IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

7 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
wtc collapse debate with SanderO, split from toronto event thread

onesliceshort
post Sep 10 2011, 07:39 PM
Post #41



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



Did "natural collapse" bring down WTC7, SanderO?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Sep 11 2011, 04:18 PM
Post #42





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



The short answer would have to be - YES. But that is not addressing what might have caused it to collapse.

I have not done as detailed study of Bldg 7 and so what I will propose for this debate is the following:

What we see in the videos is the collapse of the curtain wall with perhaps the columns just inside attached but perhaps offset. From the north side we see the facade bow inward as it comes down indicating to me that there was nothing or next to nothing behind it. How else could the facade bow inward if there were floor slabs every 13'???

The East penthouse collapse precedes the facade collapse and may be the sign that the core had collapsed BEFORE the facade... which pulled the floors in and down.. leaving the facade like a shell... The facade may have been displaced as a result of the core collapse and the floor beams pulling at the 58 perimeter columns which pulled the facade out of alignment with any axial support so it pretty much drops straight down. There is no sign of significant amount of slab destruction as the floors come down... nothing ejected through the facade for the most part... leading me to believe the floor had already dropped by the time the facade comes down.

There was some movement in the entire building discovered by hi resolution analysis of the videos. This would indicate that the structure was engaged in a period of load redistribution which created torques and various moments and lateral forces which is seen as the entire structure twisting and moving a bit. This likely could be the tell tale sign of the core being destroyed.

Now how or what caused the core to be destroyed? Certainly not the failure of shear studs on the girder connected to column 79. I think we need to study the structure in the lower stories to see how the core could fail ... be made to fail. I suspect that such a study will find that there were some unusual structural elements such as cantilever trusses etc which if taken out (explosives?) could cause a progressive failure of the rest of the core. THIS IS SPECULATION... but it is a something which should be studied.

In both the twins and bldg 7 if it was a *CD* which took them down.. it had to have begun as a CD and so one needs to look at what initiated the destruction. And if it wasn't a CD what was the cause... or how did the columns fail progressively? All focus of study needs to be at the INITIATION because as far as I can tell what followed in all three was a gravity driven collapse/destruction process.

It is certainly possible that there was engineering intervention in all three towers. My study of the twins indicates that they could be made to collapse without massive amounts of explosives or incendiares if the key columns in the core were destroyed. I suspect the same might be true for Bldg 7 and so taking it down for whatever reason COULD have been an *afterthought*... or an *excuse*... We simply don't know and we need to find out.

This post has been edited by SanderO: Sep 11 2011, 04:19 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Sep 11 2011, 05:37 PM
Post #43



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



You didn't label this as "speculation" on the other thread SanderO

QUOTE (SanderO)
You need to note that buildings such as WTC 7 would have many things exploding if they were on fire.... and they did have massive storage tanks of diesel fuel and it sat atop a Con Ed Sub station... which likely had transformers exploding. So fires alone could not bring any office tower down.. but office fires plus structural damage plus some extra damage... placed there or from things such as thousands of gallons of diesel burning for hours might weaken the steel in the core and set of a progressive collapse. And of course a few well placed explosive devices. Considering that the building was likely a disaster to salvage... taking it down and lumping it in with the rest of the WTC destruction might have motivated someone to actually place those charges... We don't know but that seems like a possibility as well.


That statement is so self.contradictory I don't know where to begin.

If they had intended to bring the structure down and they knew (as we all do) that fire can't bring down a steel structure, were they relying on chance that there would be "structural damage" from the collapse of the towers? Is that what you're saying?



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Sep 11 2011, 10:35 PM
Post #44





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



No that's not what I am saying.

All I have been saying is that we don't the cause of the collapses of all three towers... that is what initiated what was a gravity driven collapse... CDs are also *gravity driven* destruction. In fact Gage on the radio this evening stated that there was a "mini CD" or something... you can find exactly what he said from the archives at WBAI.org... and then he continues that the top sections destroyed in this mini CD... *disappeared*... ie the mass was no longer there to do any *work* in the physics sense of the word *work*. Of course he is correct in the first part of his statement... as we can see the top section in tower 1 clear as day collapsing down from about the plane strike zone... and YES some of that material from above DID go over the side... and YES there was a blast of air forcing out flames and debris.. but NO NO NO most of the material did NOT disappear... THAT material became the mass which destroyed the floor it came down on and was the beginning of the gravity driven destruction of every floor below.

