Truthers, what if WTC7 didn't catch fire?

Orphia Nay · 17th March 2012, 11:41 PM

Truthers, what would have happened if WTC7 didn't catch fire?

How did whoever you think did 9/11 make sure it caught fire?

Please detail the mechanisms involved. Thanks.

SpringHallConvert · 18th March 2012, 12:16 AM

Originally Posted by Orphia Nay

Truthers, what would have happened if WTC7 didn't catch fire?

How did whoever you think did 9/11 make sure it caught fire?

Please detail the mechanisms involved. Thanks.

Which truthers are you asking? The non-government truthers or the government truthers?

Craig4 · 18th March 2012, 12:21 AM

Originally Posted by SpringHallConvert

Which truthers are you asking? The non-government truthers or the government truthers?

Why do you think WTC 7 collapsed?

SpringHallConvert · 18th March 2012, 12:30 AM

Originally Posted by Craig4

Why do you think WTC 7 collapsed?

I don't know.

Why?

beachnut · 18th March 2012, 12:40 AM

Originally Posted by Orphia Nay

Truthers, what would have happened if WTC7 didn't catch fire?

How did whoever you think did 9/11 make sure it caught fire?

Please detail the mechanisms involved. Thanks.

You trapped a troll, are you happy now! March Madness, and we are stuck babysitting a troll!

UBL would say god made it happen! Like 911 truth, not too smart.

SpringHallConvert · 18th March 2012, 12:56 AM

Originally Posted by beachnut

UBL would say god made it happen!

Osama bin Laden, killer of countless women and children = Star witness and most credible voice of the Government Truth Movement

Craig4 · 18th March 2012, 01:04 AM

Originally Posted by SpringHallConvert

I don't know.

Why?

This young man, is not true. Now answer the question.

SpringHallConvert · 18th March 2012, 01:33 AM

Originally Posted by Craig4

This young man, is not true. Now answer the question.

I really don't know. Maybe it was all fire, maybe it wasn't.

It certainly looked a little suspicious.

Mudcat · 18th March 2012, 01:40 AM

Originally Posted by SpringHallConvert

I really don't know. Maybe it was all fire, maybe it wasn't.

It certainly looked a little suspicious.

I got a hammer, I'm going this jello to the wall if it is the last thing I do!

SHC: How in Altana's name did the WTC collapses look suspicious to you? Do you have reason to believe that it was suspicious? What should it have looked like? Would you please answer these questions?

SpringHallConvert · 18th March 2012, 03:08 AM

Originally Posted by Mudcat

SHC: How in Altana's name did the WTC collapses look suspicious to you? Do you have reason to believe that it was suspicious? What should it have looked like? Would you please answer these questions?

WTC7 came down just as many controlled demolitions do. Most of the buildings I've seen destroyed by fire have staggered or only partial collapses, and over a much longer period of time. WTC7 came right down all at once. There seemed to be little to no resistance, either. As if all the support columns bearing the building's weight gave out at once. I realize that's inconvenient for you, but facts are facts.

"But, but, but NIST says it ain't so and the government wouldn't lie to us!"

Ha, ha, ha!

SpringHallConvert · 18th March 2012, 03:24 AM

The fact of the matter is, WTC7 is completely irrelevant to the whole 9/11 "inside job" debate, because even if WTC7 collapsed due only to fires, it still wouldn't necessarily mean the U.S. government wasn't complicit in the attacks.

tsig · 18th March 2012, 03:34 AM

Originally Posted by SpringHallConvert

The fact of the matter is, WTC7 is completely irrelevant to the whole 9/11 "inside job" debate, because even if WTC7 collapsed due only to fires, it still wouldn't necessarily mean the U.S. government wasn't complicit in the attacks.

Ha, ha.

SpringHallConvert · 18th March 2012, 03:39 AM

Originally Posted by tsig

Ha, ha.

Precisely. Ha, ha, ha on your government "truth".

Craig4 · 18th March 2012, 05:59 AM

Originally Posted by SpringHallConvert

I really don't know. Maybe it was all fire, maybe it wasn't.

It certainly looked a little suspicious.

You still are not telling the truth young man. You have "theory". Now share it. Tell us what you think happened.

