What happened to the building 7 controlled explosion thread?

i dont consider closing a thread with a valid explanation as to why censorship..

if the entire thread were deleted possibly,but it wasnt..

 

No one could vote or say whether or not they felt censored.

It wasn't deleted, it was closed.

 

Arguing over video footage of 9/11 leads no where. Everybody is emotional and brings over zealous comments to these threads.

For the record, I said this before and i'll say it again. Anybody who has witnessed controlled demolitions prior to 9/11 (before it became a household conspiracy debate, where everybody thinks they are now an authority on the subject) can and will identify both towers and building 7 as controlled demoltions.

I would post links of OTHER building demolitions as demonstrations, unfortunatly people arguing this circular argument have clogged up top google hits with 9/11 footage exclusively so I can't come up with anything rapidly. I'll have to dig up what I can over time.

Set all the Why's and the Who's? aside... The topic at hand is controlled demolition... I don't know about anybody else, I remember watching the live feed on the news that morning, and the first thing that went through my mind as my spoonful of mini-wheats hit the floor was "holay crap" how did they get that many explosives in that building without getting noticed... these "terrorists" are really good.

Needless to say that thought was eventually replaced, by common sense. Long before "Alex Jones" or "Micheal Moore" had to tell me so.

What should be debated, is why this debate is in fact taking place.

 

Really? Show me a building demolition that looked like the collapse of WTC 1 or 2.

 

Either you speed read or can't read; I said, I'm working on that.

Google's top hits on google and most search engines is 9/11 related. I'll dig up what from other sources and let you nice folks know. Unlike the majority of people of my generation I still know what a library looks like and what its used for.

There is a nice one of a casino in vegas being detonated but this building needed to detonate in a fasion that in would fold over in 2, horizontally. That is to say top to bottom. Building 7 needed to buckle in vertically that is to say left to right. This is usually decided based on how the building was built and the way they want debris to fall...

Of course everything else is pretty much a carbon copy with the same result. But honnestly, I don't give a rats ass what you think. All you ever do here is attack credibility. And you're probably paid to do so. You never weigh facts and give your own analysis... no no no far to risky and then you can lose. You're ego can't deal with losing can it.... *harty laugh*

As for the rest of you nice folks, I said what I had to say.

Regards,
~Nika

 

The WTC 1+2 collapses and the WTC 7 collapse looked completely different, yet people say they both looked like controlled demolitions. So the definition of what a controlled demolition looks like must be extremely flexible. Plus nobody can seem to say what the collapses should have looked like had they been structural failures rather than controlled definitions. In other words, you haven't really got much of anything here.

I do weigh facts, and on top of that I use logic. That's what really annoys conspiracy theorists, because they find it easy to make up facts but much harder to get around logical fallacies.

 

You're a towel.

 

structural failure would not have turned all of the concrete to rubble since there would not be enough force since it would fall much slower

 

And by putting it in bold you proved it?

 

Wow hiptastic, you're a real cocksucker

 

Werd