Fire Consumes WTC 7-Size Skyscraper, Building Does Not Collapse: Alex Jones

Sofa_King Good

Diogenes wrote: »

Not to be fair,

I would expext no less

Diogenes wrote: »

but the same sources

which sources?

Diogenes wrote: »

have been claiming since 9/11 that there were for example, a nuclear false flag terror attack would occur since 911, that Osama Bin Laden would be found just before the 2004 elections, and a false flag terrorist attack would be used as justification for the declaration of martial law and preventing Obama being sworn into office.

Sound tro me like you need new sources.

Diogenes

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

I would expext no less which sources?

Alex Jones for a start.

Sound tro me like you need new sources.

I'm not the one swallowing this guff.

Penn

sorry Sofa King, but you didnt give sources for your claim either.

Sounds to me like you need new sources

Sofa_King Good

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

Can I just say, I love 9/11 conspiracy theorists.

Theorists: WE DEMAND THE GOVERNMENT TELLS US WHAT REALLY HAPPENED!

Government: 9/11 was not planned by us.

Theorists: YOU'RE LYING!

Or,

(same) Government: We must illegaly invade Iraq and massacre a million people. They Have WMD

Theorists: Your LYING!
Government: But Al Qaeda are there!
Theorists: YoOUR LYING etc

Sofa_King Good

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

sorry Sofa King, but you didnt give sources for your claim either.

Sounds to me like you need new sources

Google Bill Cooper audio: predicts 9/11 or something to that effect.


edit: Who was sadly killed in Oct 2001. SO he hasn't been predicting much since

Sofa_King Good

Diogenes wrote: »

Alex Jones for a start.






I'm not the one swallowing this guff.

I am no fan of Alex Jones, but by your reasoning somebody being wrong once, or more than once has a 0% chance of bucking the trrend.

mysterious

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

But you're not listening to what I'm saying, it is not the first steel frame building to have fallen due to fire damage. Steel frames in a building like that would be protected with fireproofing measures such as being incased in concrete, intumescent paint, fire-resistant plasterboard etc, designed to keep the fire away from the steel long enough for evacuation and for emergency responses to extinguish the fire. But the steel became exposed when the rubble from the North tower hit it. It damaged a lot of the steel structure. The rest of the steel in that area which was hit was then weakened by the fire due to the fireproofing methods being damaged and exposing the steel.

Your either watching to much television, have to much time on your hands, or your getting paid by the government to write such nonsense. Write a longer paragraph on how the building fell. ffs

It won't change the fact what actually happened to WT7. There were no investigation in it.


WHY. wake up and smell the coffee.(god this is beyond retarded, why do some human beings seem to replicate the bull**** are leaders feed us) I'm actually not surprised the government were confident enough to pull this off when we STILL get nonsense such as above.

And the building didnt collapse in 9 seconds. Its inconclusive how long it took it to collapse due to the amount of dust and debris. Although EXPERTS say it took approximately 14 seconds.

It collapsed in 9 seconds....

What experts, you mean CIA puppets telling fox news, so people LIKE YOU to hear it, only to repeat this bull**** to me.

And as for it being the only building to have collapsed, as I said, the buildings closer were hit from above, as these buildings were not quite as tall, also taking into account the direction of collapse (another thing which proves it wasnt a controlled demolition), while WTC7 was hit at the side. I don't know how much you know about structural steel design, but if you did know even a little you would know that this is very significant.

Proved to what, you gave no sources no evidence, just your goofy opinion again " I love my leaders waving my flag for you government" bangwagon.

It was hit on a corner and the damage didnt affect the steel columms. The two adjacent building had simalar damage to WT7, are still standing today.

Don't give me this crap please.

Please mysterious, I am an actual structural steel designer. While I don't design skyscrapers or stuff like that, I do know that there is a hell of a lot more evidence to support my clams than yours.

Yeah sure. I'm a human being who is aware of things your not.

