DC: Why do you think WTC7 was a CD? - Page 8

Corsair 115 · 9th May 2008, 01:09 AM

Originally Posted by theauthor

So a building looks like a CD (admitted by debunkers), is announced early on BBC...

I find it curious why you are ignoring the fact that CNN announced some two hours before the WTC7 collapsed that the building was in danger of collapse due to fire, as told to them by the FDNY. And from then until the building collapsed they kept cutting back to a shot of the building and repeating that the building was in danger of collapsing according to the FDNY.

I can only conclude you were not at home that day watching the news. I was. In fact, I was home for three straight days doing little else other than watching the news.

DC · 9th May 2008, 01:15 AM

Originally Posted by stateofgrace

Like this guy?

http://911guide.googlepages.com/danielnigro

Or are there any other fire fighters you wish to name as accessories to mass murder?

massmurder??? how many died in WTC7?

CHF · 9th May 2008, 05:25 AM

Originally Posted by theauthor

So a building looks like a CD (admitted by debunkers), is announced early on BBC, and it is then discovered that officials were warning people to get back from building 7 because it was about to BLOW UP..............and you don't see a problem?

Get some intellectual honesty FFS.

Show us an example of being intellectually honest, theauthor.

Tell us what you think happened.

Are first responders covering up WTC7's "demolition?" Are the BBC in on it?

You seem to have serious issues when it comes to taking claims to their logical conclusions.

CHF · 9th May 2008, 05:29 AM

Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney

even when FDNY personal was involved, most of them was not. maybe a few know it.

Was Chief Daniel Nigro involved? Yes or no.

DC · 9th May 2008, 05:35 AM

Originally Posted by CHF

Was Chief Daniel Nigro involved? Yes or no.

i dont know.

CHF · 9th May 2008, 06:02 AM

Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney

i dont fully understand collusion, but i dont belive the firefighters are in on it.
for sure not all of them, i have video that proves that several where no involved at all (Naudet docu)

Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney

even when FDNY personal was involved, most of them was not. maybe a few know it.

Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney

i dont know.

It seems you're really struggling with this, DC.

WTC7 was an obvious CD, yet the FDNY, who were close the building all day, do not support this claim and have even given statements indicating that they knew the building would collapse from structural damage and fire.

I'd be confused too.

johnny karate · 9th May 2008, 06:32 AM

Originally Posted by theauthor

So a building looks like a CD (admitted by debunkers), is announced early on BBC, and it is then discovered that officials were warning people to get back from building 7 because it was about to BLOW UP..............and you don't see a problem?

Get some intellectual honesty FFS.

This isn't how it works in a discussion, sport. You don't get to keep asking questions while ignoring the ones others pose to you. That's called intellectual dishonesty, and makes you little more that a troll.

So let's try again: How did the first responder in question know that WTC7 was about to "blow up"?

johnny karate · 9th May 2008, 06:34 AM

DP

stateofgrace · 9th May 2008, 07:45 AM

Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney

massmurder??? how many died in WTC7?

Yes dear boy MASS MURDER. Unless you are now telling us all that the MASS MURDER plot to kill thousands inside WTC 1 and 2 had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the demolition of WTC 7.That for some reason the demolishing of WTC 7 had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the rest of the days events. Is this your new angle? Is this how you justify it to yourself when you willingly try to imply that some of the fire fighters may have been involved?

Well DC? Have you got the balls to imply by name, any fire-fighter you think may have been involved in the demolition of WTC 7? One name, I defy you to put forward one single name, after all according to you, any fire fighter involved in the demolition is guilty of nothing, let alone MASS MURDER.

In your own good time, DC, name names, stop hiding,you have already implied that you believe some of the fire fighters may have been involved, so why not go the full nine yards and show everybody how bloody ridiculous you really are.

aggle-rithm · 9th May 2008, 07:53 AM

Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney

massmurder??? how many died in WTC7?

If WTC7 were secretly demolished, then the people behind the crime either knew about the plan to kill 3000 people, or they didn't.

If they did not know about it, then the WTC7 demolition was a separate, unrelated operation having nothing to do with the terror attacks.

Is this what you are contending?

Or, perhaps you are saying the the firefighters and others complicit in the demolition were ignorant of the plot. Surely, they would have suspected SOMETHING was up when, on the very day they were asked to secretly demolish a building (or at least participate in the cover-up), hundreds of their own colleagues were killed?

And they still went along with it?

And they kept QUIET about it, to this very day?

In what way would this NOT make them complicit in mass murder?

ETA, stateofgrace beat me to the punch!

stateofgrace · 9th May 2008, 08:00 AM

[quote=theauthor;3689160]It's about time you did.[quote]

Indeed.