Craig4 · 18th March 2012, 06:02 AM

Originally Posted by SpringHallConvert

Precisely. Ha, ha, ha on your government "truth".

Quote:

Ha

read as: SHC gets to be in charge here.

Quote:

Ha

read as: here SHC gets to be the smart one.

Quote:

Ha

read as: he's not the victim.

000063 · 18th March 2012, 06:31 AM

I've been making basically this same point for a while. The only way the bad guys could've known 7 would be hit by debris would be if They aimed the collapse. And that, by definition, means that North Tower was bought down outside of its own footprint. Of course, that still leaves the question of how They managed to know that none of their demo charges would be disrupted. The only other option is that the bad guys planted charges in a building they hoped would be hit by debris, and hoped that said debris wouldn't disrupt the explosives. And no, the plane theory doesn't work, since WTC 7 was of no real importance and the failed plane crashed after 7 was hit by debris.

It is fun to watch Truthers dodge the question of what actually hit 7, though. They like to act like it spontaneously caught fire, instead of having a piece of a skyscraper fall on it.

Originally Posted by SpringHallConvert

The fact of the matter is, WTC7 is completely irrelevant to the whole 9/11 "inside job" debate, because even if WTC7 collapsed due only to fires, it still wouldn't necessarily mean the U.S. government wasn't complicit in the attacks.

Sweet mercy, you made a logical point for once.

Of course, there's plenty of proof against WTC 1 and 2 being CD'd as well, and literally no evidence of USG complicity, but good effort. I'm not sure why you even bothered to enter the thread and start arguing, since you don't actually believe in CD, just US complicity with Al Qaeda. Or maybe you do. Your constant backpedalling is annoying, especially when you admit you have just as "little" evidence as we do, which makes it hypocritical as well.

Julio · 18th March 2012, 06:45 AM

Originally Posted by 000063

I've been making basically this same point for a while. The only way the bad guys could've known 7 would be hit by debris would be if They aimed the collapse. And that, by definition, means that North Tower was bought down outside of its own footprint.

- WTC7 fell onto its own footprint. Proof of CD!!
- WTC1 and 2 didn't. Proof of CD!!
- Free Fall speed with no resistance. Proof of CD!!
- Some truther measures a fall of 0.7g for WTC1. proof of CD!!!

You see, truther logic.

000063 · 18th March 2012, 07:16 AM

The funny thing is that every single one of those is false, yet I've seen Truthers lay claim to all of them. Some even make the mutually contradicting assertions.

Mudcat · 18th March 2012, 07:24 AM

Originally Posted by SpringHallConvert

WTC7 came down just as many controlled demolitions do. Most of the buildings I've seen destroyed by fire have staggered or only partial collapses, and over a much longer period of time. WTC7 came right down all at once. There seemed to be little to no resistance, either. As if all the support columns bearing the building's weight gave out at once.

I doubt you have seen any collapses yourself including the collapses of 9/11 save maybe long after the fact (I have, by the way) but buildings can and do collapse for reasons other than CD all over the world. And they all look pretty similar.

Originally Posted by SHC

I realize that's inconvenient for you, but facts are facts.

Craig4 · 18th March 2012, 10:01 AM

Originally Posted by SpringHallConvert

WTC7 came down just as many controlled demolitions do. Most of the buildings I've seen destroyed by fire have staggered or only partial collapses, and over a much longer period of time. WTC7 came right down all at once. There seemed to be little to no resistance, either. As if all the support columns bearing the building's weight gave out at once. I realize that's inconvenient for you, but facts are facts.

"But, but, but NIST says it ain't so and the government wouldn't lie to us!"

Ha, ha, ha!

So you can produce explosive residue? Please tell us all about it.

dc1971 · 18th March 2012, 07:51 PM

Originally Posted by SpringHallConvert

WTC7 came down just as many controlled demolitions do. Most of the buildings I've seen destroyed by fire have staggered or only partial collapses, and over a much longer period of time. WTC7 came right down all at once. There seemed to be little to no resistance, either. As if all the support columns bearing the building's weight gave out at once. I realize that's inconvenient for you, but facts are facts.

