IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags controlled demolition , wtc 7

Reply
Old 28th July 2008, 12:25 AM   #161
Corsair 115
Penultimate Amazing
 
Corsair 115's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 14,519
Originally Posted by bio View Post
You and your friends dont want to accept the witness-accounts of sounds of explosions.
Perhaps you can explain why NONE of the numerous videos of the collapses recorded the very loud and distinctive sound of demolition charges going off. The sounds were supposedly heard by people but not picked up by microphones?
__________________
"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things not because they are easy, but because they are hard. Because that goal will serve
to organize and measure the best of our abilities and skills, because that challenge is one we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and
one which we intend to win."
Corsair 115 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2008, 08:44 AM   #162
papasmurf
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 147
You people are hilarious. Are you all like self-proclaimed intellectuals who haven't made it in the real world, so you have to come on here to make a name for yourself?

I don't understand how you can make 5 pages of posts, and not a single one has a single shred of intelligence that would change any rational persons mind on their doubts of the collapse of wtc7.

How can you possibly watch the video of the collapse and think that a fire brought that down? Has NIST been able to fabricate a logical explanation yet?

Please enlighten me on how it is so clear to you people that wtc7 was not demolished.
papasmurf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2008, 08:51 AM   #163
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Originally Posted by papasmurf View Post
Please enlighten me on how it is so clear to you people that wtc7 was not demolished.
Shouldn't you be making the case of how it was demolished? You, after all, are trying to challenge the accepted sequence of events.

eta: are you really using your email addy as your user name?
__________________
Vive la liberté!

Last edited by prewitt81; 28th July 2008 at 09:21 AM. Reason: editing quote to reflect username change
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2008, 08:52 AM   #164
SDC
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,244
If he/ she is really from Stevens Institute of Tech, which last I heard was reputable... Are they now training their students to rely on videos only? The world is in worse shape than I had thought.
SDC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2008, 08:52 AM   #165
~enigma~
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,923
Originally Posted by papasmurf View Post
any rational persons mind on their doubts of the collapse of wtc7.
Can you please direct me to the psychological tests that show beyond any doubt that there are any rational people that think WTC 7 was a CD cause I never saw one. IOW, anecdotal evidence makes me think your claim is a bunch of baloney.

Last edited by prewitt81; 28th July 2008 at 09:21 AM. Reason: editing quote to reflect username change
~enigma~ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2008, 08:58 AM   #166
phunk
Illuminator
 
phunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 4,127
Pete, you're giving my alma mater a bad name, please stop. I hope you're not earning any sort of engineering degree.
phunk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2008, 08:58 AM   #167
RedIbis
Philosopher
 
RedIbis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,899
Originally Posted by papasmurf View Post
Has NIST been able to fabricate a logical explanation yet?
Sometime in August the much anticipated NIST WTC 7 report will be released. Apparently, it will suggest that a critical single column failure occurred due to normal office bldg fires. It should be quite knee slapper.
__________________
(RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)

Last edited by prewitt81; 28th July 2008 at 09:22 AM. Reason: editing quote to reflect username change
RedIbis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2008, 09:04 AM   #168
lapman
Graduate Poster
 
lapman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,717
Originally Posted by papasmurf View Post
You people are hilarious. Are you all like self-proclaimed intellectuals who haven't made it in the real world, so you have to come on here to make a name for yourself?
You're here because?
Quote:
I don't understand how you can make 5 pages of posts, and not a single one has a single shred of intelligence that would change any rational persons mind on their doubts of the collapse of wtc7.
Except that only those with rational minds do buy into the "Truth Movements" lies and deceptions like the completely unsupported claim that WTC 7 was demolished purposely and silently for no reason what-so-ever.
Quote:
How can you possibly watch the video of the collapse and think that a fire brought that down? Has NIST been able to fabricate a logical explanation yet?
Because we think rationally and look at the entire body of evidence and not just a 6 second clip that doesn't show the entire collapse.
Quote:
Please enlighten me on how it is so clear to you people that wtc7 was not demolished.
Here's a challenge for you. Provide just one controlled demolition done before or since 9/11 that:
  1. Has no sound of the explosive sequence recorded.
  2. Has the roof structures collapse into the building seconds prior to the rest of the building
  3. Carried out by the fire department
  4. Had the explosives installed in a short period of time while the building was on fire.
__________________
They take their paranoia, mix in a healthy dose of mistrust in anything "gubmint", and then bake it in that big ole EZ Bake oven of ignorance, and come to the delusional conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job. - Seymour Butz