Quote:

When did I say that?

Here

Quote:

So a building looks like a CD

Quote:

Another strawman.

Do try to learn the meaning of the above before you use it again and make yourself look even more foolish.

Quote:

Can you explain why he was telling people that the building was about to blow up?

Because he was told in advance that somebody had put loads of explosives inside the building and the perps decided it would be a good idea if somebody went around shouting about it before hand just to ensure that everybody knew all about it and it would be posted on you tube by internet investigators who would blow wide upon this dastardly plot. What do you think? Does it sound plausible or stupid?

Quote:

As a matter of fact, I do. Don't you?

I have no problem with anything but if you do feel free to tell us all about it.

DC · 9th May 2008, 08:02 AM

sorry thats OT. make a new topic, maybe i answer there. thx

stateofgrace · 9th May 2008, 08:50 AM

Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney

sorry thats OT. make a new topic, maybe i answer there. thx

It is on topic, that being you explaining how you concluded WTC 7 was demolished. It is clear within your lengthily research you have concluded that fire fighters on the ground may have been involved.

You will not get another thread from me, you do not deserve it, I have seen enough of your drivel in this thread to draw my own conclusions and based on those you deserve nothing let alone the time other members of this forum have spend with you. You deserve no further platform to spew your contemptible garbage.

Forum decorum dictates that I should not offer you my utter contempt so I will not. I will leave this thread and you to wallow in your dream whereby it is ok for you to imply those that were there, those who did all they could to help, those who command my utter admiration and respect, are in fact involved in a mass murder plot.

Good day, sir.

DC · 9th May 2008, 09:16 AM

topic = Why do you think WTC7 was a CD?
i answered it already severaltimes now.
and firefighters knowledge or involvement is not one of the reasons i think WTC7 was a CD.
sorry, make a new topic and we can talk there, i dont want to get suspended.

Totovader · 9th May 2008, 09:22 AM

Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney

topic = Why do you think WTC7 was a CD?
i answered it already severaltimes now.
and firefighters knowledge or involvement is not one of the reasons i think WTC7 was a CD.
sorry, make a new topic and we can talk there, i dont want to get suspended.

Now you think it WAS a CD again?

I thought you said you didn't know (and were waiting for the NIST report on WTC7)?

DC · 9th May 2008, 09:32 AM

i think it is a CD but i do not know if it is a CD.
and before i make a final conclusion i want to read the NIST report first.

i also explained that i would not say im agnostic, because i tend very strong to a CD.

i hope it is clear now.

applecorped · 9th May 2008, 09:33 AM

Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney

well before i would consider the CD of WTC 7 a fact, i would like to read the official theory to it first.

maybe they have a good and convincing explenation for the collapses. especially i am looking into investigations to the steel column 81 and the columns nearby.

DC, is CD of WTC7 a fact to you or not? There have been contradictory statements by you and I'm not sure at this point what you believe. If you truly believe it was a CD then what would be the point of reading the upcoming report? If you are waiting for the report then just state that and stick to it. After the above post you went on to state emphatically that it was obvious that it was CD. Slow down, remember what you posted earlier before posting again.

aggle-rithm · 9th May 2008, 09:45 AM

Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney

i think it is a CD but i do not know if it is a CD.
and before i make a final conclusion i want to read the NIST report first.

i also explained that i would not say im agnostic, because i tend very strong to a CD.

i hope it is clear now.

The only thing that isn't clear is WHY you "tend very strong to a CD".

In the absence of evidence, motive, opportunity, or plausible mode of operation, what could possibly make you "tend very strong to a CD", other than very strong preconceived notions and a willingness to ignore reality?

X · 9th May 2008, 12:30 PM

Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney

Originally Posted by stateofgrace

Yes dear boy MASS MURDER. Unless you are now telling us all that the MASS MURDER plot to kill thousands inside WTC 1 and 2 had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the demolition of WTC 7.That for some reason the demolishing of WTC 7 had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the rest of the days events. Is this your new angle? Is this how you justify it to yourself when you willingly try to imply that some of the fire fighters may have been involved?

Well DC? Have you got the balls to imply by name, any fire-fighter you think may have been involved in the demolition of WTC 7? One name, I defy you to put forward one single name, after all according to you, any fire fighter involved in the demolition is guilty of nothing, let alone MASS MURDER.

In your own good time, DC, name names, stop hiding,you have already implied that you believe some of the fire fighters may have been involved, so why not go the full nine yards and show everybody how bloody ridiculous you really are.