And stop calling us 'sheep'. Because in all honesty, I think you've been brainwashed by the Loose Change films. And they're baaaad

I haven't watched loose change. Again proves how ignorant you are:rolleyes:

I don't watch T.V. It's bad for your brain. Let me guess are you American?

Penn

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

Google Bill Cooper audio: predicts 9/11 or something to that effect.


edit: Who was sadly killed in Oct 2001. SO he hasn't been predicting much since

"If these acts of terror do not succeed there will be more bombings, chemical, or biological attacks. They will escalate in the destruction, maiming and killing of men women and especially children. More shootings at shopping centers, restaurants, and schools will occur. As a last resort, if all else fails, the Illuminati are prepared to detonate an atomic weapon in a large American city such as New York, Chicago, or Los Angeles." - Bill Cooper

Also notice how he says Illuminati - atomic bomb - large American city. Ok, I'll make a prediction that has as much relevance as Bill Coopers:

"Something will happen somewhere at some time" - paddyirishman85

Penn

mysterious wrote: »

Your either watching to much television, have to much time on your hands, or your getting paid by the government to write such nonsense. Write a longer paragraph on how the building fell. ffs

It won't change the fact what actually happened to WT7. There were no investigation in it.


WHY. wake up and smell the coffee.(god this is beyond retarded, why do some human beings seem to replicate the bull**** are leaders feed us) I'm actually not surprised the government were confident enough to pull this off when we STILL get nonsense such as above.

It collapsed in 9 seconds....

What experts, you mean CIA puppets telling fox news, so people LIKE YOU to hear it, only to repeat this bull**** to me.

Proved to what, you gave no sources no evidence, just your goofy opinion again " I love my leaders waving my flag for you government" bangwagon.

It was hit on a corner and the damage didnt affect the steel columms. The two adjacent building had simalar damage to WT7, are still standing today.

Don't give me this crap please.


Yeah sure. I'm a human being who is aware of things your not.



I haven't watched loose change. Again proves how ignorant you are:rolleyes:

I don't watch T.V. It's bad for your brain. Let me guess are you American?

I'm not going to lie to you mysterious. I think I love you

mysterious

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

Seriously, people have been coming up with conspiracy theories about 9/11 since 9/11. But if you just look at the facts, and not stuff like Quote 4 in your list, you'll see there is no conspiracy. Unless Bin Laden was on a grassy knoll with remote controls for the planes or something

I don't pay attention to other conspiracy. I just look at the facts, evidence, agendas, history and who and what is involved.

Tell me about Bin laden
Tell me what you know about him. I'm smart enough to know, you will only repeat what the T.V told you. Guess you havent a leg to stand on.

Osama didnt attack on 9/11.
Government didnt bother with him. As if you did turn off your T.V and start asking questions, asking certain people and looking for the right info.


You'd actually know what Osama bin Laden is:p
But you wouldnt be even able to disect the reality in the above line. As your so twisted by the western media already. Proof is, you spew it repetitively as how the media protray the events. Little do you know that the media only show and tell you what they want you too see. That is why there is no logic or answers to 9/11 to this day.

Find out info about Osama and don't repeat the nonsense you did about him as you did above. He isnt some bad guy trying to take out America. Thats if you actually had access to the right info:D

Diogenes

mysterious wrote: »

Your either watching to much television, have to much time on your hands, or your getting paid by the government to write such nonsense. Write a longer paragraph on how the building fell. ffs

Ah you're either stupid or paid to disagree with me. You must have a high opinion of yourself to think that there are people being paid to disagree with you.

It won't change the fact what actually happened to WT7. There were no investigation in it.

Ahem You mean you haven't read the extensive NIST report detailing the collapse of WTC 7.

It collapsed in 9 seconds....

No. No it didn't. Just because you repeat something over and over again doesn't make it true.

What experts, you mean CIA puppets telling fox news, so people LIKE YOU to hear it, only to repeat this bull**** to me.

