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.
posted by Pat @ 1:19 PM
19 comments
19 Comments:
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!!!!!
Your ignorance is Alex Jones' cash cow...
Your ignorance is the bush administration's strength.
You know what they say about people in glass houses, right?
" 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...
I think you mean bankers trust and not wtc3
No, they said WFC3 and that's what we're discussing. It's the building in the upper left of the drawing.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
"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.
Just read Gravy's WTC7 guide.
http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.pdf
Then come back and talk intelligently.
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.
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.
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?
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
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%.
Post a Comment
<< Home