The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

[Newstein]

I have the UNDISPUTABLE EVIDENCE that Silverstein had foreknowledge that WTC7 was going to be destroyed!!

Listen at 59:00 !!

"THE FIRST DESIGN MEETING OF THE NEW WTC7 ON APRIL 2000"



SHARE IT PEOPLE!

btw: it's not a mistake, he is reading it from a paper.
And second, if it is april, it would have been april 2002 en the construction started on 7 may 2002!! Impossible imo.

IN YOUR ASS SATANLOVERS!

[felltoearth]

:lol:
I have the UNDISPUTABLE EVIDENCE that Silverstein had foreknowledge that WTC7 was going to be destroyed!!

Listen at 59:00 !!

"THE FIRST DESIGN MEETING OF THE NEW WTC7 ON APRIL 2000"



SHARE IT PEOPLE!

btw: it's not a mistake, he is reading it from a paper.
And second, if it is april, it would have been april 2002 en the construction started on 7 may 2002!! Impossible imo.

IN YOUR ASS SATANLOVERS!

59:00 of what?

[Xaihe]

Tons of explosives would be needed for a controlled demolition of a building which did not suffer fatal structural damage from the aircraft impacts and subsequent unchecked fires - the core claim of conspiracy theorists, who deny that the plane impacts and fires could have dropped the building.

Well, that is a bone of contention - was the damage 'fatal'? You claim it was. And that local collapses in the impact zones caused the 'global collapse'. Presumably only gravity was required after the local collapses.

A few columns cut, a few trusses fail. That's it.

You are being serially dishonest - as is your wont, as expressed in years of your trolling posts.

Why is it every time your lack of critical thinking is exposed you resort to wild accusations of trolling?

Plus some faux outrage. Oh, and reckless accusations of lying.

This seems to be your standard technique of trying to wriggle out of your self-contradictions honed by your many more years of trolling threads like these.

The plane impacts and the fires dropped the buildings. That and that alone.

Here you go again - tons of explosives not needed to drop the buildings...

Controlled demo WOULD require tons of explosives and ancillary equipment...

Followed immediately by the claim that tons of explosives would be required.

If you sincerely believe both of these mutually contradictory ideas, you are indeed clueless.

Keep going with your lying, circular reasoning - keep going with your claims that you're consistent - keep going with your bullshit trolling and with your pretending that I'm wrong. You do dishonor only to yourself.

You are an embarrassment.

You seem to be unaware of the CT position of controlled demolition (CD).
CD is the position of people who don't know what progressive collapse is, or reject the possibility that it happened at the WTC. They believe that CD was used on every floor of WTC 1 and 2 in such an order that the building collapsed from the top down. This notion originated with the long refuted idea that the "squibs" are evidence of CD.

Now, if there were actually people who accept progressive collapse as a possibility and held the CD position that only a few columns and/or trusses needed to be weakened/cut by CD, then that position is self defeating, because that's already what the planes and fires did.

[proudfootz]

Tons of explosives would be needed for a controlled demolition of a building which did not suffer fatal structural damage from the aircraft impacts and subsequent unchecked fires - the core claim of conspiracy theorists, who deny that the plane impacts and fires could have dropped the building.

Well, that is a bone of contention - was the damage 'fatal'? You claim it was. And that local collapses in the impact zones caused the 'global collapse'. Presumably only gravity was required after the local collapses.

A few columns cut, a few trusses fail. That's it.

You are being serially dishonest - as is your wont, as expressed in years of your trolling posts.

Why is it every time your lack of critical thinking is exposed you resort to wild accusations of trolling?

Plus some faux outrage. Oh, and reckless accusations of lying.

This seems to be your standard technique of trying to wriggle out of your self-contradictions honed by your many more years of trolling threads like these.

The plane impacts and the fires dropped the buildings. That and that alone.

Here you go again - tons of explosives not needed to drop the buildings...

Controlled demo WOULD require tons of explosives and ancillary equipment...

Followed immediately by the claim that tons of explosives would be required.

If you sincerely believe both of these mutually contradictory ideas, you are indeed clueless.

