Loose Change Final Cut!!!!!!!!!!

That's not true either, although statement like that have become mantras and fact for some groups.

The collapses of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 didn't occur at freefall rate. That's clear from the videos.

The lower floors of WTC1 and WTC2 did offer some resistance to the falling mass. It increased the duration of the collapses from a freefall duration of about 9 seconds to around 13 to 15 seconds, as measured using the videos, but that wasn't enough to stop the collapse. Even if every column below could have been bent to absorb energy, it wouldn't have absorbed enough energy to stop the mass of the falling section.

Some people don't understand the energy of gravity. The towers had about a trillion Joules of gravity energy in them. That amounts to hundreds of truck bombs of high explosives.

The claim of explosives planted all the way down the towers is outlandish. The burden is on the truther groups to explain how they think that would all be carried out undetected in two nearly fully occupied office towers that were a quarter mile high and had the area of a football field where all the columns were covered by fireproofing and gypsum walls.

.

 

There was an explosion in the basement of WTC2 after it was struck by the aircraft as a result of jet fuel falling down the tower.

The truther groups have been using deceptive tactics to try to make people think it happened before the aircraft impact. No amount of quote mining changes the fact that there weren't explosions in WTC2 before it was impacted by the aircraft.

.

 

WTC7 was damaged badly from the debris of WTC1 and the subsequent fires as seen in the videos. That damage was severe enough that the firemen had to be pulled from the building earller in the day and reported that it would likely collapse.

WTC7 didn't fall at freefall speed and neither did the towers. WTC7 fell faster than the towers because the main collapse started near the ground, not high up. There was more mass falling at the start to drive the collapse.

The WTC7 was suspended over the electrical substation using trusses which made it vulnerable to collapse during a fire. The large bay floors on the east side were also vulnerable to fire. The pressurized diesel lines that it had on various floors were a bad idea and fed the fires most of the day.

There are probably no other high rises that are both suspended over an electrical substation and that have pressurized diesel lines. No others high rises in the world were hit by debris from a collapsing tower a quarter mile high.

The new WTC7 opened in May 2006 and has a concrete core. It probably doesn't have pressurized diesel lines either.

.

 

We've been through that many times. Because of all the damage, the firemen reported that WTC7 would likely collapse. A BBC journalist thought the message was that it had already collapsed. Many people didn't know which building WTC7 was, especially foreign correspondents. Some of the firemen and rescuers had to be told which tower was WTC1 and which was WTC2, as seen in the Naudet Brothers documentary.

One Liberty was also reported as being on the verge of collapse. That turned out to be a false rumor. There were many messages that were misinterpreted in the confusion that day.

.

 

Imagine what it would be like for a truther to be on trial for something and the judge convicting him because he used the word 'pull' or someone misinterpreted something he said.

.

 

Forget Judge Judy. Someone should do a comedy sketch about an afternoon show called 'Judge Truther' who convicts everyone using truther logic.

.

 

What is funny is that I have actually heard people say that they don't need to understand science or physics, all they need to do is watch the videos (ahem, Rat). What they don't understand, or don't want to believe, is that science and physics are the only thing can be proven. Like you stated, I don't think many people can comprehend the shear amount of mass and the energy that was stored in the towers. I have had discussions with people that simply do not understand the magnitude of the situation. The size of the towers, thier mass, the size of a 757 and its mass, the velocity of the 757, etc.... I don't think one needs to have any large understanding of physics, or background in structural engineering to have an pretty good understanding of the forces involved in the WTC attacks. I think the key is that one needs to have the willingness to want to understand.

 

Well done, but you guys missed a hilarious one:

In one sentence, he claims a conspiracy to cover up the collapse. In the very next sentence, he claims the conspirators told the (implicitly colaborating) press in advance that the building would fall. So the conspirators are simultaneously covering up the collapse and alerting the media about it.

Troofer logic. It can do a 180 degree turn in one sentence. Now that's impressive.

 

Shaggie, I'm glad you're as obsessed with this topic as I am! Luckily there are many professionals who can refute every one of your straw men better than I can.

Pepik, your brand of twisting logic would seem highly sophisticated to me if I wasn't (able to be) an excellent liar myself. I've successfully used that tactic myself: accuse the oppostion of what I myself am guilty of. Though unlike you I've only used it for petty matters, not cases where human casualties were involved. Trust me, if I shared your values and lack of morality, I might very well be doing what YOU are doing. We "twoofers" are at least as intelligent as your...ilk, pep.

As for what you've twisted concerning the BBC, as I said, it was a blunder. The studio's screen of the woman reporting suddenly suffered "technical difficulties". How coincidentally lucky for the 9/11 perps who must have been panicing upon seeing building 7 standing in the distance during the report of it having collapsed.