Last edited by prewitt81; 28th July 2008 at 09:22 AM. Reason: editing quote to reflect username change
lapman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2008, 09:08 AM   #169
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
Sometime in August the much anticipated NIST WTC 7 report will be released. Apparently, it will suggest that a critical single column failure occurred due to normal office bldg fires. It should be quite knee slapper.
Will any of these people slapping their knees happen to be experts in structures, or just the uneducated kids in the truth movement along with the hucksters selling them the snake oil?
__________________
Vive la liberté!
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2008, 09:09 AM   #170
SDC
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,244
Red I., that isn't what it says in the Dec 06 summary. Could you provide a source for your comment?

ETA: http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/r...tc_062907.html

Last edited by SDC; 28th July 2008 at 09:11 AM. Reason: Link added
SDC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2008, 09:09 AM   #171
funk de fino
Dreaming of unicorns
 
funk de fino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UAE
Posts: 11,938
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
Sometime in August the much anticipated NIST WTC 7 report will be released. Apparently, it will suggest that a critical single column failure occurred due to normal office bldg fires. It should be quite knee slapper.
That is not the current working hypothesis Red.
__________________

Stundie - Avoided like the plaque, its a scottish turn of phrase.
funk de fino is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2008, 09:26 AM   #172
papasmurf
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 147
I don't know why my email was set as my username, but i fixed it. I was pretty pissed about it.

I am getting two engineering degrees actually, and i have a very high GPA. Stevens is a good school, but a lot of people here are not that bright. A lot of people more concerned with getting the grades and a job rather than knowledge.

Anyways, i'm entitled to question the official story.

All you people are saying its ME who has to prove my theory...


Hmmm.... tell me this intelligent ones, why should i have to prove my theory against a massive cover-up that blocks the necessary evidence for me to do so, when your idea is open to all evidence and investigation presented.

I simply asked for a reason why i should believe that fire brought down wtc7, and you continue making this thread a joke as i have already pointed out.
papasmurf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2008, 09:27 AM   #173
SDC
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,244
Papasmurf, have you done anything except looked at video? Have you read anything? (Has Stevens sunk so low?)

ETA: check the NIST link I posted.

Last edited by SDC; 28th July 2008 at 09:30 AM.
SDC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2008, 09:30 AM   #174
~enigma~
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,923
Originally Posted by papasmurf View Post
I don't know why my email was set as my username, but i fixed it. I was pretty pissed about it.

I am getting two engineering degrees actually, and i have a very high GPA. Stevens is a good school, but a lot of people here are not that bright. A lot of people more concerned with getting the grades and a job rather than knowledge.

Anyways, i'm entitled to question the official story.

All you people are saying its ME who has to prove my theory...


Hmmm.... tell me this intelligent ones, why should i have to prove my theory against a massive cover-up that blocks the necessary evidence for me to do so, when your idea is open to all evidence and investigation presented.

I simply asked for a reason why i should believe that fire brought down wtc7, and you continue making this thread a joke as i have already pointed out.
You were asked this direct question...
Quote:
Can you please direct me to the psychological tests that show beyond any doubt that there are any rational people that think WTC 7 was a CD cause I never saw one. IOW, anecdotal evidence makes me think your claim is a bunch of baloney.
Until you provide an answer there are NO rational people that question the collapse of WTC and think it was a CD (or a death ray ala wood's idiocy). Just because you go to a good school does not by any stretch of the imagination mean that you are rational.
~enigma~ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2008, 09:34 AM   #175
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Originally Posted by papasmurf View Post
Anyways, i'm entitled to question the official story.

