The building collapse is first seen through the collapse of the East Penthouse, falling into the building. When would you start the clock?
I'd start it from roughly the time it actually started collapsing. Don't you think you're nitpicking a bit here?
Really? So let's say you ran a 100 yard race and I timed you. You walked the first 50 yards and ran the other 50 yards. Are you saying I can say you ran the "ENTIRE" race in the time it took you for the 50 yards you ran only?! What kind of crap are you pulling here?
It started collapsing when the east penthouse collapsed! Otherwise it's not the "ENTIRE" building you're talking about is it? The lengths you folks go to to try and rationalize something that supports your claims is astounding. It truly is.
I guess you're ok with paying someone to wash your car and they only wash 1/3 of it. Or buying a dozen eggs and getting 9. It's nitpicking right?
Perhaps ... I personally think the building began its collapse when the building shifted and started leaning: mid-afternoon. At that point, even according to the fire fighters on the scene, collapse was inevitable.
If the subject is what it would take to discredit Gage, we don't need to go that far. Promoting Steven Jones fraudulent peer reviewed paper on the AE truth website does the trick.
Why weren't any news purveyors mentioning this, and had their cameras trained on building 7, if this was so obvious and understood to be occurring? Seems to me somebody would have have their attention focused on that, or at least mentioned somewhere along the way, had that been the case.
false....the towers were not totally destroyed if that were true then there would be no evidence except for some ashes.. another thing, steel framed does not mean impervious. what you guys seem to forget the towers like all building are mostly empty space.. 7 was not completely destroyed by fire... - - - Updated - - -
Would anybody that finds fault with the 'official' version of events be automatically discredited? Would they automatically be liars, wrong or otherwise misinformed?
They did. Reports came in all afternoon that the FDNY had evacuated the building and cleared the area around it. [video=youtube_share;N1LetB0z8_o]http://youtu.be/N1LetB0z8_o[/video]
that's an irrelevant statement..truthers have yet to provided any objective or substantial evidence. if and when they /you do,....
If I recall correctly, after the planes hit, the entire area was being treated like the dangerous disaster zone it was. No one knew what was going to happen, or what would fall next, and so it's understandable the media wouldn't be in the center of the WTC complex getting underfoot of emergency response. Also, there were clouds of dust obscuring visibility. Expecting them to be focused on every little detail in that situation is ridiculous. Honestly, you're reaching for straws here.
there are lots of faults with the official report.....that's no evidence of a conspiracy, just a lack of attention to detail .
I'd argue that evidence that would/could prove it, has been either confiscated, destroyed, ignored, or purposefully omitted. (ie evidence flight 93 being buried, the Pentagon cameras, the conversations by the FAA about flight 77 landing, and on and on). I'd also argue that our grand leaders certainly haven't presented the evidence needed to verify their (ridiculous) version of events.
When the person is a trained profession or scientist, and they push what is recognized in the scientific community as fraud, they would be liars. You're welcome.
There are faults with NIST's accounting of the event, faults with eyewitness testimony that was ignored, faults with timelines, and a whole host of other issues too. I don't think I'd categorize them all as a mere 'lack of detail'. The evidence would stand on its own, if it were the actual evidence.
I see. So, someone robs my home, all my stuff is missing, but they've fled, and I can't prove who did it, or even how they did it so, it didn't happen? We can't 'prove' the official version of events either. That's my point.
false comparison.. the "official version" has for the most part been proven. Unlike, say the no planes and space beams "theories" btw who's the (*)(*)(*)(*) is we?
Thank you. That pretty much kills the whole official version. - - - Updated - - - Well, clearly it's dead, to you.
"For the most part"? I'll have to remember that next time I rob a bank and tell of my whereabouts prior to the robbery. Hey, 'for the most part', I was home. Never mind those messy particulars about me not being able to show that I was actually at home. Yes, that ought to work out just dandy. - - - Updated - - - This is where we digress into ridicule, no doubt.