And by the way...the media is just as guilty of murder and treason as the government it protects. Don't draw false lines of distinction between connected entities.

One thing I can say for you pep...when it comes time for you to meet your maker, I won't want to be in the same room.

 

Either the conspirators told the BBC in advance or they didn't. There's no two ways about it, you aren't reconciling your theories that they simultaneously covered it up and alerted the media.

All you've done here is wave away all arguments as straw men (without explaining which ones or how, compared to Shaggie, wacki, and I who specifically address individual points you made), implied critics are part of the conspiracy and made threatening remarks. Is this what troof is about?

 

Is there any particular reason you stopped posting under the name Angel Headed Hipster? I noticed you switched names in the middle of one of the old WTC7 threads.

.

 

Con-Ed, who owned the electrical substation that was under WTC7, sued the Port Authority because the collapse wrecked their substation.

No one would intentionally collapse WTC7 and put themselves up for a additional losses from the resulting lawsuits from Con-Ed, not to mention criminal charges. Even if they had wanted to, the logistics would have been next to impossible in an unstable, burning, smoke-filled building on short order.

.

 

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...erence/Times Topics/Subjects/S/Sept. 11, 2001


"
Con Ed and Insurers Sue Port Authority Over 7 World Trade

Consolidated Edison and five of its insurers have filed a $314.5 million lawsuit against the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, asserting that huge diesel tanks in 7 World Trade Center, an office building that collapsed late in the day last Sept. 11, were improperly designed and maintained. The suit charges that fires fed by the fuel in those tanks played a major role in the collapse.

A major Con Edison electrical substation that sat beneath 7 World Trade Center -- a 47-story high-rise just north of the twin towers -- was destroyed when the building collapsed.

''The insurers are trying to recover what they paid to us and we're trying to recover some of our uninsured losses,'' said Chris Olert, a Con Edison spokesman. ''There was negligent design, inspection, maintenance and operation of the diesel fuel tanks there. The diesel tanks caused the building to collapse.''

The tanks contained more than 40,000 gallons of fuel to provide backup power for the city's emergency command center, a Secret Service office and other tenants. A 6,000-gallon tank for the command center, which was on the 23rd floor, was mounted 15 feet off the ground near an elevator bank. It was cited as unsafe by Fire Department officials in 1998 and 1999, but the Port Authority has asserted that the tank and the structure met the city's fire code and posed no special danger.

''The Port Authority has a longstanding policy that all of our buildings meet or exceed code,'' said the Port Authority's general counsel, Jeffrey Green, in a prepared statement. ''In this case, the design of the diesel fuel tanks in 7 W.T.C. had the approval of the city'' -- and, ultimately, of the Fire Department, he said.

The Con Ed suit, Mr. Green said, ''is being brought now in order to protect their legal right to sue the Port Authority within the one-year period allowed by law.''

Mr. Olert said the insurance companies in the suit included Aegis Insurance Services, Liberty International Underwriters and Underwriters at Lloyd's.

When 7 World Trade Center crumbled at 5:28 p.m. last Sept. 11, it became the only modern, steel-reinforced high-rise in the United States ever to fall because of a fire alone. The precise cause of the collapse has remained elusive, but fiery debris from the towers struck 7 World Trade. And in a study released last spring, federal engineers suggested that fires fed by the diesel fuel damaged structural steel in the building and led to its destruction.

The Con Ed substation, built in 1970, stood about three stories high and included nine different transformers, Mr. Olert said. Seven World Trade, which began going up in 1984, rested on stout steel transfer trusses above the substation. The fires on Sept. 11 probably softened those trusses, which then failed and set off the building's collapse, the federal study concluded.
"
.

 

Now some truthers will claim that Con-Ed was 'in on it' too.

.

 

I ate at a Famous Dave's over the weekend and had their Barbeque "pulled" pork. It was delicious. I have to say that this was the first meal that I've eaten that has used controlled demolition to prepare. I did learn that cordite gives me gas however.

 

Interesting. I remember Angel Headed Hipster! Sorry to disappoint you though, he and I are not the same person.

Anyway, nice maneuver at quoting me and then not addressing the quote.

 

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

AHH was a lot angrier as I remember.

The troofers might blame Con-Ed, but they will definitely quote this sentence from your article

even though the article contradicts itself! Selective quoting is a troofer's best friend.

 

I know what really happened, and have compiled some photographic evidence:



Okay so it was really just a masterstroke of the illuminati cabals running this planet and has worked perfectly, but hey we need to be able to take a joke, right?

 

AHH and ExposeTheTruth are the same person. Same topics and writing style, same appeal to Loose Change, same name-calling the other person as a 'troll' and 'shill' when he gets upset and telling people to 'go away', regularly using the three periods ... in his posts, capitalizing various words in his posts, etc.

He changed his name for whatever reason. It's not that important.

.