"But, but, but NIST says it ain't so and the government wouldn't lie to us!"

Ha, ha, ha!

There is no engaging in rational discussion with you, you are here to troll and push people's buttons! It's like you never graduated from Kindergarten!

You are on ignore, little troll!

Sword_Of_Truth · 18th March 2012, 07:58 PM

Originally Posted by SpringHallConvert

I don't know.

Why?

It was fire.

A really big one.

Ask the firefighters.

NoahFence · 18th March 2012, 08:03 PM

Can we stop quoting this creature please? I'm afraid I'll get contact retarded.

Oz1976 · 18th March 2012, 08:09 PM

Originally Posted by NoahFence

Can we stop quoting this creature please? I'm afraid I'll get contact retarded.

Seriously...why have you all allowed yourself to be continously looped in circles by this obvious and blatant troll? He's presented nothing. He's admitted to trying to "get government truthers running in circles". Just freaking stop and ignore him. It will go nowhere, and no matter how much you think you're ridiculing and putting him in his place, he doesn't care and is just going to continue.

Brass · 18th March 2012, 08:54 PM

Originally Posted by SpringHallConvert

WTC7 came down just as many controlled demolitions do. Most of the buildings I've seen destroyed by fire have staggered or only partial collapses, and over a much longer period of time. WTC7 came right down all at once. There seemed to be little to no resistance, either. As if all the support columns bearing the building's weight gave out at once. I realize that's inconvenient for you, but facts are facts.

"But, but, but NIST says it ain't so and the government wouldn't lie to us!"

Ha, ha, ha!

Don't rely on NIST and the government, then. Rely on the FDNY who reported fires on almost every floor and knew the tower would collapse due to structural failure a full two hours before it collapsed.

cjnewson88 · 18th March 2012, 10:34 PM

I believe it was ergo or kreel in the 'pull it' thread who stated the north tower was wired so it would collapse into 7. Although, I've heard other truthers say UA93 was supposed to go into 7 before it was 'shot down' after a successful passenger revolt.. so that would put to rest the idea the north tower was wired so, because, well, there would be no need to. For that story, I guess it was just a stroke of luck WTC1s demolition flew a giant chunk of skyscraper into 7.

Of course ergo, who holds the completely unfounded (and heavily disproven) belief that there were massive bomb blasts in 7's lobby prior to either tower collapsing, barely recognises the collapse of the north tower having anything to do with fires/collapse of building 7.

To be honest, before the OP can ask such a question, we should really ask if we can get a definitive, all agreed narrative of what happened, rather than each truther holding their individual beliefs of what they think must have taken place.. Then we can start asking about specifics.

Orphia Nay · 18th March 2012, 11:46 PM

Originally Posted by cjnewson88

I believe it was ergo or kreel in the 'pull it' thread who stated the north tower was wired so it would collapse into 7. Although, I've heard other truthers say UA93 was supposed to go into 7 before it was 'shot down' after a successful passenger revolt.. so that would put to rest the idea the north tower was wired so, because, well, there would be no need to. For that story, I guess it was just a stroke of luck WTC1s demolition flew a giant chunk of skyscraper into 7.

Of course ergo, who holds the completely unfounded (and heavily disproven) belief that there were massive bomb blasts in 7's lobby prior to either tower collapsing, barely recognises the collapse of the north tower having anything to do with fires/collapse of building 7.

Aw, but it's so much fun watching them contradict each other!

ozeco41 · 18th March 2012, 11:49 PM

Originally Posted by Oz1976

Seriously...why have you all allowed yourself to be continously looped in circles by this obvious and blatant troll? He's presented nothing. He's admitted to trying to "get government truthers running in circles". Just freaking stop and ignore him. It will go nowhere, and no matter how much you think you're ridiculing and putting him in his place, he doesn't care and is just going to continue.

we are long overdue for a realistic way of managing trolling.

...and agreement on the rationale of "Make no response -- don't feed their egos."

Whatever "fun" there is in responding the resulting ego feed to the troll outweighs the "fun" benefit.

ozeco41 · 18th March 2012, 11:53 PM

Originally Posted by cjnewson88

...Of course ergo, who holds the completely unfounded (and heavily disproven) belief that there were massive bomb blasts in 7's lobby prior to either tower collapsing, barely recognises the collapse of the north tower having anything to do with fires/collapse of building 7...