All you people are saying its ME who has to prove my theory...
Yes, your "theory" (whatever it is) will require some actual evidence. Got any?


Quote:
Hmmm.... tell me this intelligent ones, why should i have to prove my theory against a massive cover-up that blocks the necessary evidence for me to do so, when your idea is open to all evidence and investigation presented.
Because you're the one trying to overturn the dominant paradigm. And no, you can't use your lack of evidence as proof there is a coverup of said evidence.

Quote:
I simply asked for a reason why i should believe that fire brought down wtc7, and you continue making this thread a joke as i have already pointed out.
Because fires and damage fit all the evidence. There is no evidence at all of bombs, space beam weapons, thermite, thermate, or whatever it is you think happened.
__________________
Vive la liberté!
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2008, 09:38 AM   #176
~enigma~
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,923
Originally Posted by papasmurf View Post
Anyways, i'm entitled to question the official story.

All you people are saying its ME who has to prove my theory...
You really are getting two engineering degrees yet you have the sheer audacity to say your questioning the official story yet you have a theory? When was your theory scientifically tested you fraud?
~enigma~ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2008, 10:04 AM   #177
papasmurf
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 147
Originally Posted by ~enigma~ View Post
You really are getting two engineering degrees yet you have the sheer audacity to say your questioning the official story yet you have a theory? When was your theory scientifically tested you fraud?
I don't have my own theory, [edited]. That is part of my point, i asked you to tell me to explain what you believed, while ia haven't even elaborated as to my own ideas, yet the only response i got was for me to prove something...

You guys can attack me all you want, but i didn't come on here to start a pissing contest. I came on here to break up your
Edited by prewitt81:  Indecent remark removed.
of giggling over the truth movement and get you guys to talk some sense. I want to know what has you so guys so convinced that NIST and BBC can really prove that fire brought down wtc 7.

Mod WarningName calling is not civil. Civility is in your Membership Agreement. Thank you.
Responding to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By:LibraryLady

Last edited by prewitt81; 28th July 2008 at 10:22 AM.
papasmurf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2008, 10:12 AM   #178
Grizzly Bear
このマスクによっ
 
Grizzly Bear's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,866
Originally Posted by papasmurf View Post
I don't know why my email was set as my username, but i fixed it. I was pretty pissed about it.

I am getting two engineering degrees actually, and i have a very high GPA. Stevens is a good school, but a lot of people here are not that bright. A lot of people more concerned with getting the grades and a job rather than knowledge.

Anyways, i'm entitled to question the official story.

All you people are saying its ME who has to prove my theory...


Hmmm.... tell me this intelligent ones, why should i have to prove my theory against a massive cover-up that blocks the necessary evidence for me to do so, when your idea is open to all evidence and investigation presented.

I simply asked for a reason why i should believe that fire brought down wtc7, and you continue making this thread a joke as i have already pointed out.

Would it be fine if I asked you on what basis you have made your assertion that fire could not have brought down WTC 7 as well as examples you refer to to substantiate your claims? It'll help me determine how to respond to your criticisms of the 'official', as you and others have coined it, conclusion...
__________________
Grizzly Bear is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2008, 10:13 AM   #179
~enigma~
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,923
Originally Posted by papasmurf View Post
I don't have my own theory, [edited]. That is part of my point, i asked you to tell me to explain what you believed, while ia haven't even elaborated as to my own ideas, yet the only response i got was for me to prove something...

You guys can attack me all you want, but i didn't come on here to start a pissing contest. I came on here to break up your circle jerk of giggling over the truth movement and get you guys to talk some sense. I want to know what has you so guys so convinced that NIST and BBC can really prove that fire brought down wtc 7.
First off. did you read the MA when you signed up? I highly doubt that you did and your incivility has been reported as such and since you are being a liar (since you claimed to have a theory) and you are an uncivil piece of trash....you just got yourself the award for fastest member to join and find itself on my ignore list. Congratulations on your accomplishment.

