Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 68123	2006-04-18 09:04:00	Conspiracy theory anyone	Barnabas (4562)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
447332	2006-04-20 12:30:00	Anyway,Now that we have won this debate completely and utterly with next to no effort I intend to go whip up a storm in a Dell thread, or better yet....an Apple thread. Huh? How did you work that out? You still need to check out the footage of the WTC7 collapse. And the interview with the Larry guy. And that link didn't offer any proof whatsoever (nor was there an interview with Larry saying he pulled the building). Here's a link you may want to read : 911research.wtc7.net A :cool:	andrew93 (249)
447333	2006-04-20 12:36:00	Lmao, and here I was thinking my post was dripping in sarcasim.	Metla (12)
447334	2006-04-20 12:49:00	Anyway, I just took a special delivery and its now official, so not a lot can be done to change the fact. I scanned it as proof. www.imagef1.net.nz	Metla (12)
447335	2006-04-20 13:01:00	Thats the slippery wee bugger I was looking for. The rabbit-in-the hat "working hypothesis" could win every debate in the history of mankind Anyway,Now that we have won this debate completely and utterly with next to no effort I intend to go whip up a storm in a Dell thread, or better yet....an Apple thread. you "won"? :illogical you didnt prove anything! u found a page that argues conspiracy claims! all it did was deny select claims and provide a seperate recount of events. again, i dont think this can be "won", beyond the fact that there is room for doubt? i need sleep now <yawns>	motorbyclist (188)
447336	2006-04-20 13:02:00	Heh....did you not see my certificate?	Metla (12)
447337	2006-04-20 13:05:00	Heh....did you not see my certificate? lol also, for those who wont bother to look at andrew's link... The official explanations of WTC 7's collapse are problematic for several reasons: * Fire has never caused any steel-framed high-rise building to collapse in any manner, let alone with the vertical precision of Building 7's destruction. 1 Other steel-framed skyscrapers have experienced far more serious fires than Building 7. * WTC 7 fell straight down, which necessitated that all of the load-bearing columns be broken at the same moment. Inflicting such damage with the precision required to prevent a building from toppling and damaging adjacent buildings is what the science of controlled demolition is all about. No random events, such as the debris damage and fires envisioned by the official reports, or explosions from fuel tanks proposed by some, could be expected to result in such a tidy and complete collapse. * The collapse of WTC 7 exhibited all of the features of a standard controlled demolition. To suppose that a cause other than controlled demolition could produce an event with all of the features uniquely characteristic of controlled demolition defies logic. and that's just the start, anyone see the issue here ok sleep now lol ALSO read more here (911research.wtc7.net)	motorbyclist (188)
447338	2006-04-20 13:19:00	Huh? How did you work that out? You still need to check out the footage of the WTC7 collapse. And the interview with the Larry guy. And that link didn't offer any proof whatsoever (nor was there an interview with Larry saying he pulled the building). Here's a link you may want to read : 911research.wtc7.net A :cool: now theres a biased argument if ever i saw one. give me example of buildings like that that have had debris fall directly ontop of the building and survived. i think its entirely feasible that the debris could have caused a chain reaction that would have caused it to collapse. have you any idea how much concrete etc was used to construct the wtc?	Tux (606)
447339	2006-04-21 00:36:00	now theres a biased argument if ever i saw one. give me example of buildings like that that have had debris fall directly ontop of the building and survived. i think its entirely feasible that the debris could have caused a chain reaction that would have caused it to collapse. have you any idea how much concrete etc was used to construct the wtc? Despite the inescapable logic of the above, the official theory for the collapse, as published in Chapter 5 of the FEMA report goes as follows: * At 9:59 AM (after the South Tower collapse), electrical power to the substations in WTC 7 was shut off. * Due to a design flaw, generators in WTC 7 started up by themselves. * Debris from the collapsing North Tower breached a fuel oil pipe in a room in the north side of the building. (This means the debris had to travel across WTC 6 and Vesey Street -- a distance of at least 355 feet -- penetrate the outer wall of WTC 6, and smash through about 50 feet of the building, including a concrete masonry wall.) * This, and other debris (that also made the journey across Building 6 and Vesey Street), managed to start numerous fires in the building. (Unfortunately, this event did not prompt anyone to turn off the generators.) * The backup mechanism (that should have shut off the fuel oil pumps when a breach occurred) failed to work, and the fuel oil (diesel) was pumped from the tanks on the ground floor to the fifth floor where it ignited. The pumps emptied the tanks of all 12,000 gallons of fuel. * The extant fires raised the temperature of the spilled fuel oil to the 140 degrees F required for it to ignite. * The sprinkler system malfunctioned and failed to extinguish the fire. * The burning diesel fuel heated trusses to the point where they lost most of their strength, precipitating a total collapse of Building 7. The last point is the greatest stretch, since it asks us to believe that an event that would be expected only to cause the sagging of a floor instead led not only to total collapse, but to such a tidy collapse that directly adjacent buildings were scarcely even damaged. This is surprising behavior for a steel-framed skyscraper designed to survive fires, hurricanes, and earthquakes. After laying out this highly improbable scenario, the FEMA report authors conclude: The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue. Unfortunately for investigators hoping to resolve this issue, nearly all of the evidence had already been destroyed by the time the FEMA report was published. Documents and Command Center Destroyed At the time of its destruction, Building 7 housed documents relating to numerous SEC investigations. The files for approximately three to four thousand cases were destroyed, according to the Los Angeles Times. Among the destroyed documents were ones that may have demonstrated the relationship between Citigroup and the WorldCom bankruptcy. 2 Perhaps even more interesting than the loss of these case files is the fact that WTC 7's collapse destroyed the OEM's command center on the 23rd floor. again, from andrew's link, do you even think to look at both sides of the issue?	motorbyclist (188)
447340	2006-04-21 01:12:00	your hypothesising a conspiracy related to the nature of what was housed in the building. what about the banks in the wtc? cantor fitzgerald, **** even the cia had an office there, there was even a gold depository part in the wtc. its all a conspiracy mate im telling you. oh and care to stop cutting and pasting and either paraphrase your info and give your own opinion rather than someone elses?	Tux (606)
447341	2006-04-21 03:06:00	Despite the inescapable logic of the above, the official theory for the collapse, as published in Chapter 5 of the FEMA report goes as follows: etc etc Motorbyclist - I admire your enthuasism. Keep it up. At least you are considering the conspiracy questions and looking at links. I don't agree with the conspiracy but that doesn't matter. If you want to have some fun, you should join www.kiwibiker.co.nz Lots of good arguments on Rant and Rave - although not as polite as here. :D	Winston001 (3612)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17