I doubt that he holds that belief. Rather his primary goal is trolling and will state anything provided it:
1) Irritates people into responding; and/or
2) Makes sure that discussion circles and doesn't progress.

cjnewson88 · 19th March 2012, 01:27 AM

Originally Posted by ozeco41

I doubt that he holds that belief. Rather his primary goal is trolling and will state anything provided it:
1) Irritates people into responding; and/or
2) Makes sure that discussion circles and doesn't progress.

I think he sincerely believed it. During the 'pull it' thread he defended it black and blue until we had explained and proved him wrong from every possible angle. He eventually just stop replying and ignored we existed (signaling to me that he knew he'd been proven wrong). A troll would just continue to claim they were correct and complete ignore all evidence provided *SCH*

ozeco41 · 19th March 2012, 02:00 AM

Originally Posted by cjnewson88

I think he sincerely believed it. During the 'pull it' thread he defended it black and blue until we had explained and proved him wrong from every possible angle. He eventually just stop replying and ignored we existed (signaling to me that he knew he'd been proven wrong). A troll would just continue to claim they were correct and complete ignore all evidence provided *SCH*

I understand that. Ergo switches modes. Pure troll most of the time but on occasions he becomes genuinely interested in the topic, switches intio "genuine discussion" mode and some genuine debate follows. It is usually quite obvious when he switches out of troll mode. C7 behaves similarly but he puts a lot more effort into the pretended "sciency stuff". And occasionally lets slip that he is being genuine. Too much of the "on topic" stuff for it to be entirely a "poe" or other form of clever trolling strategy.

000063 · 19th March 2012, 04:53 AM

Yeah, that's one of the things that bugs me about him. He's clearly a very intelligent person who nonetheless decides to stick his fingers in his ears and go "la la can't hear you!" most of the time.

NoahFence · 19th March 2012, 06:14 AM

Originally Posted by Oz1976

Seriously...why have you all allowed yourself to be continously looped in circles by this obvious and blatant troll? He's presented nothing. He's admitted to trying to "get government truthers running in circles". Just freaking stop and ignore him. It will go nowhere, and no matter how much you think you're ridiculing and putting him in his place, he doesn't care and is just going to continue.

I have him on ignore! But it does no good when he's quoted every passage.

17th March 2012, 11:41 PM	#1
Orphia Nay Penguilicious Spodmaster. Tagger Join Date: May 2005 Location: Ponylandistan Presidential Palace (above the Spods' stables). Posts: 28,361	Truthers, what if WTC7 didn't catch fire? Truthers, what would have happened if WTC7 didn't catch fire? How did whoever you think did 9/11 make sure it caught fire? Please detail the mechanisms involved. Thanks.
	__________________ Are you an ex-Truther? Please share your story. ~ The Australasian Skeptics Forum.

18th March 2012, 12:21 AM	#3
Craig4 Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 5,363	Originally Posted by SpringHallConvert Which truthers are you asking? The non-government truthers or the government truthers? Why do you think WTC 7 collapsed?
Craig4 Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 5,363

18th March 2012, 01:04 AM	#7
Craig4 Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 5,363	Originally Posted by SpringHallConvert I don't know. Why? This young man, is not true. Now answer the question.
Craig4 Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 5,363

18th March 2012, 01:40 AM	#9
Mudcat Man of a Thousand Memes Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 3,681	Originally Posted by SpringHallConvert I really don't know. Maybe it was all fire, maybe it wasn't. It certainly looked a little suspicious. I got a hammer, I'm going this jello to the wall if it is the last thing I do! SHC: How in Altana's name did the WTC collapses look suspicious to you? Do you have reason to believe that it was suspicious? What should it have looked like? Would you please answer these questions?
	__________________ The major problem with Ocham's Razor is that while the simplest answer may be the best answer that doesn't make it the only answer or the right one. Kopji: A perfect utopia where everyone follows the rules is more like a hell than a heaven.