Keep going with your lying, circular reasoning - keep going with your claims that you're consistent - keep going with your bullshit trolling and with your pretending that I'm wrong. You do dishonor only to yourself.

You are an embarrassment.

You seem to be unaware of the CT position of controlled demolition (CD).
CD is the position of people who don't know what progressive collapse is, or reject the possibility that it happened at the WTC. They believe that CD was used on every floor of WTC 1 and 2 in such an order that the building collapsed from the top down. This notion originated with the long refuted idea that the "squibs" are evidence of CD.

Now, if there were actually people who accept progressive collapse as a possibility and held the CD position that only a few columns and/or trusses needed to be weakened/cut by CD, then that position is self defeating, because that's already what the planes and fires did.

There are any number of theories about the three WTC skyscraper collapses.

I'm just pointing out that Weaver's arguments are self-defeating.

[proudfootz]

The plane impacts and the fires dropped the buildings. That and that alone.

Here you go again - tons of explosives not needed to drop the buildings...

Controlled demo WOULD require tons of explosives and ancillary equipment...

Followed immediately by the claim that tons of explosives would be required.

Amazing how you can change what I say by deliberately quote-mining me.

I didn't substantially change the import of your 'argument' any more than you did by selecting which part of my post to quote.

Sauce for the goose...

[proudfootz]

What an utter misrepresentation. Weaver by no means whatsoever suggested or wrote that.

Weaver wrote the two sentences I quoted.

The two ideas are in complete contradiction to one another.

I'm not seeing anyone squaring the circle to make any logical sense of Weaver's nutty ideas - just a lot of accusations.

[proudfootz]

Now, your quote-mining and misrepresentation aside, you seem to be saying that cutting a few columns and causing a few trusses to fail would be all that's necessary in addition to the impacts and fires to make the buildings collapse.

That would appear to be what you argue (half the time).

So, if that's your contention, riddle me this -

1* how did they know ahead of time which columns to cut, which trusses to cause to fail?

2* How did they know where the planes would hit?

3* How did they protect the explosives and/or incendiaries, and all their associated ancillary equipment, from damage when the planes hit, and when the fires burned?

4* And, above all, what evidence do you have that this occurred?

Goody - more questions!

1* If, as many seem to believe, the WTC towers were susceptible to 'global collapse' from cutting a few columns and a few floor trusses failing AND this is the totally predictable and expected outcome, then someone familiar with WTC construction and the execution of demolition should have no trouble figuring out how to accomplish this with minimal effort.

2* If it is required that a missile strike at or near a specific spot, it could well be there is some sort of technology to create a 'guided missile'. Maybe someone with military knowledge could have a few suggestions.

3* Some explosives can be engineered to resist heat alone, and sometimes casings can also protect things from crashes and fires.

4* As for evidence that these things occurred, as a private citizen I have very few resources to collect evidence which it would appear some people were in a hot hurry to dispose of.

There may be many ways to debate what happened on 9/11, but your asking rhetorical questions when the answers are easily found is surely a very weak one.

[Agi Hammerthief]

Re 1*
You are forgetting an important issue with almost anything:
Yer always smarter afterwards.

Apart from that: a few columns and a few floor trusses?
That must be the most understating assesment of what the planes did to the buildings we have seen in the entire thread.

[psikeyhackr]

15!

[442401]
psik

[Agi Hammerthief]

[kiore]

If I would have called you a "selfish little shiteating masonic asshole" , that would be a personal attack.
I'm not that kind of person.

!

MODNOTE Newstein, you have been previously warned for derailing threads accusing others of masonic conspiracies and satanism here. You have returned from your last suspension and commenced doing the same again. This: IN YOUR ASS SATANLOVERS! Another one. More of the same and a personal attack to round it off: You are the biggest ignorant freemason of all your buddies here. There are more examples but this is already too many. As this will be your 4th active warning you are suspended for 1 month. Please do not comment on this moderation in the thread as it may be considered off topic and removed without notice.

[proudfootz]

Re 1*
You are forgetting an important issue with almost anything:
Yer always smarter afterwards.

Apart from that: a few columns and a few floor trusses?
That must be the most understating assesment of what the planes did to the buildings we have seen in the entire thread.

