gary77

iTrader: (1)

Hodgy , your answer to the BBC misreporting is that they misreported it , your answer to not investigating is no evidence , although a proper investigation is needed to find evidence ,



Since you are clearly a dick head I've no interest in trying to have any further conversation with you , you dick

hodgy0_2

Gary

You asserted the BBC reporting of the WTC 7 collapse as evidence of a conspiracy and Controlled demolition

I have pointed out this is rubbish - and provided a link to an investigation where it is explained, even showing that the editor of loose change thinks this story is a load of crap

One claim at a time Gary as I said in my original post

Dealing with CTers is like nailing jelly to a wall

One claim, one refutation - that is the only way

Gary - please google "Gish Gallop"

It explains why crazies like yourself post whole heaps of ****

It takes so much time and effort to rebut one daft claim

I took your first claim and demonstrated it was bollo0x

I then have to do the same to every single piece of bollox people like you post

gary77

iTrader: (1)

I must of missed where you proved the BBC got there report innocently by mistake, or was it the interview that I posted myself , which doesn't prove anything accept one local news station reported it first and the rest followed ?

hodgy0_2

Rueters - Gary

It's in the linked article

hodgy0_2

Unless it's all a conspiracy

gary77

iTrader: (1)

Yes Reuters apparently picked the report up from a local news station ,

The editor of loose change said that , no the BBC are not part of the conspiracy and he asks , why would they be ,

It makes sense it was an innocent mistake ,otherwise the conspiracy would have to involve Reuters , is that imposable ?

The theory behind the BBC report is that someone knew it was going to collapse before it did , and since it is the first building of its kind to collapse like that it shouldn't have been expected

The official report states it collapsed due to fire damage , making it the only building of its kind to have a complete destruction due to fire damage

neil-h

And in the majority of times the answer that makes sense is the one that's correct. You only had to see the confusion around the Brussels attacks to see how easily mistakes can happen in reporting.

dpb

I can see how all the doubt and confusion and suspicion has arisen here

There they're their.

hodgy0_2

You see how these thing go Neil

Which is why the only way, is to deal with one claim at a time

There is just so much rubbish in these daft conspiracy theories

Gary makes another one in the preceding post

"First building of its kind"

The problem is WTC 7 was a unique design - unlike any other tall building

There is no other like it, the investigators knew this

Remember my 3 point

1. Incompetent
2. Lying
3. Or maybe they know something you don't

And it is nearly always number 3

JackClark

I suspect the 100,000 tons of buildings pounding the surrounding area had a bit to do with it. You know, like an earthquake. But what do I know.

gary77

iTrader: (1)

If its kind i.e steel structure high rise

gary77

iTrader: (1)

you'd thinks so but nist don't mention that

dpb

Gary how would this tie in with any other event such that its changed / subverted the course of the last twenty years ? cos this is the only and presumably your concern


other than if your a structural engineer/fireman or just plain mad

gary77

iTrader: (1)

I'm plainly mad , I also can't work out the question

Is the question . When have people done something secretly to change the coarse of history ?

If it is ,then I don't know

To clarify my insanity , my position is that I wonder if the architects ,engineers ,professors and scientists that make claims against the fema and nist reports have any valid points

Unfortunately I'm far to stupid to come to a conclusion

dpb

Take a walk outside Gary , its a nice day

hodgy0_2

A&E for the truth have the answers, but like you with the BBC / WTC 7 evidence

You just don't like them

Yes it's all possible Reuters et al are all part of a conspiracy, and that WT7 was secretly rigged with explosive

Except that there is not a shred of evidence to suggest that - that is why the investigation by NIST did not examine CD as a cause

What we saw on 911 - massive collateral damage and uncontrolled fires matches the evidence - a gravity led collapse

It fell straight down not due to some spooky "event", but because that is what gravity demands

A simple test with an Apple will prove this - it is based on simple testable physics

Thing fall straight down

Now what A&E want to prove is "free fall" - and maybe they are right, for some parts of the collapse, some parts of the building may have free fall