18th March 2012, 05:59 AM	#14
Craig4 Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 5,363	Originally Posted by SpringHallConvert I really don't know. Maybe it was all fire, maybe it wasn't. It certainly looked a little suspicious. You still are not telling the truth young man. You have "theory". Now share it. Tell us what you think happened.
Craig4 Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 5,363

18th March 2012, 12:16 AM	#2
SpringHallConvert Banned Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 1,272	Originally Posted by Orphia Nay Truthers, what would have happened if WTC7 didn't catch fire? How did whoever you think did 9/11 make sure it caught fire? Please detail the mechanisms involved. Thanks. Which truthers are you asking? The non-government truthers or the government truthers?

18th March 2012, 12:30 AM	#4
SpringHallConvert Banned Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 1,272	Originally Posted by Craig4 Why do you think WTC 7 collapsed? I don't know. Why?

18th March 2012, 12:40 AM	#5
beachnut Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Dog House Posts: 19,902	Originally Posted by Orphia Nay Truthers, what would have happened if WTC7 didn't catch fire? How did whoever you think did 9/11 make sure it caught fire? Please detail the mechanisms involved. Thanks. You trapped a troll, are you happy now! March Madness, and we are stuck babysitting a troll! UBL would say god made it happen! Like 911 truth, not too smart.

18th March 2012, 12:56 AM	#6
SpringHallConvert Banned Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 1,272	Originally Posted by beachnut UBL would say god made it happen! Osama bin Laden, killer of countless women and children = Star witness and most credible voice of the Government Truth Movement

18th March 2012, 01:33 AM	#8
SpringHallConvert Banned Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 1,272	Originally Posted by Craig4 This young man, is not true. Now answer the question. I really don't know. Maybe it was all fire, maybe it wasn't. It certainly looked a little suspicious.

18th March 2012, 03:08 AM	#10
SpringHallConvert Banned Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 1,272	Originally Posted by Mudcat SHC: How in Altana's name did the WTC collapses look suspicious to you? Do you have reason to believe that it was suspicious? What should it have looked like? Would you please answer these questions? WTC7 came down just as many controlled demolitions do. Most of the buildings I've seen destroyed by fire have staggered or only partial collapses, and over a much longer period of time. WTC7 came right down all at once. There seemed to be little to no resistance, either. As if all the support columns bearing the building's weight gave out at once. I realize that's inconvenient for you, but facts are facts. "But, but, but NIST says it ain't so and the government wouldn't lie to us!" Ha, ha, ha!

18th March 2012, 03:24 AM	#11
SpringHallConvert Banned Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 1,272	The fact of the matter is, WTC7 is completely irrelevant to the whole 9/11 "inside job" debate, because even if WTC7 collapsed due only to fires, it still wouldn't necessarily mean the U.S. government wasn't complicit in the attacks.

18th March 2012, 03:34 AM	#12
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,718	Originally Posted by SpringHallConvert The fact of the matter is, WTC7 is completely irrelevant to the whole 9/11 "inside job" debate, because even if WTC7 collapsed due only to fires, it still wouldn't necessarily mean the U.S. government wasn't complicit in the attacks. Ha, ha.

18th March 2012, 03:39 AM	#13
SpringHallConvert Banned Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 1,272	Originally Posted by tsig Ha, ha. Precisely. Ha, ha, ha on your government "truth".

18th March 2012, 06:02 AM	#15
Craig4 Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 5,363	Originally Posted by SpringHallConvert Precisely. Ha, ha, ha on your government "truth". Quote: Ha read as: SHC gets to be in charge here. Quote: Ha read as: here SHC gets to be the smart one. Quote: Ha read as: he's not the victim.
Craig4 Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 5,363