Sorry thats OT. Make a new topic, maybe I will answer there. thx

No, it is not off-topic.
It is a part of why you think WTC 7 was a controlled demolition.
As such, it is perfectly within the topic for StateOfGrace to ask for clarification on the point.

Please answer the question.

pomeroo · 9th May 2008, 01:44 PM

Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney

i think it is a CD but i do not know if it is a CD.
and before i make a final conclusion i want to read the NIST report first.

i also explained that i would not say im agnostic, because i tend very strong to a CD.

i hope it is clear now.

With the single exception of Danny Jowenko, who has no experience with large buildings, all demolition experts concur that the collapse of WTC 7 does not resemble a controlled demolition. What do you know that they don't?

DC · 9th May 2008, 01:51 PM

whats your evidence for all demolition experts -1?

applecorped · 9th May 2008, 01:59 PM

Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney

whats your evidence for all demolition experts -1?

It's not nice to reply to a question with a question. You're long on questions and short on answers. Doesn't that ever cause you to reconsider the position you are taking with regards to WTC7?

pomeroo · 9th May 2008, 02:12 PM

Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney

whats your evidence for all demolition experts -1?

Well, the truth is, I haven't contacted all demolition experts. I have spoken with Danny Jowenko, however, and I have obtained confirmation from two dozen demolition companies that people in the industry don't talk about "pulling" buildings. All of the demolition experts who have been gracious enough to answer my questions contend that WTC 7 does not resemble a controlled demolition. It comes back to that inconvenient business the conspiracy liars keep ignoring: where was the series of simultaneous explosions followed by the collapse of the building? It didn't happen. You can tap dance forever, but the lies of the fantasy movement have been exposed.

DC · 9th May 2008, 02:18 PM

Originally Posted by pomeroo

Well, the truth is, I haven't contacted all demolition experts. I have spoken with Danny Jowenko, however, and I have obtained confirmation from two dozen demolition companies that people in the industry don't talk about "pulling" buildings. All of the demolition experts who have been gracious enough to answer my questions contend that WTC 7 does not resemble a controlled demolition. It comes back to that inconvenient business the conspiracy liars keep ignoring: where was the series of simultaneous explosions followed by the collapse of the building? It didn't happen. You can tap dance forever, but the lies of the fantasy movement have been exposed.

does that mean Danny Jovenko changed his mind and agreed that WTC7 was not a CD?

pomeroo · 9th May 2008, 02:36 PM

Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney

does that mean Danny Jovenko changed his mind and agreed that WTC7 was not a CD?

I suspect the reason that you waste so much time slipping and sliding is that you really don't know what you're talking about. You bring nothing to the table apart from your irrational hatred of America. You try, ineptly, to debate physics and engineering with real physicists and engineers. You avoid all inconvenient questions.

I don't know what Danny Jowenko's agenda is. I know that he has not studied the collapse of WTC 7 and he has said things that other demolition professionals find ludicrous.

In a controlled demolition, a carefully-arranged series of charges go off simultaneously. You see, without planning and preparation, the demolition would not be controlled. NOBODY noticed a series of explosions followed by the collapse of the building--NOBODY!

DC · 9th May 2008, 02:46 PM

Originally Posted by applecorped

DC, is CD of WTC7 a fact to you or not? There have been contradictory statements by you and I'm not sure at this point what you believe. If you truly believe it was a CD then what would be the point of reading the upcoming report? If you are waiting for the report then just state that and stick to it. After the above post you went on to state emphatically that it was obvious that it was CD. Slow down, remember what you posted earlier before posting again.

is english your main language?

applecorped · 9th May 2008, 02:49 PM

Si

DC · 9th May 2008, 02:59 PM

Originally Posted by pomeroo

I suspect the reason that you waste so much time slipping and sliding is that you really don't know what you're talking about. You bring nothing to the table apart from your irrational hatred of America. You try, ineptly, to debate physics and engineering with real physicists and engineers. You avoid all inconvenient questions.

I don't know what Danny Jowenko's agenda is. I know that he has not studied the collapse of WTC 7 and he has said things that other demolition professionals find ludicrous.

In a controlled demolition, a carefully-arranged series of charges go off simultaneously. You see, without planning and preparation, the demolition would not be controlled. NOBODY noticed a series of explosions followed by the collapse of the building--NOBODY!

what is Craig Bartmer's Agenda?

DC · 9th May 2008, 03:03 PM

i say "well before i would consider the CD of WTC 7 a fact, i would like to read the official theory to it first."

you ask " is CD of WTC7 a fact to you or not?"

pomeroo · 9th May 2008, 03:06 PM

Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney

what is Craig Bartmer's Agenda?