They need this fact to hang the CD theory on - but all they are explaining is what happens when the support for a structure fails

It is simply gravity - as I said try it with an apple

gary77

iTrader: (1)

I need to get my finger out , a lot to get on with today , unfortunately it's not nice here , raining . But still better than carrying this insanity on anymore ,

But for anyone interested this is where my insanity stemmed from

The following is lifted from the architects and engineers for 911

I appologise in advance for spreading this insanity

The United States government's official investigator of the destruction of the three skyscrapers on September 11, 2001, is the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), an arm of the Department of Commerce. The agency became highly politicized during a Clinton-era restructuring. "In essence," recalls a NIST whistleblower, "we lost our scientific independence, and became little more than 'hired guns.'"

NIST has made many false written and oral statements about the collapses of the three World Trade Center buildings on 9/11 — statements that have now caused 2,300 architects and engineers to question the government investigator's credibility and veracity. One of its most implausible claims is that a high-rise steel structure in New York City was destroyed by fire alone.

wtc7 demolition comparison
Figure 1. NIST's final report states that random office fires alone brought down Building 7. However, the collapse of WTC 7 compared, side by side, with an acknowledged professional controlled demolition reveals an entirely different story. Only a handful of companies have the ability to neatly implode a steel-framed skyscraper into its own footprint like this. Click on this video to see WTC 7 fall next to three acknowledged professional CDs.

Indeed, the fall of World Trade Center Building 7 is the third of the three only known "global collapses" of high-rise, steel-framed buildings ever recorded, and all three incredibly took place in one day: September 11, 2001.

NIST contends that the Twin Towers were brought down by the impact damage and consequent fires from the large airliner jets that hit them. But no jet struck WTC 7, and NIST claims that office fires alone demolished that building. The agency does admit that, if true, this would be the first and only time that an office fire brought down a steel skyscraper.

Ultimately, we are asked to accept on faith NIST's ever-changing, remarkable, and, frankly, suspect explanations for WTC 7's destruction.

Why "suspect"? Because NIST ignored the National Fire Protection Association protocol — specifically, the NFPA 921 Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations — and refused to perform a forensic investigation. As a consequence, NIST has no physical proof to back up its unusual explanation for WTC 7's destruction.

Even more concerning, NIST bases its finding on computer models whose input data it refuses to release to either the scientific community or the general public. Thus, it is impossible to independently verify NIST's work and its startling conclusion. AE911Truth contends that NIST's methodology is contrary to every tenet of legitimate scientific inquiry. In this article, we seek to show how the supporting "evidence" put forward by NIST in the 13 years since that fateful day has been consistently and deliberately misleading.

We will review NIST's progression from its 2004 preliminary report to its 2008 final report — a progression that will reveal a pattern of omissions and distortions that appear designed to arrive at a preconceived conclusion.

We will show, step by step, that NIST's final hypothesis of scattered office fires producing the gravitational collapse of a 47-story steel structure is a classic case of "cover-up" — designed to obscure the fact that the implosion of Building 7 was the result of controlled demolition.

NIST's pattern of omissions and distortions:

In its 2004 preliminary report, NIST fabricated the myth that debris from World Trade Center Building 1 (the North Tower) created a 10-story hole at a specific location at the base of WTC 7's south face. The following year it propagated that myth in Popular Mechanics, which defended NIST's work.

It turns out that NIST "needed" the 10-story hole to exist at this specific location to back up its explanation for the collapse of Building 7. This is an example of reverse engineering, where supposed evidence is constructed to fit a prearranged conclusion. NIST also used its Popular Mechanics (PM) platform to launch a second myth — namely, that Building 7 had a peculiar design, which purportedly made it vulnerable to collapse.

The PM article also helped NIST generate two more myths — namely, that diesel fuel tanks stored inside WTC 7 supposedly fueled an imaginary fire on the fifth floor, ostensibly helping to weaken the building at a strategic location, and that certain trusses helped to facilitate the collapse of the entire building by transferring stresses from supposedly damaged columns on the south side of the building.

