Quake3World

finally there's a nice, comprehensive debunking of the continual garbage the 911 'truth' movement spews...

here she blows

http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.pdf

gets good around page 12

http://www.lolinfowars.co.nr is a good pdf as well.

There's also the NIST's website:

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

moranaloin better read this thing and stfu

how about the biggest conspiracy of them all... our retarded failing democratic system, I mean it's gotta be a consiracy all the shit that's been going down , that's the only way I can believe it.

lol...someone still believes what big brother tells them...

lol...someone still believes whatever the internet tells them...

"he said, she said"

No new information, just interpretation.

SplishSplash wrote:"he said, she said"

No new information, just interpretation.

idiot

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:

SplishSplash wrote:"he said, she said"

No new information, just interpretation.

idiot

Actually HM-PuFFNSTuFF...he's right.

I read the entire thing and several of the corresponding links within the article, the links posted above and watched several of the videos that have been linked in this article plus several others.

While I can appreciate the huge amount of "evidence" that is presented here to refute the 9/11 truth group...it isn't any more substantiating than what the conspiracy theorists present. The article spends several pages outlining that nearly all firemen quoted in the article agreed that "they were told to pull back because the building was going to collapse". Fine. This shows that several firefighters knew two things: they were told to abondon WTC 7 and that it was going to collapse. But it doesn't go into detail from ANY of them as to how they came to that conclusion except by hearing it from others. Hell...I distinctly remember the video (not linked to in any of the articles) of one firefighter calmly pointing to WTC 7 and telling the cameraman,"that building is about to come down". Once again...most people in his field of work would probably already know that it takes alot of burning fire to collapse a steel-framed building but it seems to me that he was regurgitating 3rd-party information with no basis for making his statement other than the fact that every other fireman at the scene was told the same thing and saying the same thing.

With regards to the "detailed" examples of other steel-framed buildings collapsing the guy doesn't mention at all the fact that those that did collapse were "raging infernos" and he also ignored the fact (obvious in one of his examples) that the buildings had been burning consistently hot (raging inferno) for up to 36 hours. None of the WTC buildings had burned that long or that hot.

While it was interesting to see the images and video of WTC 7 showing greyish smoke (indicating a fire getting lots of oxygen) there is just as much black smoke (indicating an oxygen-starved fire). So again...the evidence presented doesn't prove anything either way in that the building was about to collapse because of a "raging inferno".

I also wondered why the described damage to WTC 7 as being "gutted" from a large section of the front of the building (similar to the Oklahoma city bombing) still allowed it to collapse (mostly) uniformly. Also remember that the Murrah Federal Building didn't collapse at all when it was "gutted" in much the same manner (and to a worse degree than WTC 7), nor did it start into a raging inferno from an obvious explosion yet the WTC 7 started burning just from debris falling on it. (please remember that any statements saying "the explosion blew out the fire" in the Murrah Federal Building could also be applied to the WTC 1 and 2 buildings to debunk their "raging inferno" claims...which seems to be what happened for the most part)

It is always good to get as much information as you can from all sides of the fence but this article doesn't do much except call conspiracy theorists names and belittle their arguement for simply questioning that "the government could be responsible for killing all those heroes on 9/11".

This reads like a propaganda piece. Sure...it presents alot of facts that refute some of what the conspiracy theorists have been saying but it does nothing to convince people who know of all the other things that have been going on that day. Besides...like conspiracy theorists this article completely ignored evidence that showed the opposite of his arguement...convenient ommisions.

Perhaps this article was too focused on WTC 7 to address the other issues but yet it still fails to convince me that (with regards to WTC 7) the conspiracy theorists are dead wrong.

Just to reiterate what I believe to be a raging inferno compared to the single best image I could find of WTC 7's "raging inferno".

This is WTC 7's raging inferno:


These are other examples of raging infernos that I found on page one of a google image search for "raging inferno"











If we are to believe that the WTC 7's "less than a days" level of "raging inferno" is enough to collapse a modern, steel-framed skyscraper then it's fairly easy to come to the conclusion that other skyscrapers in history (which suffered a worse raging inferno than WTC 7...including the in 15 floor "raging inferno" of the First Interstate Bank building in Los Angleles which burned for 3 1/2 hours) should also have collapsed....but they didn't.