I realize that many on this forum and most in the 911 Truth movement look at the tower coming down and do not see a building collapsing... but see a building exploding. I believe they are not careful observers. I don't think that most people would know what those buildings would look like if they did collapse driven from gravity ... mass from the top down.

You might simply do a thought experiment and try to place enormous weight on any of the top floors... weight so massive that the floor would not support it and collapse. When it did ... and there would be some weight at which it would have to collapse... it would not collapse as a pancake.. a square donut 4" slab... but would shatter, fracture and break apart and the pieces would drop onto the floor below along with the mass that fractured it... and so on and so on. No?

So in this thought experiment.. what would that look like? What would a gravity driven (top down) floor collapse destruction look like?

This thought experiment is not about bldg 7.. but about the twin towers...

This post has been edited by SanderO: Sep 11 2011, 10:36 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Sep 11 2011, 11:11 PM
Post #45



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



Sorry SanderO, but that is exactly what you were saying. I'll narrow it down.

QUOTE (SanderO)
So fires alone could not bring any office tower down.. but office fires plus structural damage plus some extra damage... placed there or from things such as thousands of gallons of diesel burning for hours might weaken the steel in the core and set of a progressive collapse. And of course a few well placed explosive devices.


If your thesis is that fires plus "structural damage" brought down WTC7, how were they so sure that WTC7 would have been structurally damaged to enable collapse? Remember that the damage caused to WTC7 was from falling debris from the collapsing towers and not from aircraft or "fuel load".

There are no grey areas with WTC7 in this respect. Either it was brought down by CD. Or it wasn't.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Sep 12 2011, 12:00 AM
Post #46





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



One,

I have not studied Bldg 7... I don't think the damage to the SW corner from the falling debris had anything to do with its subsequent collapse.

My sense is that all three collapses initiated inside the core and so the falling debris was unrelated to a core lead collapse.

It is undeniable that heat weakens steel. The question is how much heat was present / created by whatever was burning inside the towers. We don't know if there were other sources of heat such as thermite actually cut away the steel or provide heat to weaken it. We have no proof that there were explosives which would destroy enough of the core columns to cause a progressive collapse of the rest of the core columns and then it collapse and in 7 took all the floors above and connected to the core columns above down... In the twins the progressive failure *collapsed* the tops and that destroyed the floors below and the columns failed from having no bracing etc.

We need to figure out how the columns which initiated all 3 collapses were made to fail. In 7 it had to be heat or explosions. IN the twins there was some core damage from the planes.. which gave a head start on the core destruction.

Do you think 7 collapsed or was exploded to bits? If it was exploded... what was *destroyed* by the explosions? Was it column joints... how many? was it the slabs? how many... Describe your conception of what happened.

And same for the twins... if you think it was a CD.. what was exploded? what was cut with thermite? What was not? Describe your conceptions of what happened to the structure of the twins.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bgaede
post Sep 12 2011, 05:25 AM
Post #47





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 13
Joined: 11-September 11
Member No.: 6,245



QUOTE (amazed! @ Sep 4 2011, 11:16 AM) *
Speaking only for myself, and apologies for being repititious, but the details matter only for those so inclined, with all due respect.

The Big Picture is more important, and the ongoing coverup of the Big Picture.







"the details matter only for those so inclined... The Big Picture is more important, and the ongoing coverup of the Big Picture."


AMEN!!!

Sander is not interested in bringing George Bush and Co to trial. Clearly, he's not here to discover the physical causes of the collapse of WTC 7, which are obvious and don't need of experts. Here he is, 10 years later, still looking for what could have initiated the collapse, which is exactly the position taken by the Gov (NIST). He wants you to focus your attention on the tree of 'initiation' rather than on the forest of global disintegration, telling you that it's 'key'.

Bullshit!