Last edited by LibraryLady; 28th July 2008 at 10:18 AM.
~enigma~ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2008, 10:17 AM   #180
SDC
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,244
Originally Posted by papasmurf View Post
I don't have my own theory, ass. That is part of my point, i asked you to tell me to explain what you believed, while ia haven't even elaborated as to my own ideas, yet the only response i got was for me to prove something...

You guys can attack me all you want, but i didn't come on here to start a pissing contest. I came on here to break up your circle jerk of giggling over the truth movement and get you guys to talk some sense. I want to know what has you so guys so convinced that NIST and BBC can really prove that fire brought down wtc 7.
Papasmurf, you seem to be new here. Please read the rules. Also, name-calling is a poor idea. This site is not populated by 20 year olds.
SDC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2008, 10:17 AM   #181
prewitt81
Notoriously Glorious
 
prewitt81's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,220
Mod WarningA general warning has been given to all participants in post #177.

ETA: Apparently, I've cross-modded with LibraryLady. The warning to avoid name-calling is for all participants.
Responding to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By:prewitt81
__________________
Knowledge is Power!

"If we want to teach the Moon is green cheese then we'll do it!" -- Eric Hovind defending his father's pro-creationist stance. (http://www.kent-hovind.com/)

"Believe those who seek the truth. Doubt those who find it."


Last edited by prewitt81; 28th July 2008 at 10:21 AM.
prewitt81 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2008, 10:23 AM   #182
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
Originally Posted by papasmurf View Post
I don't have my own theory, ass. That is part of my point, i asked you to tell me to explain what you believed, while ia haven't even elaborated as to my own ideas, yet the only response i got was for me to prove something...

You guys can attack me all you want, but i didn't come on here to start a pissing contest. I came on here to break up your circle jerk of giggling over the truth movement and get you guys to talk some sense. I want to know what has you so guys so convinced that NIST and BBC can really prove that fire brought down wtc 7.
WE can't attack your posts, you have nothing to attack, you are ignorant on physics, fire, firefighting, the art of observation, logical thinking, and many other fields. You have no idea about WTC since you failed to use the past 6 years to gain knowledge. It takes hours or days to read the material and understand it, but you come and attack others who have done the work and can see clearly WTC7 failed due to damage from the towers and FIRE!

You failed to read posts with fact and testimony. In a few posts you have proven beyond a shadow of doubt what pure ignorance on WTC7 IS.

Do you lack the time to correct your vast ignorance on this topic? Did you miss the Penthouse falling into the WTC7 seconds before the FAÇADE fell? Can you explain how many columns supported the overall structure of WTC7?

Do you know who built WTC7?

If you can't answer the simple questions, why are you even here?

Welcome to the sub forum, too bad you failed to bring facts and evidence to prove your theory, which you do not have! Great!

Welcome, great posts, you revealed all your know about WTC7 concisely and without hesitation.


http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/introduction Start here, this is common knowledge here, too bad you can't debunk the truth. Try to take time to learn why the level of abstraction here is too high for you and I to understand.
I don't ask you to believe, I ask you to think! Stop being a follower, and think for yourself, I do not believe the stuff I read, I research WTC7 and learn how to understand it. Trust no one, they have to earn your trust; you have blindly trusted your ideas, and it appears lots of hearsay on WTC7, and failed to gather the knowledge to make a rational conclusion.

Last edited by beachnut; 28th July 2008 at 11:01 AM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2008, 10:24 AM   #183
papasmurf
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 147
Well first off, i don't understand how even if one critical beam did fail somehow, which i believe it would have had to have failed over 3 consecutive floors or something, how that would even explain the collapse as it occurred. We are talking about a very fast and symmetrical collapse that would have required multiple simultaneous failures across the structure.

If one piece did fail, wouldn't you expect the force to be distributed unevenly, and the collapse to progress from the point of initial failure, and for at least part of the building to resist collapse, causing it to slow down or force a non-uniform collapse.

Is there any other case where a failure of a collumn has caused a collapse in this manner to proceed? No there isn't. Can the designers of the building say that if that collumn or collumns failed, that the rest of the structure should have collapsed in that fashion? Doubt it.