NIST's final 2008 report discarded these self-constructed myths and introduced a new collapse initiation hypothesis that blames WTC 7's destruction on normal office fires. The final report is premised on the same shoddy investigative practices that the agency displayed in its 2004 report and in the 2005 PM article. Indeed, NIST's omissions and distortions are gross enough to discredit both its entire WTC 7 investigation and the agency itself as a viable 9/11 investigator.

NIST has consistently ignored evidence that would refute its preconceived conclusion. All the hard evidence demonstrates that Building 7 was brought down by classic controlled demolition.

We trust that a thorough perusal of this article will convince most readers that NIST's methodology and conclusions are not scientific and thus not credible. We also trust it will cause readers to declare "Enough is enough!" and demand a proper investigation.

gary77

iTrader: (1)

Yes it is agreed that 8 floors fell at free fall speed , supposedly pointing to the fact there was zero resistance by any of the steel supports

, completely insane I know

I am way past the point of sane thought at this point and I fear there is nothing that can be said to cure this inflicted tion

CharlySkunkWeed

iTrader: (7)

I know exactly what happened. The planes flew into the twin towers by accident as they allowed for the curvature of the earth , but because the earth is flat they flew too low. The president realised it would expose the fact that the earth is flat so started a conspiracy that it was terrorism to take the focus off the "Flat earth" reality.

gary77

iTrader: (1)

I like this theory , I feel it concludes this madness

Paben

iTrader: (5)

The flaw with all conspiracy theories involving governments, the military or agencies like NASA is that the vast number of people involved in the scam would be required to keep the secret for ever. And we know that humans are not made that way, not even those trained in the art of deception.

Blue by You

iTrader: (23)

Would that be the madness of the first part or the madness of the second part?

CharlySkunkWeed

iTrader: (7)

But then they can use that idea to their advantage , almost like a double bluff. They could carry out the event and create the conspiracy to loose whats real or myth in the confusion.

Paben

iTrader: (5)

Now that's a conspiritorial conspiracy theory!

CharlySkunkWeed

iTrader: (7)

Nah , it's just a myth

mattstant

this is Brilliant.

Think of the vast amount amounts of money that could be made roping in "Truthers" and the "flat earthers" in one youtube video???

Sprinkle in some divine intervention from a nonexistent deity and you got a ratings smash you could break youtube and the internet with it

SmurfyBhoy

Illuminati

mattstant

i think that's a given with any conspiracy nutters the whole globe earth is a conspiracy by the "Iluminata" according to most flat earthers any way

gazney101

iTrader: (5)

Travelling through the vacuum of space requires way less energy than travelling on earth as there's only a microscopic amount of friction.
I watched that new show "its not rocket science" and they got a ping pong ball to go supersonic down a plastic tube and snap the ping pong bat on the other side, they created a vacuum in the tube then used compressed air for its propulsion
Space suit, fire extinguisher between your legs.... The moon here we come.

hodgy0_2

they are called "crank magnets" - most websites buy into ALL the rubbish - irational science denial is often a "package"

it is as if they are magically attracted to all this cr$p

here is an example website - they have it all,
vaccines - Hoax,
Climate Change - Hoax
Earth is a Globe - Hoax
Chemtrails - yes those contrails are really jets spraying chemicals!!!
Children shot at Sandy Hook - Hoax
Paris Shootings - Hoax
etc etc

they laugably call themselves "skeptics"





they all rely on the same modus operandi - endlessly repeating urban myths (the BBC knew WT7 was going to collapse, Al Gore invented AGW) logical fallacies, basic misunderstanding of science, self contradictory statements, ignoring any evidence that does not support their daft theories, trying to dismiss any consensus, a "whistle blower" blowing the whole scam wide-open, do your own research (simply shorthand for watch this youtube video) - wada wada wada, and on and on

some people (ernest and worthwile people to be fair) who try and combat this cr4p on the internet with debunking sites - think you should engage them sympathetically trying to find common ground so as to win them round

i think they simply should be mocked and laughed for their bat **** crazy ideas

sorry, that may sound harsh!!! lol