Thursday, November 16, 2006

Yet Another Denier Website

Which, as usual, lies to you even when their own diagrams show the facts. For example, get what they say about this figure:



Comparing WFC3 (Fig. 9) and the Bankers Trust building (Fig. 10), both positioned offset from the sides of the towers yet even closer than WTC7, we can see that they were struck by some perimeter columns, yet the damage, while initially visually impacting, was negligible in terms of a threat to the stability of the structures.


WFC3 is closer to the towers than WTC7? I don't think so. Look at the outer circle around WTC 1. You can see that it comes very close to, but does not quite touch WFC3. However, that same circle not only touches WTC7, it cuts the building virtually in half. Ergo, it is not hard to see that WTC7 was quite a bit closer to the WTC1 than WFC3 was.

24 Comments:

At 16 November, 2006 16:49, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

their whole line of thought process here is useless.

Remember the man who was on one of the impact floors. he hid behind his desk as he saw the plane coming toward the building. The wall next to his desk was obliterated by the impact, yet his desk, and the things atop it were left untouched.

The fact is that tornadoes touch down, destroy some things and not others...why? who knows.

to say that because this building or that building nearby was damaged but didnt fall, means that WTC7 shouldnt have is just stupid...VERY STUPID!!!!!

 
At 16 November, 2006 17:07, Blogger MarkyX said...

The problem with 9/11 Deniers is they think physics is like playing a game of rock-paper-scissors. Ignorance is Strength.

 
At 16 November, 2006 17:47, Blogger 911coverup said...

Your ignorance is the bush administration's strength.

 
At 16 November, 2006 18:12, Blogger CHF said...

Your ignorance is the bush administration's strength.

And your brilliance shall be their downfall, right?

If you have proof your'd like to discuss then present it already.

 
At 16 November, 2006 18:36, Blogger Zeitgeist said...

Your ignorance is Alex Jones' cash cow...

 
At 16 November, 2006 18:49, Blogger shawn said...

Your ignorance is the bush administration's strength.

You know what they say about people in glass houses, right?

 
At 16 November, 2006 20:16, Blogger Zeitgeist said...

" shawn said...
Your ignorance is the bush administration's strength.

You know what they say about people in glass houses, right?"

Hmmm...Dont take a poop with the lights on...

Yeah...that was it...

 
At 17 November, 2006 05:54, Blogger Pepik said...

I think you mean bankers trust and not wtc3

 
At 17 November, 2006 08:05, Blogger Curt Cameron said...

No, they said WFC3 and that's what we're discussing. It's the building in the upper left of the drawing.

 
At 17 November, 2006 10:09, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree that the web site cited in this blog post was in error.

Regardless of proximity of WTC 7 to other buildings, the evidence that raises legit questions, in my humble opinion, about what caused the building collapse event of WTC 7 at 5:20.

Many of us who question the official story have never:

1) Said that there was no damaage to wtc7 related to the events earlier in the day

2) Said that there was no fires in WTC7

3) Said that Silverstein's quote is anything more than circumstantial evidence of controlled demolition.

4) Said that the mechanism and bahavior of the collapse of WTC 7 matches the dustification and collapse of WTC 1, and WTC 2.

What is true is that FEMA and NIST have failed to provide a coherent account of what happened to WTC7.

The fact that NIST is promising a new report to account for WTC7 is in itself a clear vindication that there are legit questions about that event.

 
At 17 November, 2006 10:10, Anonymous Anonymous said...

When I wrote:

Regardless of proximity of WTC 7 to other buildings, the evidence that raises legit questions, in my humble opinion, about what caused the building collapse event of WTC 7 at 5:20.

I meant to write:
Regardless of proximity of WTC 7 to other buildings, there is evidence that raises legit questions, in my humble opinion, about what caused the building collapse event of WTC 7 at 5:20.

 
At 17 November, 2006 10:18, Blogger CHF said...

BG,

A question....

If the bad guys wanted to destroy WTC7 as a part of their scheme (for whatever reason)...

WHY BRING IT DOWN AT 5:20 PM, 6+ HOURS AFTER THE TOWERS FELL?

At 10:28 the last tower went down. Dust was everywhere. There was chaos. Why not bring down WTC7 then?

Why bring it down at 5:20 when the dust has cleared?

 
At 17 November, 2006 10:49, Anonymous Anonymous said...

chf,

paraphrasing your question: why wait until 5:20 to destroy wtc, if it was a "controlled demolition" and could have been rolled into the chaos earlier in the day.

You question is fair. You use the word "bad guys", which is a fair phrase for more formal "perpetrators".

In terms of answering your question, anything that I would say as far as specifics would be gross speculation. I don't claim to know the identify of any specific perp.

Speculation is the exact opposite of what is needed. Speculation is what makes Fetzer look bad. It's the last thing that I think honorable people should be about.

In the scienific method, one formulates hypotheses. The purpose of the hypotheses is to explore potential explanations for physical
events. In that regard, it is in examining the evidence of what happened to wtc 7, that one hypothesis is some kind of controlled demolition.

You question about motives and the logic of how the crime was commited requires a complete work up on many many factors that would best be analyzed in the context of an official investigation.

The fact that reasonable investigation has not been performed is only a factor that creates a heightened level of reasonable skepticism about why an obvious conundrum has received such short shrift.

Regardless of whether the motive for what happened is clear, the evidence demands an investigation which has not been performed.

If you think NIST or any other investigating body has fairly researched and reported on what happened at the WTC complex on 9/11, I simply think your judgement is ridiculously flawed.