Finally, we can all agree that the final outcome of the collapse was very similar to a cd. We had a uniform, straight down collapse into the footprint, with minimal collateral damage to other buildings. Now, wouldn't the fact that only a single collumn needed to be taken out for this to occur be of concern to demolition companies, who spend thousands of dollars and hours planning a demolition that requires a certain amount and configuration of explosives to do the job?

This collapse could revolutionize the demolition industry. Apparently local failure of a single collumn or 2 can result in simultaneous and catastrophic failure of the entire structure!

Is that enough for you to see where i am coming from? Can you please elaborate on how fire caused this collapse now?
papasmurf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2008, 10:26 AM   #184
papasmurf
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 147
Originally Posted by SDC View Post
Papasmurf, you seem to be new here. Please read the rules. Also, name-calling is a poor idea. This site is not populated by 20 year olds.
I was undeservedly called a fraud, and i countered by calling him an ass. Excuse me for defending myself.
papasmurf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2008, 10:32 AM   #185
A W Smith
Philosopher
 
A W Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Central New Jersey
Posts: 7,032
Originally Posted by papasmurf View Post
Well first off, i don't understand how even if one critical beam did fail somehow, which i believe it would have had to have failed over 3 consecutive floors or something, how that would even explain the collapse as it occurred. We are talking about a very fast and symmetrical collapse that would have required multiple simultaneous failures across the structure.

If one piece did fail, wouldn't you expect the force to be distributed unevenly, and the collapse to progress from the point of initial failure, and for at least part of the building to resist collapse, causing it to slow down or force a non-uniform collapse.

Is there any other case where a failure of a collumn has caused a collapse in this manner to proceed? No there isn't. Can the designers of the building say that if that collumn or collumns failed, that the rest of the structure should have collapsed in that fashion? Doubt it.

Finally, we can all agree that the final outcome of the collapse was very similar to a cd. We had a uniform, straight down collapse into the footprint, with minimal collateral damage to other buildings. Now, wouldn't the fact that only a single collumn needed to be taken out for this to occur be of concern to demolition companies, who spend thousands of dollars and hours planning a demolition that requires a certain amount and configuration of explosives to do the job?

This collapse could revolutionize the demolition industry. Apparently local failure of a single collumn or 2 can result in simultaneous and catastrophic failure of the entire structure!

Is that enough for you to see where i am coming from? Can you please elaborate on how fire caused this collapse now?
Yes I see where you are coming from.

Highligted
__________________
911 resource site by Mark Roberts
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home
Gravy: Christopher7; You are a Basking Shark in a sea of ignorance.
Galileo:The jury said I didn't have any mental defects or diseases, they declared me 100% sane. Has a jury ever declared you sane?
Don’t get me lol’n off my chesterfield dude.
A W Smith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2008, 10:34 AM   #186
papasmurf
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 147
[quote=beachnut;3897459]WE can't attack your posts, you have nothing to attack, you are ignorant on physics, fire, firefighting, the art of observation, logical thinking, and many other fields. You have no idea about WTC since you failed to use the past 6 years to gain knowledge. It takes hours or days to read the material and understand it, but you come and attack others who have done the work and can see clearly WTC7 failed due to damage from the towers and FIRE!

You failed to read posts with fact and testimony. In a few posts you have proven beyond a shadow of doubt what pure ignorance on WTC7 IS.

Do you lack the time to correct your vast ignorance on this topic? Did you miss the Penthouse falling into the WTC7 seconds before the FAÇADE fell? Can you explain how many columns supported the overall structure of WTC7?

Do you know who built WTC7?

If you can't answer the simple questions, why are you even here?

Welcome to the sub forum, too bad you failed to bring facts and evidence to prove your theory, which you do not have! Great!

Welcome, great posts, you revealed all your know about WTC7 concisely and without hesitation. "

Please spare me the insults, unlike you, i didn't come on here to reaffirm my own abilities or intelligence.

Those are very cheap shots you took and do nothing to prove a point. You have no idea of what i know on physics, nor how much research i have done. I assure you that you are wrong on every accusation you made about me.

