Do you believe what you see or what others tell you you saw?

[jbrown329]

We should move on how the Moon Landing was fake and Stanley Kubrick actually filmed it.

 

[G-Lexington]

Once you've planted your flag, you're going to be very disinclined to move it, no matter how much evidence piles up proving that it's in the wrong spot. Much easier to stick with the websites that reassure you that yes, you're the smart one, and how sad that everybody else was suckered in by the propaganda.

I'd post more, but I see some chemtrails above Denver, and, well, you know what THAT means.

Lex

 

[jbrown329]

Once you've planted your flag, you're going to be very disinclined to move it, no matter how much evidence piles up proving that it's in the wrong spot. Much easier to stick with the websites that reassure you that yes, you're the smart one, and how sad that everybody else was suckered in by the propaganda.

I'd post more, but I see some chemtrails above Denver, and, well, you know what THAT means.

Lex

You forgot HAARP.

 

[rareboy]

Well, The Manhattan Project was kept pretty hush hush and that involved tens of thousands of people and three foreign powers, but that's neither here nor there (for now).

Ok, so we agree that WTC 7 came down on 9/11. We also agree that it takes many months of expert preparation to make such a large building come down in a controlled setting.

Visual evidence and testimony from other renowned demolition experts, as well as the admission from the leaseholder tells us that the building in question was deliberately "pulled" for safety reasons. We all watched this live on TV. This is a fact and is not debatable.

So how can this all happen if it wasn't pre planned?

And by the way, you may wanna check out Operation Northwoods .

Jesus fucking Christ.

Have you ever actually read the real reports? Nope.

Or ever get information from credible sources?

It is one thing to argue with stupid. It is another thing to argue with willful ignorance.

As I noted, you are a perfect example of the type of low information viewer who will watch a 5 minute youtube video containing ridiculous errors and mis-information and declare it to be some kind of secret truth that has been kept hidden from the masses.

No wonder that the family relegated you to a dark basement.

 

[mikey3000]

attack attack attack when no one can answer a simple question. and it's all the same people too. surprise surprise.

And Rareboy. I'm sure any of the four basement I own free and clear are nicer than The Farmhouse you live on.

 

[gsdx]

attack attack attack when no one can answer a simple question. and it's all the same people too. surprise surprise.

As I've said, we HAVE answered your question. You've just been too busy trying to prove yourself right that you haven't bothered reading our answers. We have evidence. You have supposition. That should be the end of the story.

Yes, the WTC7 came down. Just not the way you want to believe it did.

When you come up with evidence instead of theories made up by unbelievers, then perhaps we'll talk.

 

[rareboy]

^ This.

The tin foil hat brigade always just dismiss facts and evidence....thinking it provides them with an unassailable position.

As far as 'pulling', some clarification:

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

But wait.

This is all just part of the conspiracy, isn't it?

Getting planes to fly through WTC 1 and 2 was apparently only done to conceal the demolition of Building 7.

Yeah.

That would be it.

 

[luckynumbah7]

Ahahhahahaohgod, whole thread makes me wheeze

 

[mikey3000]

As I've said, we HAVE answered your question. You've just been too busy trying to prove yourself right that you haven't bothered reading our answers. We have evidence. You have supposition. That should be the end of the story.

Yes, the WTC7 came down. Just not the way you want to believe it did.

When you come up with evidence instead of theories made up by unbelievers, then perhaps we'll talk.

Sorry but I must have missed it. Where did you explain how WTC 7 came down? Which post number ?

 

[gsdx]

Sorry but I must have missed it. Where did you explain how WTC 7 came down? Which post number ?

Well, a lot of us have tried to explain it to you, but the main evidence was just below your original post. You couldn't miss it. It had lots of pictures and graphs and videos and everything. Since there was so much of it, we could only assume that you were ignoring it. I've explained time and time again what is involved in bringing down a building with hopes of helping you to understand how impossible it is to do it in one day let alone several months.

