Building 7 was the most obvious example of the 3 that fell

Discussion in '9/11' started by RtWngaFraud, Aug 25, 2013.

You are viewing posts in the Conspiracy Theory forum. PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening.

  1. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This gives you the skinny on WTC7, with all of its irregularities, it's unlimited trail of question after question...none of them answered satisfactorily. What are you going to teach your kids about this black operation? The truth, or a fairy tale? Did you know that WTC7 was NEVER hit by any plane, and that it fell at 5 o clock in the afternoon? WTC7 was the strangest of all three buildings that were brought down by demolition on that day. If you can't find any irregularities with WTC7, you're likely asleep, or simply not up to the challenge of discovering the truth. Everybody that thinks 911 was a self inflicted wound is supposedly crazy. Those that bow to every detail of the story, are (we're told), sensible Americans. Which are you?



    http://goldenageofgaia.com/accounta...dictionary/911-world-trade-center-building-7/
     
  2. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    'self inflicted wound?' :roll: it was hit by debris from the towers,Fraud..
     
  3. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    An opinion piece.
    Published in 2007.
    On a site called "The Golden Age of Gaia".

    *snicker*
     
  4. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    From the article:

    Wait no more, truth seekers.

    http://www.nist.gov/el/wtc7final_112508.cfm
     
  5. plague311

    plague311 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2012
    Messages:
    1,256
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0

    I HAVE taught my kids the version that is supported by the facts and evidence available. In other words, not your version. Also there weren't 3 buildings that were destroyed, there were more. In fact there were more that were part of the WTC complex, like 6 and 4 WTC. More top notch research fraud, good work.
     
  6. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If you're telling them the "official" BS version, you're lying to them.
     
  7. walkingliberty

    walkingliberty Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2013
    Messages:
    116
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    18
    I have seen the weight of the WTC being tossed around on the net as 500,000 tons for each tower. It does calculate into joules for the math enthusiast. If you calculate the amount of weight falling and being converted into kinetic energy then you could imagine the amount of material causing damage as they reached their point of kinetic diversion upon meeting the resistance of anything beneath The blow-out would definately damage and take out smaller buildings.
     
  8. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,343
    Likes Received:
    869
    Trophy Points:
    113
  9. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
  10. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
  11. leftysergeant

    leftysergeant New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2012
    Messages:
    8,827
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What little Dickie and his dancing charlatans forget to mention is that when a free-standing structural element, such as a single wall, fails it will procede downward at free-fall acceleration. The segment that idiot boy Chandler clocked was, for all intents and purposes, free-standing, because all of the inner support had collapsed over a ten-second time frame. Notice that the failure point was well below the artificial horizon of buildings blocking the view of the bottom of the structure. It apparently snapped at or above the eighth floor. Notice that acceleration decreases suddenly when that section meets resistance from the rubble below that point.

    Dickies dingalings do not know what to measure.

    Since the major part of the debris of collapse was moving away from the camera, it is even likely that some of the movement that Chandler was measuring as downward motion was lateral, which would appear vertical because of the parallax.
     
  12. djlunacee

    djlunacee New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2013
    Messages:
    1,489
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    0
  13. 9/11 was an inside job

    9/11 was an inside job Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2011
    Messages:
    6,508
    Likes Received:
    109
    Trophy Points:
    63
    bld 7 is the crux of the 9/11 coverup commission the shills here cant get around,they always play dodgeball on this issue.they never have any answers for why there were other buildings in the area with far more severe damage and far more severe fires that were much closer to the towers yet they all remained standing.

    they'll all come on here and play dodgeball with this post evading the facts posting irrelevent stuff in hopes of trying to derail your thread.lol.

    - - - Updated - - -

    damn straight.thats nothing but lies that are being told to them if its the b.s version of the governments being passed down to them.
     
  14. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Name them and provide sources for your claim.
     
  15. leftysergeant

    leftysergeant New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2012
    Messages:
    8,827
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The other buildings in the area, structurally, bore no resemblance to the towers or #7. They would, thus, not behave at all like any of the three in a fire. That bloody simple.
     
  16. djlunacee

    djlunacee New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2013
    Messages:
    1,489
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    0
    More useless cheerleading from the woefully uneducated.
     
  17. Karma Mechanic

    Karma Mechanic Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2012
    Messages:
    8,054
    Likes Received:
    83
    Trophy Points:
    48
  18. LogicallyYours

    LogicallyYours New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2013
    Messages:
    2,233
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Twoofers just don't get....but yet, they know "the truth".
     
  19. Karma Mechanic

    Karma Mechanic Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2012
    Messages:
    8,054
    Likes Received:
    83
    Trophy Points:
    48
    so you are just going to lob insults. The bottom line is that no matter how you slice it. NOT A SINGLE THINK FELL AT "FREE FALL SPEED" ON 9-11. Anyone saying that is lying or doesn't understand facts.
     
  20. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Very, VERY, near free fall speed. If I dropped a brick off from the same height as the towers, the tops of the towers would ALMOST reach the ground simultaneously. That's where the term "free fall" speed originates, and, despite the shill rhetoric, it's QUITE real. What's false, is the claim that it doesn't exist, but that's what the shills do. They PRETEND science doesn't exist. Witnesses don't exist. Eyeballs don't exist. Hey, it's a job, I guess.
     
  21. donquixote99

    donquixote99 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2013
    Messages:
    1,550
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Conspiracy believers are like Jesus believers. They will say or invent whatever they need to maintain their faith, and are quite impervious to logic. They have their identity bolted to their belief, and it will take a major tear-down/rebuild to separate them.

    So there's little to be gained tussling with them, except the exercise....
     
  22. LogicallyYours

    LogicallyYours New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2013
    Messages:
    2,233
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    uuummmmmm.....I know that...I'm not arguing differently.

    My comment was, you can present the facts to the Twoofers and it won't make a difference because, they know "the truth". Although, none of them can agree on the details....lol
     
  23. Karma Mechanic

    Karma Mechanic Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2012
    Messages:
    8,054
    Likes Received:
    83
    Trophy Points:
    48
    no they wouldn't come close and I know that because every video of the falling towers shows parts of the towers falling faster than the towers.
     
  24. LogicallyYours

    LogicallyYours New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2013
    Messages:
    2,233
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Exactly. What's really funny is, when they claim the WTC fell at "free fall speed"...but yet, you can see debris falling faster than the WTC. What that's that?...."enhanced free fall speed"?
     
  25. Karma Mechanic

    Karma Mechanic Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2012
    Messages:
    8,054
    Likes Received:
    83
    Trophy Points:
    48
    what I know is that all truthers ignore science. Most of them are liars and they wouldn't know the truth if it hit them in the face.
    It is just like the ancient aliens crowd.
     

Share This Page