Please don't waste your time on personal attacks, i promise you they don't have any effect on me whatsoever.

Last edited by papasmurf; 28th July 2008 at 10:37 AM.
papasmurf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2008, 10:39 AM   #187
~enigma~
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,923
We do know what the blue guy due know about english though...Anybody remember our old english major old school?
~enigma~ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2008, 10:40 AM   #188
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 16,361
papasmurf, allow me to be the first to congratulate you on your dazzling display of intellect and the calm, reasonable way in which you present your arguments. It's so very refreshing.

A couple of points that may have escaped your attention while you were busy a Super Genius School getting your degrees in I'm Smarter Than All of You:

1) WTC7 did not collapse due to fire alone. WTC7 was struck by falling debris from a 110-story skyscraper. The structural damage caused by this phenomenon and the subsequent fires combined to cause its collapse.

2) The people whom you would describe as not having "a single shred of intelligence" include the following:

The FDNY - including firefighters that were on the scene and witnessed the debris damage, fires, and subsequent collapse with their own eyes.

The overwhelming majority of the worldwide structural engineering community.

Every MSM outlet on the planet.

Every law enforcement agency on the planet.

Every type of official investigative body on the planet.

None of these people have questioned the official version of events. THe FDNY in particular is on record rejecting a controlled demolition hypothesis.

Can you please explain to me why I should believe the baseless rantings of an anonymous Internet poster over all of them?

Last edited by johnny karate; 28th July 2008 at 10:43 AM.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2008, 10:42 AM   #189
papasmurf
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 147
Mr. Smith,
If my argument is from ignorance, you would have to prove it. Providing a link to a wikipedia article is cheap and lazy.

Do you realize how pathetic you people are? Do you not think your own personal convictions are blinding you to the truth? Do you not have your own lack of imagination?

I'm supposed to be able to "imagine" that fire magically caused that collapse, while its unimaginable that someone was able to bring it down with demolition charges?
papasmurf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2008, 10:47 AM   #190
SDC
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,244
You are not speaking as someone with any knowledge of engineering. You are speaking in the same fashion as someone who thinks video viewing is serious research.

Please try. Make a serious effort and you may be taken seriously.

And with regard to your post#184, I am the parent of a teenager. I recognize the style of response completely: "Nyah nyah he hit me first." It's no more justified now, in this envirnoment, than when it is said by a 6 year old on the playground.
SDC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2008, 10:49 AM   #191
papasmurf
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 147
Originally Posted by ~enigma~ View Post
We do know what the blue guy due know about english though...Anybody remember our old english major old school?
HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHA

Good one!

Touchdown Enigma!
papasmurf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2008, 10:49 AM   #192
A W Smith
Philosopher
 
A W Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Central New Jersey
Posts: 7,032
Originally Posted by papasmurf View Post
Mr. Smith,
If my argument is from ignorance, you would have to prove it. Providing a link to a wikipedia article is cheap and lazy.
The highliged text of your post i quoted proves it, deal with it
Quote:

Do you realize how pathetic you people are? Do you not think your own personal convictions are blinding you to the truth? Do you not have your own lack of imagination?
another logical fallacy. http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/person.html
Quote:

I'm supposed to be able to "imagine" that fire magically caused that collapse, while its unimaginable that someone was able to bring it down with demolition charges?
Are you studying theater or engineering? Lets see some math kid.
__________________
911 resource site by Mark Roberts
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home
Gravy: Christopher7; You are a Basking Shark in a sea of ignorance.
Galileo:The jury said I didn't have any mental defects or diseases, they declared me 100% sane. Has a jury ever declared you sane?
Don’t get me lol’n off my chesterfield dude.
A W Smith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2008, 10:55 AM   #193
papasmurf
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 147
OHHHHH MANNNNNNNNNN.....

Mr. Smith,
I asked you for some math, DUDE. FIRST.

Stop the ********. I explained my views and all you can do is plug your ears and cry like a baby.
Edited by prewitt81:  Content in violation of above moderator warning removed.
answer my concerns about the fire.