18th March 2012, 06:31 AM	#16
000063 Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Not America. Posts: 4,734	I've been making basically this same point for a while. The only way the bad guys could've known 7 would be hit by debris would be if They aimed the collapse. And that, by definition, means that North Tower was bought down outside of its own footprint. Of course, that still leaves the question of how They managed to know that none of their demo charges would be disrupted. The only other option is that the bad guys planted charges in a building they hoped would be hit by debris, and hoped that said debris wouldn't disrupt the explosives. And no, the plane theory doesn't work, since WTC 7 was of no real importance and the failed plane crashed after 7 was hit by debris. It is fun to watch Truthers dodge the question of what actually hit 7, though. They like to act like it spontaneously caught fire, instead of having a piece of a skyscraper fall on it. Originally Posted by SpringHallConvert The fact of the matter is, WTC7 is completely irrelevant to the whole 9/11 "inside job" debate, because even if WTC7 collapsed due only to fires, it still wouldn't necessarily mean the U.S. government wasn't complicit in the attacks. Sweet mercy, you made a logical point for once. Of course, there's plenty of proof against WTC 1 and 2 being CD'd as well, and literally no evidence of USG complicity, but good effort. I'm not sure why you even bothered to enter the thread and start arguing, since you don't actually believe in CD, just US complicity with Al Qaeda. Or maybe you do. Your constant backpedalling is annoying, especially when you admit you have just as "little" evidence as we do, which makes it hypocritical as well.
	__________________ No, I'd like you to answer the question in two, simple, coherent sentences. ... That's how you present credible arguments in written form. -ergo, on me giving him a 2 digit number I can think of two reasons why bedunkers are often so loathe to explain their theories using plain, concise language--words even. - ergo

18th March 2012, 06:45 AM	#17
Julio Scholar Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Madrid Posts: 71	Originally Posted by 000063 I've been making basically this same point for a while. The only way the bad guys could've known 7 would be hit by debris would be if They aimed the collapse. And that, by definition, means that North Tower was bought down outside of its own footprint. - WTC7 fell onto its own footprint. Proof of CD!! - WTC1 and 2 didn't. Proof of CD!! - Free Fall speed with no resistance. Proof of CD!! - Some truther measures a fall of 0.7g for WTC1. proof of CD!!! You see, truther logic.

18th March 2012, 07:16 AM	#18
000063 Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Not America. Posts: 4,734	The funny thing is that every single one of those is false, yet I've seen Truthers lay claim to all of them. Some even make the mutually contradicting assertions.
	__________________ No, I'd like you to answer the question in two, simple, coherent sentences. ... That's how you present credible arguments in written form. -ergo, on me giving him a 2 digit number I can think of two reasons why bedunkers are often so loathe to explain their theories using plain, concise language--words even. - ergo

18th March 2012, 07:24 AM	#19
Mudcat Man of a Thousand Memes Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 3,681	Originally Posted by SpringHallConvert WTC7 came down just as many controlled demolitions do. Most of the buildings I've seen destroyed by fire have staggered or only partial collapses, and over a much longer period of time. WTC7 came right down all at once. There seemed to be little to no resistance, either. As if all the support columns bearing the building's weight gave out at once. I doubt you have seen any collapses yourself including the collapses of 9/11 save maybe long after the fact (I have, by the way) but buildings can and do collapse for reasons other than CD all over the world. And they all look pretty similar. Originally Posted by SHC I realize that's inconvenient for you, but facts are facts.
	__________________ The major problem with Ocham's Razor is that while the simplest answer may be the best answer that doesn't make it the only answer or the right one. Kopji: A perfect utopia where everyone follows the rules is more like a hell than a heaven. Last edited by Mudcat; 18th March 2012 at 07:25 AM.

18th March 2012, 10:01 AM	#20
Craig4 Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 5,363	Originally Posted by SpringHallConvert WTC7 came down just as many controlled demolitions do. Most of the buildings I've seen destroyed by fire have staggered or only partial collapses, and over a much longer period of time. WTC7 came right down all at once. There seemed to be little to no resistance, either. As if all the support columns bearing the building's weight gave out at once. I realize that's inconvenient for you, but facts are facts. "But, but, but NIST says it ain't so and the government wouldn't lie to us!" Ha, ha, ha! So you can produce explosive residue? Please tell us all about it.
Craig4 Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 5,363

18th March 2012, 07:51 PM	#21
dc1971 Banned Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 3,033	Originally Posted by SpringHallConvert WTC7 came down just as many controlled demolitions do. Most of the buildings I've seen destroyed by fire have staggered or only partial collapses, and over a much longer period of time. WTC7 came right down all at once. There seemed to be little to no resistance, either. As if all the support columns bearing the building's weight gave out at once. I realize that's inconvenient for you, but facts are facts. "But, but, but NIST says it ain't so and the government wouldn't lie to us!" Ha, ha, ha! There is no engaging in rational discussion with you, you are here to troll and push people's buttons! It's like you never graduated from Kindergarten! You are on ignore, little troll!
dc1971 Banned Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 3,033

18th March 2012, 07:58 PM	#22
Sword_Of_Truth Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 11,497	Originally Posted by SpringHallConvert I don't know. Why? It was fire. A really big one. Ask the firefighters.