Craig Bartmer's story is a sad one. There were no "bombs" or explosives of any kind in WTC 7:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=67361

So, what did Arthur Scheuerman get wrong? Oh, you couldn't understand his paper--maybe that's the reason no conspiracy liar comments on it.

DC · 9th May 2008, 03:23 PM

ah ok, i see he is one of those that missheared something, got it wrong or are in on the woo.

pomeroo · 9th May 2008, 03:30 PM

Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney

ah ok, i see he is one of those that missheared something, got it wrong or are in on the woo.

You don't like to read, do you?

You refuse to attempt to read a paper by a retired battalion chief of the FDNY and you refuse to check out the thread linking you to a discussion of Craig Bartmer's claims.

WTC 7 was not brought down in a controlled demolition: the task of preparing a 47-story building for demolition is a daunting one, not something could be accomplished in a matter of hours or even days. No simultaneous explosions preceded the collapse of the building.

aggle-rithm · 9th May 2008, 03:39 PM

Did I really once say that DC could be replaced by ten lines of code?

I may have overstated that.

DC · 9th May 2008, 03:41 PM

Originally Posted by pomeroo

You don't like to read, do you?

You refuse to attempt to read a paper by a retired battalion chief of the FDNY and you refuse to check out the thread linking you to a discussion of Craig Bartmer's claims.

WTC 7 was not brought down in a controlled demolition: the task of preparing a 47-story building for demolition is a daunting one, not something could be accomplished in a matter of hours or even days. No simultaneous explosions preceded the collapse of the building.

well the conclusion from the 9/11 collapses without CD would be.
it does not need simoultaneous explosions nor explosions in a precisely calculated sequence. nor does it need the removal of non load bearing walls that could act up as stiffeners, to bring down buildings relatively symetric.

DC · 9th May 2008, 03:47 PM

Originally Posted by aggle-rithm

Did I really once say that DC could be replaced by ten lines of code?

I may have overstated that.

you are a living debunking for Intelligent Design theorys

WildCat · 9th May 2008, 03:53 PM

Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney

well the conclusion from the 9/11 collapses without CD would be.
it does not need simoultaneous explosions nor explosions in a precisely calculated sequence. nor does it need the removal of non load bearing walls that could act up as stiffeners, to bring down buildings relatively symetric.

Your problem is there's no evidence of any explosives period.

And I'm still waiting for you to explain this "linear thermite cutter" you mention every now and then.

pomeroo · 9th May 2008, 04:03 PM

Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney

well the conclusion from the 9/11 collapses without CD would be.
it does not need simoultaneous explosions nor explosions in a precisely calculated sequence. nor does it need the removal of non load bearing walls that could act up as stiffeners, to bring down buildings relatively symetric.

You don't know what you're talking about. There is zero evidence for the use of explosives anywhere in the WTC complex on the day of the jihadist attacks. NIST explained the collapse mechanism for the Towers. No one in the fantasy movement has discovered a significant error in NIST's analysis, although charlatans like Heiwa have made themselves look ridiculous attempting a task they are manifestly unqualified for.

DC · 9th May 2008, 04:08 PM

Originally Posted by WildCat

Your problem is there's no evidence of any explosives period.

And I'm still waiting for you to explain this "linear thermite cutter" you mention every now and then.

something like that i think

DC · 9th May 2008, 04:09 PM

Originally Posted by pomeroo

You don't know what you're talking about. There is zero evidence for the use of explosives anywhere in the WTC complex on the day of the jihadist attacks. NIST explained the collapse mechanism for the Towers. No one in the fantasy movement has discovered a significant error in NIST's analysis, although charlatans like Heiwa have made themselves look ridiculous attempting a task they are manifestly unqualified for.

NIST explained the collapse mechanism for the Towers

really?

pomeroo · 9th May 2008, 04:15 PM

Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney

NIST explained the collapse mechanism for the Towers

really?

Yes, really.

9th May 2008, 01:09 AM	#281
Corsair 115 Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Tranquility Base Posts: 8,556	Originally Posted by theauthor So a building looks like a CD (admitted by debunkers), is announced early on BBC... I find it curious why you are ignoring the fact that CNN announced some two hours before the WTC7 collapsed that the building was in danger of collapse due to fire, as told to them by the FDNY. And from then until the building collapsed they kept cutting back to a shot of the building and repeating that the building was in danger of collapsing according to the FDNY. I can only conclude you were not at home that day watching the news. I was. In fact, I was home for three straight days doing little else other than watching the news.
	__________________ "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."