You can't. All you can do is attack my argument by putting up links to wikipedia. I feel very sorry for you.


Btw you think some damage to the exterior of the building from debris adds anything to your argument, prove it.

PROVE IT.

Mod Warningpapasmurf, this is the second time you have been warned for name-calling. Continuing to ignore moderator warnings will result in suspension.
Responding to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By:prewitt81

Last edited by prewitt81; 28th July 2008 at 11:02 AM. Reason: as noted
papasmurf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2008, 10:57 AM   #194
papasmurf
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 147
Let's see if we can get to 200 posts on this thread without a single post explaining a single rational thought as to how wtc 7 collapsed from fire.
papasmurf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2008, 10:57 AM   #195
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Originally Posted by papasmurf View Post
Mr. Smith,
If my argument is from ignorance, you would have to prove it.
Explain the relationship between WTC 7 and a Con Ed substation, and how this affected the construction of WTC 7.

Quote:
I'm supposed to be able to "imagine" that fire magically caused that collapse, while its unimaginable that someone was able to bring it down with demolition charges?
Yes, it is unimagineable how demo charges cause a kink in the building hours before collapse. Likewise, how the penthouse collapsed into the building before the rest of the building came down. It's unimagineable that the FDNY decided to plant demo charges in a building that was on fire. It's unimagineable that the FDNY was wrong when they described the extent of the fires, and the damage to the building. It's unimagineable that there were explosive charges strong enough to bring down the building but couldn't be heard or recorded by the many video cameras recording the event.

And finally, it's unimagineable that you, who claims to be an engineering student, is basing his opinion on a few seconds of video footage.
__________________
Vive la liberté!

Last edited by WildCat; 28th July 2008 at 10:59 AM.
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2008, 10:59 AM   #196
SDC
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,244
Papasmurf, this site is for discussion, not for obscenity and abuse. You can find that elsewhere, I expect.

From the level of your comments I find it very hard to believe you actually have any engineering qualifications. The burden is on you to prove that the "official explanation" is incorrect or inadequate. Please proceed to deal with that burden.
SDC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2008, 11:01 AM   #197
HyJinX
Graduate Poster
 
HyJinX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,662
Originally Posted by papasmurf View Post
Let's see if we can get to 200 posts on this thread without a single post explaining a single rational thought as to how wtc 7 collapsed from fire.
Let's see if we can get one post from papasmurf that contains evidence to the contrary. You know...proof and stuff.
__________________
What? You pooped in the refrigerator? And you ate the whole... wheel of cheese? How'd you do that? Heck, I'm not even mad; that's amazing. - Ron Burgundy
HyJinX is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2008, 11:03 AM   #198
papasmurf
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 147
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
Explain the relationship between WTC 7 and a Con Ed substation, and how this affected the construction of WTC 7.


Yes, it is unimagineable how demo charges cause a kink in the building hours before collapse. Likewise, how the penthouse collapsed into the building before the rest of the building came down. It's unimagineable that the FDNY decided to plant demo charges in a building that was on fire. It's unimagineable that the FDNY was wrong when they described the extent of the fires, and the damage to the building. It's unimagineable that there were explosive charges strong enough to bring down the building but couldn't be heard or recorded by the many video cameras recording the event.

And finally, it's unimagineable that you, who claims to be an engineering student, is basing his opinion on a few seconds of video footage.

Do you honestly believe that anyone believes that the FDNY would be the ones to plant the demolitions?

Give me a break.

Does anyone want to point in the direction of the official theory that you have read.

The part that says " the collapse is highly improbable" is useless to me, sorry.
papasmurf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2008, 11:07 AM   #199
SDC
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,244
You show no signs of having done any preparation whatsoever. It is easy to find information. Go to the NIST site. Go to the Pop Mechanics volume for easy explanations. Use the search function on this site for prior discussions.
SDC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2008, 11:08 AM   #200
papasmurf
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 147
Still can't answer my questions? Anyone?

Please, at least ...try...

Pretty please?
papasmurf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:24 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.