Gosh you are an angry man.

It was hit on a corner and the damage didnt affect the steel columms. The two adjacent building had simalar damage to WT7, are still standing today.

While several other building in the area received massive structural damage and later need to be pulled down. I guess this mean that your point is well moot.

Yeah sure. I'm a human being who is aware of things your not.

Well I can't be certain Paddy Irish Man is a structural engineer. I do know however he's capable of something you're not, putting forward a civilised argument.

I'm also pretty sure that your status as a bipedal mammal of the homo sapiens species affords you any special status or knowledge about building collapse or structural design.

I haven't watched loose change. Again proves how ignorant you are:rolleyes:

You're repeating the same lies spouted by the loose change "filmakers" it's a fair assumption.

I don't watch T.V. It's bad for your brain. Let me guess are you American?

What the name paddy Irish Man confused you?

mysterious

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

"If these acts of terror do not succeed there will be more bombings, chemical, or biological attacks. They will escalate in the destruction, maiming and killing of men women and especially children. More shootings at shopping centers, restaurants, and schools will occur. As a last resort, if all else fails, the Illuminati are prepared to detonate an atomic weapon in a large American city such as New York, Chicago, or Los Angeles." - Bill Cooper

Also notice how he says Illuminati - atomic bomb - large American city. Ok, I'll make a prediction that has as much relevance as Bill Coopers:

"Something will happen somewhere at some time" - paddyirishman85

Firt result cause a global terrorist attack. 9/11 perfect place.

When the government succeeded in the 9/11 job. It was successful. Country under terror alert.

I mean 7 years later and people still living in fantasy "oh the government loves you sheeple" Sure it worked.

After the first result, They called for a " world on terror" was reaction, fear, and rage throughout the country. The government next goal was to incite more fear and terror into their own nation. Enough fear to get them into all these organised illegal wars.

It was all step by step. 3,000 American's sacrifised to secure the trillion dollar oil industry, by keeping the dollar in exchanging the oil in Opec.
Since they got rid of Saddam they now have a pernament base in the ME under their arm. The proof is, they are building US millitary bases everywhere and wiping out a large chunk of the population. It is also helping the US to have more control in the ME, since Russia and China now have alliances there, I.e such as Iran. Iran is a democratic soiety and is fairly peaceful. The present leader was elected democratically. Iran is one of the biggest oil producing countries in the world. In 2006 they also threatened to dump the dollar. It then so happens that USA feel they are a threat to the world now.:rolleyes: What happened in Iraq, is going to be the same in Iran. But the difference here it will cause a global WW3, as China and Russia get their oil from Iran.

The Conclusion to my post is. Rome is falling and it's falling fast. The leader's of America need their own people into fear/terror/fight mode, in order to gain control over the masses and fight these neo con wars, all for domination and greed.

America is falling, and the illuminati are going to have to deal with that fact. It's why I feel I'm smarter like along with other's. History repeat, so stop forcing it.

BTW. The 3,000 dead in 9/11 is nothing to what is been planned or what was thought of. Get to know that people ffs. The US government are keeping their interest in making sure America is a global superpower for as long as it can. They don't care about simpletons. This war, 9/11, Iraq, ME, oil is about securing US of A power on the map.

Penn

mysterious wrote: »

I don't pay attention to other conspiracy. I just look at the facts, evidence, agendas, history and who and what is involved.

Tell me about Bin laden
Tell me what you know about him. I'm smart enough to know, you will only repeat what the T.V told you. Guess you havent a leg to stand on.

Osama didnt attack on 9/11.
Government didnt bother with him. As if you did turn off your T.V and start asking questions, asking certain people and looking for the right info.


You'd actually know what Osama bin Laden is:p
But you wouldnt be even able to disect the reality in the above line. As your so twisted by the western media already. Proof is, you spew it repetitively as how the media protray the events. Little do you know that the media only show and tell you what they want you too see. That is why there is no logic or answers to 9/11 to this day.

