosives which caused the high wind ("He even says explosions!") but they have no evidence of explosives. We do have evidence of pancaking. The ejecta coming out of the windows of the pancaking floor was uniform across the floor and light in color. It was coming out of every floor window until the falling debris obscured its view. Controlled demolition has staggered ejecta because the charges are only on some columns. You also always see at least [some] before the collapse and not [only] during it. There are none of these jets of debris before collapse.