WTC Collapses

I agree on 1 point; not -everyone- is saying that the WTC towers were brought down by damage from debris and some minor fires. Only the official story maintains this fiction. Apparently, you seem to think this has no bearing on your main points, however. Well, I can live with that. It'd certainly be refreshing if everyone in this forum could simply assume that the government is lying concerning the cause of WTC 7. I certainly agree that there are more important issues to be resolved (such as why they brought it down).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Let us assume for a moment that I simply don't know how insurance works. Can you please point out to me some evidence that Silverstein would have received the $500 million even if WTC 7 had not collapsed?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well these last posts just demonstrate that yourself and "headspin" only see what you want to see. This is what is known as tunnel vision.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/tunnel vision

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

John, anyone can make a claim. The hard part is providing evidence to back up one's claim.

 

is it really necessary for me to back up something that happens ever day in every developed country with an insurance system? albeit on a smaller scale.

 

the contention is that a demolition would mean that the explosives were in the building before 911, there is an argument that says there was not enough time to demolish wtc7 on the day of 911. there is another argument that says no-one would have taken explosives and setup a demolition in a burning buiilding. Even if you say all these things - that the explosives were hurriedly planted in the mist of the burning building, that demolition crews arrived after an assessment and decision to blow it up, and managed to get all that done before 5pm, then it is plainly obvious that there would be NO REASON TO LIE that this is what happened, yet the 911 commission, NIST and all the media and reporters say it did not happen that way, therefore to contend that it was a demolition to bring down a damaged building would mean they were all lying, so the next question is - why would they lie? the obvious answer is that the only reason they would lie about it is that they are covering up something.

here is an entirely speculative but plausible scenario - the intention was to set off bombs at the same time that flight 93 hit wtc7 or perhaps to make it look like a resultant fire caused the collapse of wtc7. flight 93 crashed in shankesville (passenger revolt or computer controlled error), therefore they are left with building 7 full of explosives, which would be a big screw up.

 

No, you don't have to back up any of your claims. This isn't a court of law, just an informal forum. I personally am interested in knowing if you can back up this one, however.

 

Actually, the 911 Comission didn't mention it at all. As to a reason for lying, it seems that John is suggesting that it would lead some to believe (erroneously in his view) that the twin towers were also taken down by controlled demolition and this may be why the deception was made. I don't go for this theory, but it seems that this is John99's.

 

it isnt that i dont want to but i just thought this was common knowledge. however, id does shed some light on the problems you are having with more complex issues.

 

Sigh. Ok, let's say it's common knowledge. -Now- will you back up this claim?

I guess you're going to milk this for all its worth

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

 

so John99 is proposing that ALL the mainstream media would conspire by lying in order to protect the government?
Is John99 also proposing that the media conspires to "make us believe" a falsehood, rather than report the truth and provide a bastion against tyranny?
is there no end to the lies and corruption?
does anyone else see "doublethink" everywhere?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink

 

thats what i am doing by responding to you. but lets stick to the topic and not go off on tangents.

 

To cause a steel structure to fail, you do not need to cut the steel with anything, all you have to do is heat it till the structural strength is compromised.

Steel is nothing more than a frozen liquid, at temperature it is molten liquid, and flows, in between it's liquid state and frozen state is a zone where steel is elastic and can be stretched and formed by blow, or stress, so why do you believe that the impact damage, and fires didn't cause the fall of WTC 1
and 2, or that the debre slide from those collapses didn't destroy WTC 7.

Watch a avalanche and see what the debris from one does to buildings, and towns.

 

You seem to be saying that yes, the government and the media has lied concerning WTC 7, but there are more important subjects. I actually agreed with that assessment back in post 461; what's much more interesting is why they would demolish the building to begin with. However, especially after Headspin's post, I must admit that I'm surprised that you don't seem to be bothered with the possibility that there's been a vast coverup concerning what really happened to WTC 7.

 

wtc 7 - how does assymetric damage and fire cause a building to fall symmetrically into its footprint at freefall speed?

 

just read the posts made on this, no need to go over it again. you didnt answer any of the points made anyway because you cant so it is just one strawman after another.

will you be asking me to prove that the sky is blue next? forget it.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

there was no avalanche at ground zero.

 

assymetric?(sic)

freefall speed?

:bugeye:

 

1- What points didn't I answer?
2- Are you ever going to present evidence that Silverstein would have received a $500 million dollar profit regardless of whether or not WTC 7 collapsed? Or were you just being a tease?

 

1. i am not going to repeat them, they remain here for posterity.

2. and how would you like for me to do this? consult the magic 8 ball like you do.