Any idea how many of the 280+ columns were cut by the jetliner impacts? Versus how many weren't hit?

[NuclMan]

Re 1*
You are forgetting an important issue with almost anything:
Yer always smarter afterwards.

Apart from that: a few columns and a few floor trusses?
That must be the most understating assesment of what the planes did to the buildings we have seen in the entire thread.

Any idea how many of the 280+ columns were cut by the jetliner impacts? Versus how many weren't hit?

Enough to compromise the structure vs. not enough to maintain support?

[proudfootz]

"THE FIRST DESIGN MEETING OF THE NEW WTC7 ON APRIL 2000"

Yes, very interesting that Silverstein was planning on demolishing WTC 7 to put up a new skyscraper on the spot.

He gives the date for this design meeting at about the 30 second mark.

Lucky coincidence that not only was the old building removed, but insurance helped finance the new one.

[proudfootz]

Re 1*
You are forgetting an important issue with almost anything:
Yer always smarter afterwards.

Apart from that: a few columns and a few floor trusses?
That must be the most understating assesment of what the planes did to the buildings we have seen in the entire thread.

Any idea how many of the 280+ columns were cut by the jetliner impacts? Versus how many weren't hit?

Enough to compromise the structure vs. not enough to maintain support?

Just like the One Hoss Shay.

[felltoearth]

"THE FIRST DESIGN MEETING OF THE NEW WTC7 ON APRIL 2000"

Yes, very interesting that Silverstein was planning on demolishing WTC 7 to put up a new skyscraper on the spot.

He gives the date for this design meeting at about the 30 second mark.

Lucky coincidence that not only was the old building removed, but insurance helped finance the new one.

57 states anyone?

Pure BS. Like no one has ever mentioned the wrong date in a speech. That's pure tinfoil hat material.

[proudfootz]

"THE FIRST DESIGN MEETING OF THE NEW WTC7 ON APRIL 2000"

Yes, very interesting that Silverstein was planning on demolishing WTC 7 to put up a new skyscraper on the spot.

He gives the date for this design meeting at about the 30 second mark.

Lucky coincidence that not only was the old building removed, but insurance helped finance the new one.

57 states anyone?

Pure BS. Like no one has ever mentioned the wrong date in a speech. That's pure tinfoil hat material.

[Agi Hammerthief]

Re 1*
You are forgetting an important issue with almost anything:
Yer always smarter afterwards.

Apart from that: a few columns and a few floor trusses?
That must be the most understating assesment of what the planes did to the buildings we have seen in the entire thread.

Any idea how many of the 280+ columns were cut by the jetliner impacts? Versus how many weren't hit?

WTC1:
Of the outer columns of the impact side 10 of 15 sections where observed to be completely severed, about 1/15th damaged.
NIST NCSTAR 1-2, WTC Investigation Page 181 Figure (a)

the observed damage was used to verify the Finite Element Calculation, the damage to the Core Columns and floor trusses is on the following pages. Feel free to count yourselves.

[felltoearth]

Good response.

What's more likely, that a septuagenarian octogenarian got a date wrong in a one and a half hour speech or that he intentionally blew up his own building so he can collect insurance, lose rent in the meantime and rebuild.

Solid plan that second one.

It's like you don't even give the thirty seconds it takes to think through the stupid illogic of these posts.

Edit : Larry's age

[felltoearth]

My favouite part of the genious behind those figuring out the conspiracy is that apparently Silverstein had the brilliance to pull of the destruction of multiple buildings in plain site of the world, but couldn't put together a legal team to make sure the insurance coverage for such and event was rock solid.

Following the September 11, 2001, attacks, Silverstein sought to collect double the face amount (~$7.1 billion) on the basis that the two separate airplane strikes into two separate buildings constituted two occurrences within the meaning of the policies. The insurance companies took the opposite view, and the matter went to court. Based on differences in the definition of "occurrence" (the insurance policy term governing the amount of insurance) and uncertainties over which definition of "occurrence" applied, the court split the insurers into two groups for jury trials on the question of which definition of "occurrence" applied and whether the insurance contracts were subject to the "one occurrence" interpretation or the "two occurrence" interpretation.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_S ... ce_dispute