9th May 2008, 01:15 AM	#282
DC dedicated aphilatelist Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Switzerland Posts: 21,647	Originally Posted by stateofgrace Like this guy? http://911guide.googlepages.com/danielnigro Or are there any other fire fighters you wish to name as accessories to mass murder? massmurder??? how many died in WTC7?
	__________________ AGW is a fact, including the A, face it

9th May 2008, 05:35 AM	#285
DC dedicated aphilatelist Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Switzerland Posts: 21,647	Originally Posted by CHF Was Chief Daniel Nigro involved? Yes or no. i dont know.
	__________________ AGW is a fact, including the A, face it

9th May 2008, 06:32 AM	#287
johnny karate ... and your little dog too. Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 7,823	Originally Posted by theauthor So a building looks like a CD (admitted by debunkers), is announced early on BBC, and it is then discovered that officials were warning people to get back from building 7 because it was about to BLOW UP..............and you don't see a problem? Get some intellectual honesty FFS. This isn't how it works in a discussion, sport. You don't get to keep asking questions while ignoring the ones others pose to you. That's called intellectual dishonesty, and makes you little more that a troll. So let's try again: How did the first responder in question know that WTC7 was about to "blow up"?
	__________________ Lost your faith in humanity? Click here to have it restored. Or here.

9th May 2008, 06:34 AM	#288
johnny karate ... and your little dog too. Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 7,823	DP
	__________________ Lost your faith in humanity? Click here to have it restored. Or here. Last edited by johnny karate; 9th May 2008 at 06:36 AM.

9th May 2008, 05:25 AM	#283
CHF Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Toronto Posts: 3,875	Originally Posted by theauthor So a building looks like a CD (admitted by debunkers), is announced early on BBC, and it is then discovered that officials were warning people to get back from building 7 because it was about to BLOW UP..............and you don't see a problem? Get some intellectual honesty FFS. Show us an example of being intellectually honest, theauthor. Tell us what you think happened. Are first responders covering up WTC7's "demolition?" Are the BBC in on it? You seem to have serious issues when it comes to taking claims to their logical conclusions.

9th May 2008, 05:29 AM	#284
CHF Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Toronto Posts: 3,875	Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney even when FDNY personal was involved, most of them was not. maybe a few know it. Was Chief Daniel Nigro involved? Yes or no.

9th May 2008, 06:02 AM	#286
CHF Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Toronto Posts: 3,875	Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney i dont fully understand collusion, but i dont belive the firefighters are in on it. for sure not all of them, i have video that proves that several where no involved at all (Naudet docu) Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney even when FDNY personal was involved, most of them was not. maybe a few know it. Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney i dont know. It seems you're really struggling with this, DC. WTC7 was an obvious CD, yet the FDNY, who were close the building all day, do not support this claim and have even given statements indicating that they knew the building would collapse from structural damage and fire. I'd be confused too.

9th May 2008, 07:45 AM	#289
stateofgrace Guest Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Scotland Posts: 3,847	Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney massmurder??? how many died in WTC7? Yes dear boy MASS MURDER. Unless you are now telling us all that the MASS MURDER plot to kill thousands inside WTC 1 and 2 had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the demolition of WTC 7.That for some reason the demolishing of WTC 7 had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the rest of the days events. Is this your new angle? Is this how you justify it to yourself when you willingly try to imply that some of the fire fighters may have been involved? Well DC? Have you got the balls to imply by name, any fire-fighter you think may have been involved in the demolition of WTC 7? One name, I defy you to put forward one single name, after all according to you, any fire fighter involved in the demolition is guilty of nothing, let alone MASS MURDER. In your own good time, DC, name names, stop hiding,you have already implied that you believe some of the fire fighters may have been involved, so why not go the full nine yards and show everybody how bloody ridiculous you really are.
	Last edited by stateofgrace; 9th May 2008 at 07:49 AM.

9th May 2008, 07:53 AM	#290
aggle-rithm Ardent Formulist Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 14,149	Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney massmurder??? how many died in WTC7? If WTC7 were secretly demolished, then the people behind the crime either knew about the plan to kill 3000 people, or they didn't. If they did not know about it, then the WTC7 demolition was a separate, unrelated operation having nothing to do with the terror attacks. Is this what you are contending? Or, perhaps you are saying the the firefighters and others complicit in the demolition were ignorant of the plot. Surely, they would have suspected SOMETHING was up when, on the very day they were asked to secretly demolish a building (or at least participate in the cover-up), hundreds of their own colleagues were killed? And they still went along with it? And they kept QUIET about it, to this very day? In what way would this NOT make them complicit in mass murder? ETA, stateofgrace beat me to the punch!
	__________________ To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion. Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens. Last edited by aggle-rithm; 9th May 2008 at 07:55 AM.