It is deliberately misleading to propose that WTC 7 collapsed for anything other than a controlled demolition, a building wired months in advance by people who were given access by Kroll, Jerry Hauer, Silverstein, Marv Bush and the rest of the conspirators. Therefore, the way the explosives made their way into the building is not a mystery, more so when we factor that the building housed the Secret Service, the CIA and the OEM. You don't need an expert to tell you that black is black and white is white. Likewise, you don't need a so-called expert to tell you that the explosions you hear in the background when the responder on the street yells, "Keep your eye on that building..." or the ones Barry Jennings testified hearing while in the building or the ones that destroyed the lobby were caused by anything other than bombs, especially when the building disintegrates symmetrically on its footprint a few seconds later.

But here is Sander 10 years later still trying to figure out what brought down WTC 7. Maybe it was the fuel tanks... or perhaps it was the massive debris that fell from the Towers from so far away... and we really have to focus on the causes of initiation... and...

Is this a joke? Are you for real Sander? Or are you here to disinform and mislead? Are you interested or not to bring George Bush to trial? Yes or no? Bottom line! Or are you still harboring thoughts that maybe some barefooted hillbillies in Afghanistan carried out 9/11?

What is the purpose of 'Pilots' if it's just a club to push petty theories around over a couple of beers? If Pilots will spend the rest of the century discussing what could have possibly triggered 'initiation', then it is certainly doomed. George Bush and Co got away with murder and all the Truth movements should fold their organizations. Rational folk shouldn't donate a single penny to such a facade!

In fact, Sander's arguments are very suggestive of infiltration or, more likely, that the conspirators already factored eventual dissent into their overall scheme and decided that they would take the reins of the inevitable organizations.

With all the respect that you deserve Sander,

Bill Gaede

PS: I don't hide. You can find me at http://www.youtube.com/user/bgaede at any time. I'll tear your 'initiation' theories apart at any time, buddy boy!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Sep 12 2011, 10:07 AM
Post #48





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Sander

You make many assumptions, and that simply means you are speculating, just like the rest of us.

You assume that columns were severed by the engine & landing gear. You might be right and you might be wrong. It's entirely possible that the engine and landing gear parts found on the street rather "threaded the needle" as it were, and passed between any columns. Maybe that's why they passed through, because they did not encounter a column? Maybe other engine and landing gear pieces DID encounter a column, and that's why they did not pass through?

The point is we don't actually know, and never will.

Also you're taking liberties with the dynamics of the fuel situation. The fireball created in that instant of impact resulted from atomized fuel caused by the sudden stop from 350 knots to 0 in milliseconds, and consumed the bulk of the fuel, a number we will never know.

And with your assumptions you tend to insult the scientific process.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Sep 12 2011, 10:32 AM
Post #49



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



QUOTE
What is the purpose of 'Pilots' if it's just a club to push petty theories around over a couple of beers? If Pilots will spend the rest of the century discussing what could have possibly triggered 'initiation', then it is certainly doomed. George Bush and Co got away with murder and all the Truth movements should fold their organizations. Rational folk shouldn't donate a single penny to such a facade!


SanderO doesn't speak for "Pilots" just as I don't speak for "Pilots". SanderO is the only person at this forum pushing this theory.

This forum and that of CIT have been vilified and subject to cointelpro agents and campaigns for years so you're way off the mark.

I agree 100% with what you posted regarding WTC7. SanderO keeps ignoring the point I made in that he claims that fires don't bring down "alone". Yet he claims that "fires plus structural damage" could. Even if that theory is humoured for a moment, what "structural damage" are we talking about? The only "structural damage" precollapse had to be of an explosive nature, no?

Barry Jennings did see the lobby destroyed before towers 1 and 2 collapsed.



"Transformers" nor "burning cars" could have caused the damage Barry Jennings described. Remember these explosions were described before the collapses.

You keep talking as if you assume that the demolitions were by normal means. I personally believe that the main damage was caused before the collapses, in the central cores and/or the basements. Exactly how they accomplished the entire demolition is beyond my expertise, but WTC7 is in another ballpark from the towers as far as your theory is concerned.