Like I said...this article doesn't really convince me.

Whoops. My first image in my last post shows the raging inferno of WTC 1 or 2. :icon27:

point still stands though

Ok...so here are some images of WTC 7's "raging inferno" which made the ENTIRE BUILDING collapse after 6 hours of burning (taken from the article that is the main link of this thread):







These look nothing like a "raging inferno" to me...at least not compared to other images that are considered "raging infernos".

the fonts hurt my eyes

Now...let's look at another example in the article that seems to fuck itself with regards to how the WTC 1 and 2 buildings collapsed due to a "raging inferno" that only lasted a few moments (yes...it burned longer but obviously not with the same heat intensity as a raging inferno).



You can clearly see (and read) that the building was COMPLETELY gutted....top to bottom...and burned for 36 hours. Yet only the top 8 floors collapsed.

Now compare that to the WTC which burned significantly shorter and cooler than the above image:



Which leads me to a simple question:

If the other building was burning from TOP TO BOTTOM for 36 HOURS and the top 8 or so floors collapsed onto the "gutted by fire" bottom 20 floors...why didn't it collapse? The WTC 1 and 2 buildings had no such fires from TOP TO BOTTOM, indicating no structural compromises on the floors that weren't burning and yet the lower 3/4ths collapsed when the top 1/4 fell onto it. Why? The weight of the top 1/4?

Considering the lower floors of the building were engineered to support the prodigious weight of the entire building (and the entire building designed to withstand MULTIPLE airplane impacts) I find it hard to believe that having just the top section of the building collapse caused the ENTIRE STRUCTURE BELOW IT to collapse. If that is the case...then why didn't the building in the top image collapse after 36 hours of raging inferno?

One other thing I want to point out....in the top image you can clearly see the building's core is intact and upright as the top levels collapsed. Why don't you see the cores of ANY of the WTC buildings (1, 2 and 7)?

:icon29:

iluvquake4 wrote::icon29:

Too much "thinking" for you today?

Yeah...I advise a nap.

Don't know what to think of WTC I and II, but you'd have to be some kind of fool to think there's nothing fishy about WTC 7. Nothing adds up.

My $0.02

lol...they(the govt shills) claim there was a hole in the build 20 stories high...of course there is no proof of this..only a few morons who claim to have seen it...

actually though..this is old news and these govt shills don't have a leg to stand on...

puff can be convinced its night outside at noon on mercury...moron alert???...

Puff is this a serious post? I thought you were just trolling after reading a few pages of the article.

Do you really believe this article proves that we should believe the government story?

/me grabs popcorn

its really dumb to think a fire could make all the columns of a huge build to give way at the exact same time...its kinda like a woman having a baby thats born an adult...but if u wanna believe it cuz ut makes u feel better about urself...go right ahead morons...

mork gave birth to a adult child, i admit he wasn't a woman, but the child was an adult.

77. Three the Hard Way (10/29/81)

One month after Mork and Mindy's wedding, an egg emerges from Mork's navel and grows steadily. It cracks open, and out pops their full-grown son, Mearth. Part 1 of 2.

Mork is admitting to Exidor, his doctor, that he has developed a craving for things like teflon. Mork is feeling strange when the egg emerges through his navel. Thrilled, he takes baby pictures of the egg on a fuzzy blanket. Them, when Mindy arrives home from working on the famous Hammond family's TV special starring Mork's favorites, Donna and Mario, he hells her of the blessed event. Mindy, however, is more interested in celebrating the anniversary of their first month of marriage than in discussing starting a family. Mork misunderstands and tearfully tries to place their "child" with the All-American Hammond family - with disastrous results. By the time Mork convices the stunend Mindy that they are parents, the egg begins to grow to giant proportions as Mr. Bickley knocks at their door and hears loud cracking sounds from the bedroom as the egg bursts open and out pops their full-grown, middle-aged-looking son.