9th May 2008, 08:00 AM	#291
stateofgrace Guest Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Scotland Posts: 3,847	[quote=theauthor;3689160]It's about time you did.[quote] Indeed. Quote: When did I say that? Here Quote: So a building looks like a CD Quote: Another strawman. Do try to learn the meaning of the above before you use it again and make yourself look even more foolish. Quote: Can you explain why he was telling people that the building was about to blow up? Because he was told in advance that somebody had put loads of explosives inside the building and the perps decided it would be a good idea if somebody went around shouting about it before hand just to ensure that everybody knew all about it and it would be posted on you tube by internet investigators who would blow wide upon this dastardly plot. What do you think? Does it sound plausible or stupid? Quote: As a matter of fact, I do. Don't you? I have no problem with anything but if you do feel free to tell us all about it.

9th May 2008, 08:02 AM	#292
DC dedicated aphilatelist Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Switzerland Posts: 21,647	sorry thats OT. make a new topic, maybe i answer there. thx
	__________________ AGW is a fact, including the A, face it

9th May 2008, 08:50 AM	#293
stateofgrace Guest Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Scotland Posts: 3,847	Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney sorry thats OT. make a new topic, maybe i answer there. thx It is on topic, that being you explaining how you concluded WTC 7 was demolished. It is clear within your lengthily research you have concluded that fire fighters on the ground may have been involved. You will not get another thread from me, you do not deserve it, I have seen enough of your drivel in this thread to draw my own conclusions and based on those you deserve nothing let alone the time other members of this forum have spend with you. You deserve no further platform to spew your contemptible garbage. Forum decorum dictates that I should not offer you my utter contempt so I will not. I will leave this thread and you to wallow in your dream whereby it is ok for you to imply those that were there, those who did all they could to help, those who command my utter admiration and respect, are in fact involved in a mass murder plot. Good day, sir.
	Last edited by stateofgrace; 9th May 2008 at 09:09 AM.

9th May 2008, 09:16 AM	#294
DC dedicated aphilatelist Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Switzerland Posts: 21,647	topic = Why do you think WTC7 was a CD? i answered it already severaltimes now. and firefighters knowledge or involvement is not one of the reasons i think WTC7 was a CD. sorry, make a new topic and we can talk there, i dont want to get suspended.
	__________________ AGW is a fact, including the A, face it

9th May 2008, 09:22 AM	#295
Totovader Game Warden Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Minneapolis, MN Posts: 2,240	Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney topic = Why do you think WTC7 was a CD? i answered it already severaltimes now. and firefighters knowledge or involvement is not one of the reasons i think WTC7 was a CD. sorry, make a new topic and we can talk there, i dont want to get suspended. Now you think it WAS a CD again? I thought you said you didn't know (and were waiting for the NIST report on WTC7)?
	__________________ "It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into." --Jonathan Swift Blog - Corrected By Reality. My debunking videos, and philosophy on YouTube Totovader's 9/11 Conspiracy Challenge Still unanswered!

9th May 2008, 09:32 AM	#296
DC dedicated aphilatelist Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Switzerland Posts: 21,647	i think it is a CD but i do not know if it is a CD. and before i make a final conclusion i want to read the NIST report first. i also explained that i would not say im agnostic, because i tend very strong to a CD. i hope it is clear now.
	__________________ AGW is a fact, including the A, face it

9th May 2008, 09:33 AM	#297
applecorped Rotten to the Core Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 10,646	Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney well before i would consider the CD of WTC 7 a fact, i would like to read the official theory to it first. maybe they have a good and convincing explenation for the collapses. especially i am looking into investigations to the steel column 81 and the columns nearby. DC, is CD of WTC7 a fact to you or not? There have been contradictory statements by you and I'm not sure at this point what you believe. If you truly believe it was a CD then what would be the point of reading the upcoming report? If you are waiting for the report then just state that and stick to it. After the above post you went on to state emphatically that it was obvious that it was CD. Slow down, remember what you posted earlier before posting again.

9th May 2008, 09:45 AM	#298
aggle-rithm Ardent Formulist Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 14,149	Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney i think it is a CD but i do not know if it is a CD. and before i make a final conclusion i want to read the NIST report first. i also explained that i would not say im agnostic, because i tend very strong to a CD. i hope it is clear now. The only thing that isn't clear is WHY you "tend very strong to a CD". In the absence of evidence, motive, opportunity, or plausible mode of operation, what could possibly make you "tend very strong to a CD", other than very strong preconceived notions and a willingness to ignore reality?
	__________________ To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion. Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens.