That's three times I've made this point and still haven't got an answer. Am I not explaining myself clearly enough? For your theory to even be considered, explain to me how the demolition of WTC7 was preplanned if both "fire" and "structural damage" were necessary. By "structural damage", you must mean explosives, no?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Sep 12 2011, 12:47 PM
Post #50





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



One,

Why do you place the burden to explain the collapse I haven't investigated. Con Ed had a huge sub station in the building... it has massive tanks of diesel fuel and a series of huge transfer trusses to transfer axial loads from above to the columns below the sub station.

Why don't you explain how the destruction was accomplished in some detail and how you reached those conclusions... not the broad statements that explosions brought it down. I am interested in discussing / debating this.

I think the best approach is to first find the areas of agreement especially of the observations... and then go from there.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mrmitosis
post Sep 12 2011, 02:39 PM
Post #51





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 232
Joined: 11-February 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 4,909



I've learnt more about the construction of the Twin Towers by reading SanderO's posts and emails than I have from any other expert, layman, or organisation. Combined.

Missiles struck the Pentagon...Dubya's cousin was director of security at WTC...Nukes, DEWs, thermate, no planes. Not all of us made those claims but all of us are being laughed at because of the glib statements made by a few. The Truth Movement is its own worst enemy when speculations are made and conclusions are drawn prematurely without prior verification and proper fact checking.

Then again, I'm the kind of guy who eats a bowl of natural muesli with sliced fruit every morning and I like to drive at or below the speed limit...just to be on the safe side. SanderO takes care with his research, he doesn't like to assume anything and refuses to spout conventional wisdom just because it's conventional. I guess not everyone appreciates that approach when we already know the punchline to the big question of whether or not 9/11 was a lie.

I share many of the questions people are asking on this thread, but SanderO has never said half the things people are attaching to his hypothesis. I personally don't understand it.

This post has been edited by mrmitosis: Sep 12 2011, 02:42 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mrmitosis
post Sep 12 2011, 02:54 PM
Post #52





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 232
Joined: 11-February 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 4,909



On the other hand, I'm not sure Slice's question about explosions in WTC 7 prior to the collapse of 1 and 2 has been addressed.

Has this event been confirmed? Can it be explained by falling debris, by any stretch of the imagination, when the twin towers were still mostly intact?

I feel naive asking, but as I said - it's better to straighten these issues out here before making ourselves look foolish in the company of debunkers.

This post has been edited by mrmitosis: Sep 12 2011, 02:57 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Sep 12 2011, 03:44 PM
Post #53





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



Mr. M,

Thank you for the support. The reaction to some of what I say is so hostile it's hard to understand. On the most fundamental level the buildings were either totally destroyed by explosions... top to bottom... which I don't think we see... had some explosions which were all inside behind the facade which we can't see but may be able to see the tell tale sign... or not.

The explosions which we can't see could be taking place at the initiation which then fractures enough of the structure so that gravity takes it down - which is a traditional CD... or it is a series of explosions all during the duration of the collapse... and to me this later possibility may not be required. In a typical CD they ONLY rig the lower columns... so a gravity driven collapse finishes the job.

And isn't that what everyone compares bldg 7 to... a typical CD? If that's an accurate statement then we need to focus on what was destroyed in the core. Further the collapse should come very close after the lower level explosions as we see in most CDs. We see the squibs, here the *pops* and then the structure begins to collapse. Clearly we don't see such things at beginning of any of the collapses of any of the buildings... Correct me if I am wrong. We DO see some *squibs* or ejections from the facade DURING the collapse... but they are not extensive.... no?

So if we can't see them hidden by the facade... and ALL the columns HAD TO HAVE BEEN DESTROYED for a FF descent... why don't we see 58 squibs all around WTC 7 at one of the lower floors signalling the 2.25 second descent?

If we can't SEE the tell tale sign of the pre collapse charges... how do we know they are there?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Sep 12 2011, 04:26 PM
Post #54



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



QUOTE (mrmitosis @ Sep 12 2011, 07:54 PM) *
On the other hand, I'm not sure Slice's question about explosions in WTC 7 prior to the collapse of 1 and 2 has been addressed.

Has this event been confirmed? Can it be explained by falling debris, by any stretch of the imagination, when the twin towers were still mostly intact?

