ANZACs and war and stuff

**Katman** · 30th May 2013, 09:42

Originally Posted by oneofsix

The Conspiracy theory mentions the fire service not actively fighting the fires and then extends this to mean there were no fire personal to be pulled out of the building therefore the fire chief's comment about pulling it must mean demolition

not actively fighting the fires because there is no water due to building 1 & 2 taking out the supply doesn't mean fire people weren't there trying to rescue people etc.

There are accounts from firefighters at the scene stating that the fires were virtually under control and expressing disbelief that the building actually collapsed.

**oneofsix** · 30th May 2013, 10:24

Originally Posted by Katman

Can you put up any photos of the building with "10 floors missing"?

gave the link pages ago

**Katman** · 30th May 2013, 10:27

Originally Posted by oneofsix

gave the link pages ago

I only remember you putting up a video that showed black smoke coming from the building - that obscured any view of the damage to the building.

**oneofsix** · 30th May 2013, 10:32

Originally Posted by Katman

I only remember you putting up a video that showed black smoke coming from the building - that obscured any view of the damage to the building.

at the time you complained about the lack of visible flame which was answered by (I think) Mashman but it was pretty obvious that there was a big hole in the side of the building and the text pointed out the rubble from building 1 laying in a direct line to building 7

But here is a question; you have been given a viable explanation for the collapse of Building 7, the media love to expose the Govt. in cover-ups, aka Watergate, Bill Clinton and Sex gate, the excuses for the Iraq war, etc and you still choose to believe that the collapse of building 7 was a Govt conspiracy even though it didn't pay a part in the declaration of the "War on Terror", why?

**Katman** · 30th May 2013, 10:39

Originally Posted by oneofsix

at the time you complained about the lack of visible flame which was answered by (I think) Mashman but it was pretty obvious that there was a big hole in the side of the building and the text pointed out the rubble from building 1 laying in a direct line to building 7

It has been pointed out that black smoke is indicative of an oxygen starved fire - i.e. one that's not burning particularly hotly.

I also pointed out that black smoke could just as easily be from the burning of plastic items - i.e. lots of smoke from very little fire.

No-one's denying that the building suffered impact damage from the collapse of the tower. It is extremely unlikely though that it suffered sufficient damage to cause it to collapse.

**Katman** · 30th May 2013, 10:43

Originally Posted by oneofsix

But here is a question; you have been given a viable explanation for the collapse of Building 7, the media love to expose the Govt. in cover-ups, aka Watergate, Bill Clinton and Sex gate, the excuses for the Iraq war, etc and you still choose to believe that the collapse of building 7 was a Govt conspiracy even though it didn't pay a part in the declaration of the "War on Terror", why?

Of course it had a part to play. It was a significant event on the day of 9/11.

Can you not understand that if there is serious doubt as to the veracity of the story we are being fed about Building 7 then it calls into question what we are being told about the entire events of that day?

**oneofsix** · 30th May 2013, 10:55

Originally Posted by Katman

Of course it had a part to play. It was a significant event on the day of 9/11.

Can you not understand that if there is serious doubt as to the veracity of the story we are being fed about Building 7 then it calls into question what we are being told about the entire events of that day?

If there was serious doubt but there isn't and even if there was it could have been just limited to Building 7 but your point is an example of type conspiracy speak. You star t with an "if" and end with a factual type statement instead of the conditional style, now a good conspiracy would then have a second factual statement based on the premise the statement in the first sentence is a fact instead of a conditional if. IF there is serious doubt it COULD call into question.

Why do you say it is extremely unlikely WTC 7 suffer significant damage from WTC 1's collapse? Because it hasn't happened before? because a couple Govt servants that never expected to be involved in investigating what could have been an act of war were caught out by a hastily prepared draft of a report? Because of some video showing 1.25 seconds of freefall in a 5.9 second collapse from behind the backside of a wall? or because it isn't as much fun to say the govt story is more likely than the conspiracy?

**Katman** · 30th May 2013, 11:04

Originally Posted by oneofsix

If there was serious doubt but there isn't and even if there was it could have been just limited to Building 7 but your point is an example of type conspiracy speak. You star t with an "if" and end with a factual type statement instead of the conditional style, now a good conspiracy would then have a second factual statement based on the premise the statement in the first sentence is a fact instead of a conditional if. IF there is serious doubt it COULD call into question.

No, if there was serious doubt it would therefore call into question.....

There is most certainly serious doubt surrounding the story we're being told (by a government agency) regarding the collapse of Building 7.

**scumdog** · 30th May 2013, 11:05

I see this has dropped down to a five person thread

...

**Katman** · 30th May 2013, 11:12

Originally Posted by oneofsix

Why do you say it is extremely unlikely WTC 7 suffer significant damage from WTC 1's collapse? Because it hasn't happened before? because a couple Govt servants that never expected to be involved in investigating what could have been an act of war were caught out by a hastily prepared draft of a report?

Hastily prepared?

It took them 3 years to release the draft report.

**oneofsix** · 30th May 2013, 11:12

Originally Posted by Katman

No, if there was serious doubt it would therefore call into question.....

There is most certainly serious doubt surrounding the story we're being told (by a government agency) regarding the collapse of Building 7.

Nope If & could. If there was doubt over 7 it still doesn't necessarily follow that no planes crashed into 1 & 2 however it could mean there was something in 7 that someone wanted to hide or for some reason wanted 7 gone so it is still a could. Even then you have the issue of "serious doubt", so far it has been amusing at best.

**oneofsix** · 30th May 2013, 11:15

Originally Posted by Katman

Hastily prepared?

It took them 3 years to release the draft report.

You don't work for the government. Bet it took a few weeks to prepare after much fucking around with terms of reference, dept. responsibilities etc. This wasn't a type of report anyone in the USA ever expected to have to prepare, a possible act of war in their borders.

**Katman** · 30th May 2013, 11:16

Originally Posted by oneofsix

....however it could mean there was something in 7 that someone wanted to hide or for some reason wanted 7 gone so it is still a could.

See, now you're getting somewhere.

If "there was something in 7 that someone wanted to hide or for some reason wanted 7 gone" then it would be a clear indication that someone had advance warning of the attack.