You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →


[–] SuperConductiveRabbi 17 points 8 points (+25|-17) ago 

It was hit by debris and was engulfed in flames for hours. An entire face of the building was missing. (Which, by the way, destroys the theory that the WTC "collapsed in on itself." Massive debris were thrown everywhere by both the collisions and collapses.)

[–] [deleted] 1 points 5 points (+6|-1) ago 



[–] SuperConductiveRabbi 4 points 10 points (+14|-4) ago  (edited ago)

People claim there was no damage to WTC 7. This is trivial to disprove;

They then move the goal posts and say that there was no significant damage to WTC 7. This is again trivial to disprove:

Captain Chris Boyle Engine 94 - 18 years

Boyle: ...on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?

Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.

They then say that witness testimony isn't reliable. But they then use witness reports to claim that people were observed doing something in WTC 7, which they conclude means that demolition charges were being installed, despite no one having actually seen this. But the direct testimony of a firefighter about what he actually saw somehow isn't good enough to describe a giant fucking hole in the burning building.

And they knew it was going to collapse (or did these firefighters have foreknowledge that the charges would be detonated?)

...Captain Varriale told Chief Coloe and myself that 7 World Trade Center was badly damaged on the south side and definitely in danger of collapse. Chief Coloe said we were going to evacuate the collapse zone around 7 World Trade Center, which we did.

And here's a photo of the entire southern face of WTC 7 on fire:

The problem with 9/11 truthers is that they continually change the standards of evidence to protect their preconceived conclusions. Witness testimony becomes gospel when it supports their theory, and suddenly it's inadmissible when it disputes them. Photos that clearly demonstrate something are dismissed and ignored, but grainy pixels in a single image become the linchpin of entire alternate hypotheses, the staggering implausibilities of which are never volunteered by the people who defend them.


[–] UlyssesEMcGill 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 

entire face of the building was missing




[–] SuperConductiveRabbi 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago 


[–] dkyuss 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago

A fire did this? Even if severely damage from debris from the towers falling on it, I dont believe it.


[–] UlyssesEMcGill 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago  (edited ago)

Why not edit this false comment instead of linking me to another comment saying it's false.

Do you get a citation if you edit too many comments?

Edit: italicized word added


[–] SuperConductiveRabbi 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Because I'm not going to waste any more time than I feel is necessary to address a retard like yourself. If can't bother to read the fucking thread before replying then don't get upset when someone links you to an existing comment that already covers what you're whining about.

Edit: Leave this thread to the adults.