I feel naive asking, but as I said - it's better to straighten these issues out here before making ourselves look foolish in the company of debunkers.


I still haven't received an answer.

Debating demolition is way over my head. It's just this earlier statement that doesn't square with me (I can read English tongue.gif).

QUOTE (SanderO)
So fires alone could not bring any office tower down.. but office fires plus structural damage plus some extra damage... placed there or from things such as thousands of gallons of diesel burning for hours might weaken the steel in the core and set of a progressive collapse. And of course a few well placed explosive devices.


SanderO keeps repeating that he hasn't studied WTC7 in depth but offhandedly dismisses a logical dilemma raised by that statement. If the perps had intended to demolish that building, how could they ensure collapse without the "structural damage" to accompany the fires if SanderO's theory is to have any legs? As I said, WTC7 is in a different park from the towers. How was this "structural damage" caused S?

(I've actually reread the last paragraph over and over to see if I'm making my point clear! Please somebody tell me if it isn't? haha)

QUOTE (SanderO)
Why do you place the burden to explain the collapse I haven't investigated. Con Ed had a huge sub station in the building... it has massive tanks of diesel fuel and a series of huge transfer trusses to transfer axial loads from above to the columns below the sub station.


Is that in response to Barry Jennings testimony?

You've admitted you haven't investigated WTC7 but you're ignoring basic questions and taking a negative stance when anybody mentions explosives and the need for them to bring down that building.

It's an old statement but still as true today as it was back then. No plane struck the building. There are no "fuel loads" or "destroyed columns" or "gravity driven collapse" to explain it away.
You're basically saying that fire brought it down as far as I can see.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bgaede
post Sep 12 2011, 04:43 PM
Post #55





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 13
Joined: 11-September 11
Member No.: 6,245



QUOTE (mrmitosis @ Sep 12 2011, 02:39 PM) *
I've learnt more about the construction of the Twin Towers by reading SanderO's posts and emails than I have from any other expert, layman, or organisation. Combined.

Missiles struck the Pentagon...Dubya's cousin was director of security at WTC...Nukes, DEWs, thermate, no planes. Not all of us made those claims but all of us are being laughed at because of the glib statements made by a few. The Truth Movement is its own worst enemy when speculations are made and conclusions are drawn prematurely without prior verification and proper fact checking.

Then again, I'm the kind of guy who eats a bowl of natural muesli with sliced fruit every morning and I like to drive at or below the speed limit...just to be on the safe side. SanderO takes care with his research, he doesn't like to assume anything and refuses to spout conventional wisdom just because it's conventional. I guess not everyone appreciates that approach when we already know the punchline to the big question of whether or not 9/11 was a lie.

I share many of the questions people are asking on this thread, but SanderO has never said half the things people are attaching to his hypothesis. I personally don't understand it.






"The Truth Movement is its own worst enemy when speculations are made and conclusions are drawn prematurely without prior verification and proper fact checking... the big question of whether or not 9/11 was a lie... I personally don't understand it."


Then you really got a problem, mrm. Once again, for anyone out there who hasn't heard. I don't care about the details or whether the south wall sagged before the north one or why. 9/11 was done by George Bush and NO ONE ELSE! If people have problems with this, they should see a shrink! Plain and simple. Building 7 was demolished and it was done by the US Gov. End of story.

Now, how did they do this or that in any detail you can speculate on all you want. We may never know all the details. They are irrelevant in the context of the BIG PICTURE.

Apparently, you an Sander are still struggling with the big picture. This is what is truly hard to understand.

So the Q I have for you, mrm, is whether you think WTC 7 was done by George or by some organization known as Al Qaida as the Gov contends. Are you still harboring doubts about the PLAIN disintegration of WTC 7? Not to mention the two Towers? (We'll deal with the details later.)




















Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Sep 12 2011, 06:22 PM
Post #56





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



I am not struggling with the big picture. I am well aware of the false claims an deception of the NIST, FEMA and 911 commission reports. I don't support that case and it looks pretty much like a cover story. On other hand we don't know exactly what did happen and that happens to be the details. And much of the claims of AE911T for example about the destruction of the WTC is not true.