9th May 2008, 12:30 PM	#299
X Slide Rulez 4 Life Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Launching the army, waiting for Hok to commit her forces (then the moles strike...) Posts: 4,082	Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney Originally Posted by stateofgrace Yes dear boy MASS MURDER. Unless you are now telling us all that the MASS MURDER plot to kill thousands inside WTC 1 and 2 had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the demolition of WTC 7.That for some reason the demolishing of WTC 7 had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the rest of the days events. Is this your new angle? Is this how you justify it to yourself when you willingly try to imply that some of the fire fighters may have been involved? Well DC? Have you got the balls to imply by name, any fire-fighter you think may have been involved in the demolition of WTC 7? One name, I defy you to put forward one single name, after all according to you, any fire fighter involved in the demolition is guilty of nothing, let alone MASS MURDER. In your own good time, DC, name names, stop hiding,you have already implied that you believe some of the fire fighters may have been involved, so why not go the full nine yards and show everybody how bloody ridiculous you really are. Sorry thats OT. Make a new topic, maybe I will answer there. thx No, it is not off-topic. It is a part of why you think WTC 7 was a controlled demolition. As such, it is perfectly within the topic for StateOfGrace to ask for clarification on the point. Please answer the question.
	__________________ It is sad that this is necessary: Argumentum Ad Hominem: "You are wrong because you are ugly." Not Ad-Hom: "You are wrong and you are ugly." [X's posts are] ...as good as having 24 hours of Justin Bieber piped into your ears! - kmortis

9th May 2008, 01:44 PM	#300
pomeroo Banned Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: In a Little Cafe Just the Other Side of the Border Posts: 7,091	Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney i think it is a CD but i do not know if it is a CD. and before i make a final conclusion i want to read the NIST report first. i also explained that i would not say im agnostic, because i tend very strong to a CD. i hope it is clear now. With the single exception of Danny Jowenko, who has no experience with large buildings, all demolition experts concur that the collapse of WTC 7 does not resemble a controlled demolition. What do you know that they don't?

9th May 2008, 01:51 PM	#301
DC dedicated aphilatelist Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Switzerland Posts: 21,647	whats your evidence for all demolition experts -1?
	__________________ AGW is a fact, including the A, face it

9th May 2008, 01:59 PM	#302
applecorped Rotten to the Core Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 10,646	Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney whats your evidence for all demolition experts -1? It's not nice to reply to a question with a question. You're long on questions and short on answers. Doesn't that ever cause you to reconsider the position you are taking with regards to WTC7?

9th May 2008, 02:12 PM	#303
pomeroo Banned Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: In a Little Cafe Just the Other Side of the Border Posts: 7,091	Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney whats your evidence for all demolition experts -1? Well, the truth is, I haven't contacted all demolition experts. I have spoken with Danny Jowenko, however, and I have obtained confirmation from two dozen demolition companies that people in the industry don't talk about "pulling" buildings. All of the demolition experts who have been gracious enough to answer my questions contend that WTC 7 does not resemble a controlled demolition. It comes back to that inconvenient business the conspiracy liars keep ignoring: where was the series of simultaneous explosions followed by the collapse of the building? It didn't happen. You can tap dance forever, but the lies of the fantasy movement have been exposed.

9th May 2008, 02:18 PM	#304
DC dedicated aphilatelist Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Switzerland Posts: 21,647	Originally Posted by pomeroo Well, the truth is, I haven't contacted all demolition experts. I have spoken with Danny Jowenko, however, and I have obtained confirmation from two dozen demolition companies that people in the industry don't talk about "pulling" buildings. All of the demolition experts who have been gracious enough to answer my questions contend that WTC 7 does not resemble a controlled demolition. It comes back to that inconvenient business the conspiracy liars keep ignoring: where was the series of simultaneous explosions followed by the collapse of the building? It didn't happen. You can tap dance forever, but the lies of the fantasy movement have been exposed. does that mean Danny Jovenko changed his mind and agreed that WTC7 was not a CD?
	__________________ AGW is a fact, including the A, face it

9th May 2008, 02:36 PM	#305
pomeroo Banned Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: In a Little Cafe Just the Other Side of the Border Posts: 7,091	Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney does that mean Danny Jovenko changed his mind and agreed that WTC7 was not a CD? I suspect the reason that you waste so much time slipping and sliding is that you really don't know what you're talking about. You bring nothing to the table apart from your irrational hatred of America. You try, ineptly, to debate physics and engineering with real physicists and engineers. You avoid all inconvenient questions. I don't know what Danny Jowenko's agenda is. I know that he has not studied the collapse of WTC 7 and he has said things that other demolition professionals find ludicrous. In a controlled demolition, a carefully-arranged series of charges go off simultaneously. You see, without planning and preparation, the demolition would not be controlled. NOBODY noticed a series of explosions followed by the collapse of the building--NOBODY!