By the way, have you looked at any other videos of the collapse? If you did, you would clearly see that your video has been edited for effect just for the conspiracy. You would see that the roof collapses before the rest of the building. You have been made to see what the CTs want you to see. If they showed you everything, it blows their theory to bits.

Watch closely, top-left of the building:

Case closed. You've been had, by friend.

 

[rareboy]

Sorry but I must have missed it. Where did you explain how WTC 7 came down? Which post number ?

D'uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Post Number 4.

If you read the portions of the reports cited in the link, you will be able to see the exact connection that failed first, which then brought the rest of the building down.

For fuck's sake.

 

[rareboy]

Do you mean the official reports that had 28 pages missing, only to be released 15 years later and reveal that the Saudis were behind the financing of the terrorist pilots? That's a conspiracy on it's own.



Impossible? No plane hit WTC 7 yet it came down just hours later. We all saw it live.




This looks just like the first implosion video you showed, no?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mamvq7LWqRU&feature=youtu.be

Yet you say that this building, WTC 7 came down just like this on it's own accord within mere hours of the event, even after the leaseholder admitted on national TV he made the decision to pull it? Man, you are not making sense.

Let me ask you this, why is, "believing in God is not the same thing, no matter how the brain is wired" ? Many on here believe that God and religion is one big conspiracy, why isn't it the same thing? Could it be that you actually believe in God?

No.

I don't mean the official report.

So you never read the material in the links provided.

I was referring to the forensic analysis of how building 7 came down.

Just read something for a change and learn instead of getting baked and wallowing in conspiracy paranoia.

 

[rareboy]

Well, a lot of us have tried to explain it to you, but the main evidence was just below your original post. You couldn't miss it. It had lots of pictures and graphs and videos and everything. Since there was so much of it, we could only assume that you were ignoring it. I've explained time and time again what is involved in bringing down a building with hopes of helping you to understand how impossible it is to do it in one day let alone several months.

By the way, have you looked at any other videos of the collapse? If you did, you would clearly see that your video has been edited for effect just for the conspiracy. You would see that the roof collapses before the rest of the building. You have been made to see what the CTs want you to see. If they showed you everything, it blows their theory to bits.

Watch closely, top-left of the building:

Case closed. You've been had, by friend.

This is why the original title of this thread is so absurd but so true at the same time.

The conspiracy theory youtube videos are telling people what they should think they see, but the footage is always edited.

If you just look at the plain video and you read the NIST analysis of the failure, the collapse makes perfect sense to anyone who understands behaviour of steel and structures.

The failure of the joint below the penthouse triggers a collapse not only inward but 'backward', which clearly demonstrates that this building was not anything like a controlled demolition which is designed to be a 'perfect' implosion of a structure.

Conspiracy theories are always based on exploiting not only the ignorance of people, but the willful ignorance of people who refuse to learn and understand the facts set out in front of them. I find it impossible to believe that someone claiming to be a lawyer, who has been trained to think critically and to research to establish facts can be so easily hoodwinked by a few poorly produced youtube videos.

https://www.nist.gov/node/599811?pub_id=861610

 

[gsdx]

This is why the original title of this thread is so absurd but so true at the same time.

The conspiracy theory youtube videos are telling people what they should think they see, but the footage is always edited.

The smoke not moving for 11 seconds before the collapse was a big clue.

Theorists, however, are watching the building, not the smoke coming out of the roof. Heck, it even took me a few viewings before I noticed it myself. Unfortunately, most of the videos on YouTube feature theorist videos, and I couldn't find one that showed the roof collapse first. Then I found the one I posted above. It wasn't a theorist video. Smoke moving, roof caving in, all followed by the building imploding on itself.

Still, in all the videos I watched (including one from 23 different angles), I couldn't see a single explosion which would have been necessary and very evident if it had been a controlled implosion.