All cases in a court of law follow strict standards for evidence. The big picture needs to be supported by the little details.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Sep 12 2011, 06:32 PM
Post #57



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



Wow, first time seeing this WTC7 video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yEJtuxEiZI...;feature=colike

On a visul level, it looks like the "legs" were kicked out from underneath.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mrmitosis
post Sep 12 2011, 09:18 PM
Post #58





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 232
Joined: 11-February 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 4,909



QUOTE (bgaede @ Sep 12 2011, 03:43 PM) *
I don't care about the details or whether the south wall sagged before the north one or why.

Then it appears you've gotten lost and strolled into the wrong thread, because that's the entire point of this one rolleyes.gif

QUOTE (bgaede @ Sep 12 2011, 03:43 PM) *
9/11 was done by George Bush and NO ONE ELSE!

Most definitely. I've got pictures of GWB sitting next to a pool in a lazy boy recliner, wearing sunglasses and sipping Pina Coladas on 9/11/01 rolleyes.gif

QUOTE (bgaede @ Sep 12 2011, 03:43 PM) *
Building 7 was demolished and it was done by the US Gov. End of story.

If you're only interested in the big picture, why don't you start your own discussion titled "Did The US Government Tell Us The Truth, The Whole Truth and Nothing But The Truth On 9/11?"

I'm sure it would spark off a pretty heated argument amongst other Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum Members rolleyes.gif

QUOTE (bgaede @ Sep 12 2011, 03:43 PM) *
Now, how did they do this or that in any detail you can speculate on all you want.

You won't catch me speculating. You've speculated more in one post than I have in 134 rolleyes.gif

QUOTE (bgaede @ Sep 12 2011, 03:43 PM) *
We may never know all the details.

Not with your attitude rolleyes.gif

QUOTE (bgaede @ Sep 12 2011, 03:43 PM) *
They are irrelevant in the context of the BIG PICTURE.

By irrelevant, do you mean in terms of building a strong and consistent case in order to properly and accurately inform people who still believe the Government version of events? rolleyes.gif

QUOTE (bgaede @ Sep 12 2011, 03:43 PM) *
Apparently, you an Sander are still struggling with the big picture.

Bullshit rolleyes.gif

QUOTE (bgaede @ Sep 12 2011, 03:43 PM) *
So the Q I have for you, mrm, is whether you think WTC 7 was done by George or by some organization known as Al Qaida as the Gov contends.

There's a large banner at the top of this page, and it tells you the name of the forum you just signed up for. Does that give you a hint?

Aside from trolls and planted co-intel, this forum is for people who reject the official 9/11 story rolleyes.gif

QUOTE (bgaede @ Sep 12 2011, 03:43 PM) *
Are you still harboring doubts about the PLAIN disintegration of WTC 7?

You'll need to be more specific about how you define "plain disintegration". After all, I'm pretty sure it's a term you just invented rolleyes.gif

QUOTE (bgaede @ Sep 12 2011, 03:43 PM) *
(We'll deal with the details later.)

Yeah, details shmetails. Facts shmacts rolleyes.gif

QUOTE (bgaede @ Sep 12 2011, 03:43 PM) *
Then you really got a problem, mrm.

Are you for real, champ?

This post has been edited by mrmitosis: Sep 12 2011, 09:24 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Sep 12 2011, 10:34 PM
Post #59





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



Thank you Mr M... I don't mind debate or having to explain what I am doing in the truth movement which is not being a parrot but trying to understand how the structure itself was a factor in the destruction of the towers.

If there was a CD or some sort of intervention aside from planes and falling debris the only way to figure it out is to work with the observables - the data we can derive from them and the engineering and science which explains the structure and what we saw. As far as I can tell very few people have studied the structure in detail as I am convinced and perp would have and so we need to do exactly what they did to understand how it could have been done.

Of course you can simply say it was a CD and a MIHOP and .... then what? I am trying to arm myself with understanding and share it with others... the little I have discovered and get trashed for it. Bizarre.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Sep 13 2011, 10:39 AM
Post #60



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10801116

umm..hello?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

7 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 16th November 2019 - 07:27 PM