Find out info about Osama and don't repeat the nonsense you did about him as you did above. He isnt some bad guy trying to take out America. Thats if you actually had access to the right info:D

I'm pretty sure that in all of my posts, I never once mentioned Osama Bin Laden. You're right. I barely know anything about him. I met him once, but it was Halloween so I'm not 100% sure it was really him. I'm not claiming Bin Laden was behind it. I'm not claiming he wasn't. I don't know. I'm just talking about stuff I know. I know about engineering. I know about structural steel. I know about fire resistance methods for structural steel.

I don't give a damn about the American Government. Again, I don't know enough about that subject. But a lot of what you say is speculation and has no proof whatsoever. You say some CIA guy was lying. How do you know?

This is my point about 9/11 theories. You claim to want the truth. Yet when anyone says something to disagree with you, they're lying. They work for the government. They received some of the gold from under WTC7 cleverly disguised as a birthday card.

And no, I'm not american. My username is paddyirishman85. Clue is in the name

Penn

mysterious wrote: »

Firt result cause a global terrorist attack. 9/11 perfect place.

When the government succeeded in the 9/11 job. It was successful. Country under terror alert.

I mean 7 years later and people still living in fantasy "oh the government loves you sheeple" Sure it worked.

After the first result, They called for a " world on terror" was reaction, fear, and rage throughout the country. The government next goal was to incite more fear and terror into their own nation. Enough fear to get them into all these organised illegal wars.

It was all step by step. 3,000 American's sacrifised to secure the trillion dollar oil industry, by keeping the dollar in exchanging the oil in Opec.
Since they got rid of Saddam they now have a pernament base in the ME under their arm. The proof is, they are building US millitary bases everywhere and wiping out a large chunk of the population. It is also helping the US to have more control in the ME, since Russia and China now have alliances there, I.e such as Iran. Iran is a democratic soiety and is fairly peaceful. The present leader was elected democratically. Iran is one of the biggest oil producing countries in the world. In 2006 they also threatened to dump the dollar. It then so happens that USA feel they are a threat to the world now.:rolleyes: What happened in Iraq, is going to be the same in Iran. But the difference here it will cause a global WW3, as China and Russia get their oil from Iran.

The Conclusion to my post is. Rome is falling and it's falling fast. The leader's of America need their own people into fear/terror/fight mode, in order to gain control over the masses and fight these neo con wars, all for domination and greed.

America is falling, and the illuminati are going to have to deal with that fact. It's why I feel I'm smarter like along with other's. History repeat, so stop forcing it.

BTW. The 3,000 dead in 9/11 is nothing to what is been planned or what was thought of. Get to know that people ffs. The US government are keeping their interest in making sure America is a global superpower for as long as it can. They don't care about simpletons. This war, 9/11, Iraq, ME, oil is about securing US of A power on the map.

Oh my God, Mysterious is right!! How could I have possibly not believed him with such undisputable evidence such as that?

Diogenes

mysterious wrote: »

I
Tell me about Bin laden
Tell me what you know about him. I'm smart enough to know, you will only repeat what the T.V told you. Guess you havent a leg to stand on.

He's a left handed Wahhabi Muslim. His father was born in Yemen, and was a self made millionaire, in the construction industry, making his fortune through close ties to the Saudi royal family during the boom years of the 60s and 70s. Bin laden is college educated, although it's unclear to what level and what he specialised in. He has at least three wives, and has fathered anything between 12 and 27 children. Radicalised by the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, he travelled there, although on his first trips he mainly used his wealth to provide logistical support, as well as to bring aid/pay the families of traveling Jihadists. Al Qaeda was formed in the late 1988 (although it should be pointed out that it's never been formally called Al Qaeda, that term was used by the FBI in order to use anti mafia laws against organised Muslim Terrorists) anyway Al Qaeda was formed over a split in the operational planning of the Afghan resistance.