The theorists don't show the fire, either. That would disprove their theory. The video quality isn't very good in this clip, but it clearly shows the extent of the fire and the damage to the structure:

 

[rareboy]

There were uncontrolled fires on ten floors of the building caused by the debris of the tower crashing through. I have heard and/or read the conspiracy theorist claims that a 'few' fires in offices would not have caused collapse.

As the video clearly shows.....the fires were mammoth and as I've pointed out, steel has a very low thermal stress deformation point. No steel structure could withstand 7 hours of uncontrolled fire.

 

[gsdx]

I have heard and/or read the conspiracy theorist claims that a 'few' fires in offices would not have caused collapse.

So have I. I've always felt that they rate the fires on a waste paper basket scale.

Still, nothing is going to convince them that the collapse was due to anything other than a controlled implosion. Right up there with the moon landing, Flat Earth, and the face on Mars. Oh, and Bigfoot and Aliens and Oak Island and...

 

[jbrown329]

There were no explosions because the support columns were 'cut' with thermite cord.

 

[gsdx]

^ Perfect for working in a burning building.

 

[mikey3000]

There were uncontrolled fires on ten floors of the building caused by the debris of the tower crashing through. I have heard and/or read the conspiracy theorist claims that a 'few' fires in offices would not have caused collapse.

As the video clearly shows.....the fires were mammoth and as I've pointed out, steel has a very low thermal stress deformation point. No steel structure could withstand 7 hours of uncontrolled fire.

Really ? Only three steel framed sky scrapers in history have ever collapsed from the heat of fire, and all those occurred on 9/11/01. None since either.

yet never collapsed. WTC 1 and WTC 2 supposedly collapsed due to the extremely high temperatures of burning jet fuel. Well, there was no jet fuel in WTC 7 (according to the official investigation), just regular combustible materials found in any office, yet it burned at tempatures high enough to make it collapse? But wait, it gets better...


The popular mechanics article also fails to explain:

-The NORAD scrambled jets lie and the NORAD War games scheduled for that same day

-Eye witness reports from civilians, firefighters and police of multiple locations well below and before the point of impact.

-Pools of molten metal discovered under WTC 1,2, and 7 weeks after the incident (thermite was discovered in steel samples after the article was released.

-John Kerry admitted that the towers were brought down.

-Larry Silverstein netted more than $5 billion from insurance he increased just weeks before the incident.

-Steel from the WTC collapse, the most monumental crime scene in U.S. history, was wisked almost immediately to China and India.


The Popular Mechanics article is a proven joke. It was written by Benjamin Chertoff, senior researcher at Popular Mechanics, AND the cousin of Michael Chertoff, then Secretary of Homeland Security. Coincidence? Right! That article was bought and paid for by the US government.

So have I. I've always felt that they rate the fires on a waste paper basket scale.

Still, nothing is going to convince them that the collapse was due to anything other than a controlled implosion. Right up there with the moon landing, Flat Earth, and the face on Mars. Oh, and Bigfoot and Aliens and Oak Island and...

Remember Neil, Most on here believe that the God you believe in is a conspiracy too, so don't be too judgy. And yes, it is exactly the same, you can't prove his existence either.

 

[luckynumbah7]

Remember Neil, Most on here believe that the God you believe in is a conspiracy too, so don't be too judgy. And yes, it is exactly the same, you can't prove his existence either.

Faith isn't a synonym for conspiracy. Have you been drinking? I'd like to think most adults can discern the difference between sets of chemical reactions and the definition of faith - of which basic (but apparently not basic enough) chemistry is most assuredly not part of the definition of faith, a large part of which is generally considered belief without verifiable/testable proof. That's why it's called faith.

As opposed to the malleability of different grades of steel. Which you can look up online. There's no faith in that, you can point it out or, indeed, do experiments yourself provided you know how to handle a torch. Or a tac welder, either will do. So not exactly akin there.

For the record, such as it is, you could also stand to repeat to yourself that a controlled demolition is not the same as large bits of matter crashing into places and starting fires. You know, if you wonder why one demolishment looks so much 'neater' than the other.