 
At 17 November, 2006 11:35, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

An investigation into WTC7 was begun long before the "pressure" from the truthers. The interim report has been out for 6 months now. I can guarantee the final report will be close to the same as this report, with a few comments on the likelihood, or lack there of, that a blast event could have caused WTC7 collapse.

Think I am wrong? Come back to this post when the report is out.

I am the prophet TAM, predictor of no October surprise, the new and improved Alex Jones.

TAM

 
At 17 November, 2006 11:39, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

When it comes out, I am sure Judy and Morgan will be crying foul, claiming...

"Yes they looked at Controlled Demolition, but they didnt look into the STAR WARS BEAM Theories, so the report is obviously government shill speak.

Then two years from now, some new "scholars" will look at a new report, that addressed, and crushed "STAR WARS BEAM" theories, but they will whine and cry...

"Yes they looked at the BEAM theories, but they didn't investigate our 'gremlins' theory"

and so on...

TAM

 
At 17 November, 2006 11:55, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Artistic Macrophage said...,

I can't be responsibile for what anyone else is doing or saying.

Here's what I'm saying. Analysis of WTC 7 breaks down into two categories:

1) Explained the the official govt. version of events on 9/11.

2) Not explained by the official govt. story.

If I'm following you correctly, you are saying that NIST is well on the way to a finding of #2.

Wouldn't such a finding demand the immediate action of a criminal investigative team to find (additional) perps? Are you saying one or more of the "hijackers" wired the building or planted bombs with timers, and that's how the Demolition was carried out?

You have have to be completely out-of-touch with reality to believe WTC7 came down due to accidental explosions or some such non-sense.

How could any investigation not include the sworn testimony of Silverstein, the Fire Dept. person (who Silverstein claims to have talked with on the phone), and the sworn testimony of others who have provided information in writing and as such would seem to be material witnesses?

I don't mean to be disrespectful, Artistic Macrophage, when I say this. I have an extremely hard time understanding, with regard to WTC7, how anyone can look at the video, accept the video as reliable, and maintain any kind of attitude of "move along, nothing to see here."

If you are telling me the videos are faked, that's completely different. I'm not aware of anyone at the Screw Loose Change Blog who is saying that.

 
At 17 November, 2006 12:45, Blogger Alex said...

"Accept the video as reliable"? Sure, the video is reliable, but nobody with any common sense would rely SOLELY on video footage, especially video footage from only one angle, and partially blocked by a second building. Which explains why the twoof movement falls for it hook-line-and-sinker: they have no common sense.

Read the preliminary NIST report dumbass. No, NIST doesn't work for the Illuminati. Just read the damn thing. I know it's much easier to get all your information from videos, but if you're actually interested in the truth you'll try reading once in a while. You might get find you like it.

 
At 17 November, 2006 13:07, Blogger Jujigatami said...

Just read Gravy's WTC7 guide.

http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.pdf

Then come back and talk intelligently.

 
At 17 November, 2006 13:35, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I've read both NIST's reports, and I have read Gravy's Doc.

No explanation that explains WTC 7 event in any of these documents.

 
At 17 November, 2006 13:38, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Alex,

I have seen video of the WTC 7 Demo from 3 angles. I have seen the pictures showing raging fire and moderate damage.

Bottom Line: All details of all videos completely with forces at work rigged as a Controlled Demolition and inconsistence with any other theory posited.

 
At 17 November, 2006 14:15, Blogger Alex said...

Right. Never mind that it makes no sense to wait 6 hours and then blow the building. Never mind that the fires would have burned up the explosives before they could be used. Never mind the fact that there's absolutely zero physical evidence of actual explosives in the building. We should ignore all those inconsistencies and simply believe your assertion that someone rigged up explosives in the building. So, what's next Ms. Cleo? Can you read my palm and tell me my future?

 
At 17 November, 2006 18:21, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...


I've read both NIST's reports, and I have read Gravy's Doc.

No explanation that explains WTC 7 event in any of these documents.


BG:
You are lieing. The interim Report from NIST on WTC7 clearly states the reasons it believes caused WTC7s collapse. Whether you agree with it or not, an explanation is in the report, so your above comment is a lie.

As for the video, All I see is a building coming down, relatively straight down. What is the frame of reference to say what was the cause of this collapse? If you only look at the video, and nothing more, with no time of reference or knowledge of the events of the day, you might say it was brought down on purpose by CD. Why? because few if any buildings have ever come down from anything other than CD, so of course that would be the logical conclusion...based on JUST THE VIDEO.

If I asked a man from the 12th century what is the shape of the world, he would say...

"it is flat." why? because with his limited knowledge, based on his vision, he knows it only to be flat...but is it? No, because we know so much more now, we know the earth is a sphere.

With WTC7 we have a viable, and explained cause, or most likely cause (as they have stated) of the collapse. There conclusion is based on all the evidence. The fires, the severe damage to the south face, the listing of the building, the testimony of many, many firemen, there expertese in engineering. What is your theory of WTC7 collapse based on, except the video/flat earth.

Once again, if you actually READ the interim report, you would know this.

TAM

 
At 17 November, 2006 21:59, Blogger pomeroo said...

The conspiracy liar bg does a very poor imitation of a rationalist. When the NIST report on WTC 7, delayed in order to cross every t and dot every i, finally appears, the probability that he will reject it is 100%.

 
At 18 November, 2006 09:43, Blogger CHF said...

BG,

So you can't explain WHY WYC7 would be demolished at 5:20. Indeed you won't even speculate.

Why?

Because there IS NO LOGCAL REASON to wait almost 7 hours!

Try answering this one:

Why did firefighters report that a transit reading showed WTC7 leaning over?

How is a leaning building consistent with a demolition?

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home