18th March 2012, 08:03 PM	#23
NoahFence Psycho Kitty Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Patriot Nation Posts: 9,311	Can we stop quoting this creature please? I'm afraid I'll get contact retarded.
	__________________ Our truest life is when we are in our dreams awake. -Henry David Thoreau

18th March 2012, 08:09 PM	#24
Oz1976 Muse Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 677	Originally Posted by NoahFence Can we stop quoting this creature please? I'm afraid I'll get contact retarded. Seriously...why have you all allowed yourself to be continously looped in circles by this obvious and blatant troll? He's presented nothing. He's admitted to trying to "get government truthers running in circles". Just freaking stop and ignore him. It will go nowhere, and no matter how much you think you're ridiculing and putting him in his place, he doesn't care and is just going to continue.
Oz1976 Muse Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 677

18th March 2012, 08:54 PM	#25
Brass Critical Thinker Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: Red Sox Nation Posts: 391	Originally Posted by SpringHallConvert WTC7 came down just as many controlled demolitions do. Most of the buildings I've seen destroyed by fire have staggered or only partial collapses, and over a much longer period of time. WTC7 came right down all at once. There seemed to be little to no resistance, either. As if all the support columns bearing the building's weight gave out at once. I realize that's inconvenient for you, but facts are facts. "But, but, but NIST says it ain't so and the government wouldn't lie to us!" Ha, ha, ha! Don't rely on NIST and the government, then. Rely on the FDNY who reported fires on almost every floor and knew the tower would collapse due to structural failure a full two hours before it collapsed.

18th March 2012, 10:34 PM	#26
cjnewson88 Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: The van with the big antenna Posts: 1,288	I believe it was ergo or kreel in the 'pull it' thread who stated the north tower was wired so it would collapse into 7. Although, I've heard other truthers say UA93 was supposed to go into 7 before it was 'shot down' after a successful passenger revolt.. so that would put to rest the idea the north tower was wired so, because, well, there would be no need to. For that story, I guess it was just a stroke of luck WTC1s demolition flew a giant chunk of skyscraper into 7. Of course ergo, who holds the completely unfounded (and heavily disproven) belief that there were massive bomb blasts in 7's lobby prior to either tower collapsing, barely recognises the collapse of the north tower having anything to do with fires/collapse of building 7. To be honest, before the OP can ask such a question, we should really ask if we can get a definitive, all agreed narrative of what happened, rather than each truther holding their individual beliefs of what they think must have taken place.. Then we can start asking about specifics.
	__________________ Common sense has clearly been snuck up on from behind beaten several times on the head and left to bleed. Over 140 pieces of evidence showing American 77 hit the Pentagon http://therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.co.nz/ http://www.youtube.com/user/cjnewson88 Last edited by cjnewson88; 18th March 2012 at 11:14 PM.

18th March 2012, 11:46 PM	#27
Orphia Nay Penguilicious Spodmaster. Tagger Join Date: May 2005 Location: Ponylandistan Presidential Palace (above the Spods' stables). Posts: 28,361	Originally Posted by cjnewson88 I believe it was ergo or kreel in the 'pull it' thread who stated the north tower was wired so it would collapse into 7. Although, I've heard other truthers say UA93 was supposed to go into 7 before it was 'shot down' after a successful passenger revolt.. so that would put to rest the idea the north tower was wired so, because, well, there would be no need to. For that story, I guess it was just a stroke of luck WTC1s demolition flew a giant chunk of skyscraper into 7. Of course ergo, who holds the completely unfounded (and heavily disproven) belief that there were massive bomb blasts in 7's lobby prior to either tower collapsing, barely recognises the collapse of the north tower having anything to do with fires/collapse of building 7. Aw, but it's so much fun watching them contradict each other!
	__________________ Are you an ex-Truther? Please share your story. ~ The Australasian Skeptics Forum.