9th May 2008, 02:46 PM	#306
DC dedicated aphilatelist Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Switzerland Posts: 21,647	Originally Posted by applecorped DC, is CD of WTC7 a fact to you or not? There have been contradictory statements by you and I'm not sure at this point what you believe. If you truly believe it was a CD then what would be the point of reading the upcoming report? If you are waiting for the report then just state that and stick to it. After the above post you went on to state emphatically that it was obvious that it was CD. Slow down, remember what you posted earlier before posting again. is english your main language?
	__________________ AGW is a fact, including the A, face it

9th May 2008, 02:49 PM	#307
applecorped Rotten to the Core Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 10,646	Si

9th May 2008, 02:59 PM	#308
DC dedicated aphilatelist Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Switzerland Posts: 21,647	Originally Posted by pomeroo I suspect the reason that you waste so much time slipping and sliding is that you really don't know what you're talking about. You bring nothing to the table apart from your irrational hatred of America. You try, ineptly, to debate physics and engineering with real physicists and engineers. You avoid all inconvenient questions. I don't know what Danny Jowenko's agenda is. I know that he has not studied the collapse of WTC 7 and he has said things that other demolition professionals find ludicrous. In a controlled demolition, a carefully-arranged series of charges go off simultaneously. You see, without planning and preparation, the demolition would not be controlled. NOBODY noticed a series of explosions followed by the collapse of the building--NOBODY! what is Craig Bartmer's Agenda?
	__________________ AGW is a fact, including the A, face it

9th May 2008, 03:03 PM	#309
DC dedicated aphilatelist Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Switzerland Posts: 21,647	i say "well before i would consider the CD of WTC 7 a fact, i would like to read the official theory to it first." you ask " is CD of WTC7 a fact to you or not?"
	__________________ AGW is a fact, including the A, face it

9th May 2008, 03:06 PM	#310
pomeroo Banned Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: In a Little Cafe Just the Other Side of the Border Posts: 7,091	Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney what is Craig Bartmer's Agenda? Craig Bartmer's story is a sad one. There were no "bombs" or explosives of any kind in WTC 7: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=67361 So, what did Arthur Scheuerman get wrong? Oh, you couldn't understand his paper--maybe that's the reason no conspiracy liar comments on it.

9th May 2008, 03:23 PM	#311
DC dedicated aphilatelist Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Switzerland Posts: 21,647	ah ok, i see he is one of those that missheared something, got it wrong or are in on the woo.
	__________________ AGW is a fact, including the A, face it

9th May 2008, 03:30 PM	#312
pomeroo Banned Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: In a Little Cafe Just the Other Side of the Border Posts: 7,091	Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney ah ok, i see he is one of those that missheared something, got it wrong or are in on the woo. You don't like to read, do you? You refuse to attempt to read a paper by a retired battalion chief of the FDNY and you refuse to check out the thread linking you to a discussion of Craig Bartmer's claims. WTC 7 was not brought down in a controlled demolition: the task of preparing a 47-story building for demolition is a daunting one, not something could be accomplished in a matter of hours or even days. No simultaneous explosions preceded the collapse of the building.

9th May 2008, 03:39 PM	#313
aggle-rithm Ardent Formulist Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 14,149	Did I really once say that DC could be replaced by ten lines of code? I may have overstated that.
	__________________ To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion. Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens.

9th May 2008, 03:41 PM	#314
DC dedicated aphilatelist Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Switzerland Posts: 21,647	Originally Posted by pomeroo You don't like to read, do you? You refuse to attempt to read a paper by a retired battalion chief of the FDNY and you refuse to check out the thread linking you to a discussion of Craig Bartmer's claims. WTC 7 was not brought down in a controlled demolition: the task of preparing a 47-story building for demolition is a daunting one, not something could be accomplished in a matter of hours or even days. No simultaneous explosions preceded the collapse of the building. well the conclusion from the 9/11 collapses without CD would be. it does not need simoultaneous explosions nor explosions in a precisely calculated sequence. nor does it need the removal of non load bearing walls that could act up as stiffeners, to bring down buildings relatively symetric.
	__________________ AGW is a fact, including the A, face it

9th May 2008, 03:47 PM	#315
DC dedicated aphilatelist Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Switzerland Posts: 21,647	Originally Posted by aggle-rithm Did I really once say that DC could be replaced by ten lines of code? I may have overstated that. you are a living debunking for Intelligent Design theorys
	__________________ AGW is a fact, including the A, face it