18th March 2012, 11:49 PM	#28
ozeco41 Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia Posts: 3,655	Originally Posted by Oz1976 Seriously...why have you all allowed yourself to be continously looped in circles by this obvious and blatant troll? He's presented nothing. He's admitted to trying to "get government truthers running in circles". Just freaking stop and ignore him. It will go nowhere, and no matter how much you think you're ridiculing and putting him in his place, he doesn't care and is just going to continue. we are long overdue for a realistic way of managing trolling. ...and agreement on the rationale of "Make no response -- don't feed their egos." Whatever "fun" there is in responding the resulting ego feed to the troll outweighs the "fun" benefit.

18th March 2012, 11:53 PM	#29
ozeco41 Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia Posts: 3,655	Originally Posted by cjnewson88 ...Of course ergo, who holds the completely unfounded (and heavily disproven) belief that there were massive bomb blasts in 7's lobby prior to either tower collapsing, barely recognises the collapse of the north tower having anything to do with fires/collapse of building 7... I doubt that he holds that belief. Rather his primary goal is trolling and will state anything provided it: 1) Irritates people into responding; and/or 2) Makes sure that discussion circles and doesn't progress.

19th March 2012, 01:27 AM	#30
cjnewson88 Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: The van with the big antenna Posts: 1,288	Originally Posted by ozeco41 I doubt that he holds that belief. Rather his primary goal is trolling and will state anything provided it: 1) Irritates people into responding; and/or 2) Makes sure that discussion circles and doesn't progress. I think he sincerely believed it. During the 'pull it' thread he defended it black and blue until we had explained and proved him wrong from every possible angle. He eventually just stop replying and ignored we existed (signaling to me that he knew he'd been proven wrong). A troll would just continue to claim they were correct and complete ignore all evidence provided SCH
	__________________ Common sense has clearly been snuck up on from behind beaten several times on the head and left to bleed. Over 140 pieces of evidence showing American 77 hit the Pentagon http://therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.co.nz/ http://www.youtube.com/user/cjnewson88

19th March 2012, 02:00 AM	#31
ozeco41 Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia Posts: 3,655	Originally Posted by cjnewson88 I think he sincerely believed it. During the 'pull it' thread he defended it black and blue until we had explained and proved him wrong from every possible angle. He eventually just stop replying and ignored we existed (signaling to me that he knew he'd been proven wrong). A troll would just continue to claim they were correct and complete ignore all evidence provided SCH I understand that. Ergo switches modes. Pure troll most of the time but on occasions he becomes genuinely interested in the topic, switches intio "genuine discussion" mode and some genuine debate follows. It is usually quite obvious when he switches out of troll mode. C7 behaves similarly but he puts a lot more effort into the pretended "sciency stuff". And occasionally lets slip that he is being genuine. Too much of the "on topic" stuff for it to be entirely a "poe" or other form of clever trolling strategy.

19th March 2012, 04:53 AM	#32
000063 Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Not America. Posts: 4,734	Yeah, that's one of the things that bugs me about him. He's clearly a very intelligent person who nonetheless decides to stick his fingers in his ears and go "la la can't hear you!" most of the time.
	__________________ No, I'd like you to answer the question in two, simple, coherent sentences. ... That's how you present credible arguments in written form. -ergo, on me giving him a 2 digit number I can think of two reasons why bedunkers are often so loathe to explain their theories using plain, concise language--words even. - ergo

19th March 2012, 06:14 AM	#33
NoahFence Psycho Kitty Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Patriot Nation Posts: 9,311	Originally Posted by Oz1976 Seriously...why have you all allowed yourself to be continously looped in circles by this obvious and blatant troll? He's presented nothing. He's admitted to trying to "get government truthers running in circles". Just freaking stop and ignore him. It will go nowhere, and no matter how much you think you're ridiculing and putting him in his place, he doesn't care and is just going to continue. I have him on ignore! But it does no good when he's quoted every passage.
	__________________ Our truest life is when we are in our dreams awake. -Henry David Thoreau