How's that for a start.

Osama didnt attack on 9/11.
Government didnt bother with him. As if you did turn off your T.V and start asking questions, asking certain people and looking for the right info.

No Osama didn't attack on 9/11. 19 Fundamentalist Muslim terrorists attacked on 911 in a plan devised by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Osama's right hand man.

You'd actually know what Osama bin Laden is:p
But you wouldnt be even able to disect the reality in the above line. As your so twisted by the western media already. Proof is, you spew it repetitively as how the media protray the events. Little do you know that the media only show and tell you what they want you too see. That is why there is no logic or answers to 9/11 to this day.

Pray tell what is your source for this unvarnished true, tell us so we may drink from this well spring of true knowledge.

Find out info about Osama and don't repeat the nonsense you did about him as you did above. He isnt some bad guy trying to take out America. Thats if you actually had access to the right info:D

So oh mysterious one, could you please tell us who the real Osama Bin Laden is?

mysterious

Diogenes wrote: »

Ah you're either stupid or paid to disagree with me. You must have a high opinion of yourself to think that there are people being paid to disagree with you.

Well WT7, demolition from a naked eye. You are either getting paid not to see that, or your just covering your eyes.

Ahem You mean you haven't read the extensive NIST report detailing the collapse of WTC 7.

But why was the rubble removed before any of the real investigations were made.

No. No it didn't. Just because you repeat something over and over again doesn't make it true.

So fire made it come down how many seconds.

While several other building in the area received massive structural damage and later need to be pulled down. I guess this mean that your point is well moot.

Your are so wrong.
I'm talking about the A-D-J-A-C-E-N-T building's which I clearly pointed out to you, if you had read it properly. Okay I will repeat it. The buildings on either side of WT7. Like right beside it. the building on the left had the same if not more structural damage to the corner of that building. As both corners are beside each other.

The structural damage is minumal and NOT enough to take a building down. The other buildings are still in use and the damage was easily repairable.


WT7 is not in the block of the WTC, get to know that.

Well I can't be certain Paddy Irish Man is a structural engineer. I do know however he's capable of something you're not, putting forward a civilised argument.

I'm doing pretty ok.
I'm constantly been labelled, a theorists, a liar, labelled and been accussed of watching stupid programmes of loose change.

I haven't seen any of your sources and proof to back this up.

I'm also pretty sure that your status as a bipedal mammal of the homo sapiens species affords you any special status or knowledge about building collapse or structural design.

Not only are uncivilized, but your even hypocritical and insulting here.

Lay off the personal insult.

You're repeating the same lies spouted by the loose change "filmakers" it's a fair assumption.

No I'm not.:)

I'm showing and repeating reality.

Sofa_King Good

Diogenes wrote: »

Well I can't be certain Paddy Irish Man is a structural engineer. I do know however he's capable of something you're not, putting forward a civilised argument.
Irish Man confused you?

I'd disagree.

Personally I found these comments pointless and patronising.

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

I'm not going to lie to you mysterious. I think I love you
I'll make a prediction that has as much relevance as Bill Coopers:

Something will happen somewhere at some time; - paddyirishman85

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

Can I just say, I love 9/11 conspiracy theorists.

Theorists: WE DEMAND THE GOVERNMENT TELLS US WHAT REALLY HAPPENED!

Government: 9/11 was not planned by us.

Theorists: YOU'RE LYING!

mysterious

Diogenes wrote: »

He's a left handed Wahhabi Muslim. His father was born in Yemen, and was a self made millionaire, in the construction industry, making his fortune through close ties to the Saudi royal family during the boom years of the 60s and 70s. Bin laden is college educated, although it's unclear to what level and what he specialised in. He has at least three wives, and has fathered anything between 12 and 27 children. Radicalised by the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, he travelled there, although on his first trips he mainly used his wealth to provide logistical support, as well as to bring aid/pay the families of traveling Jihadists. Al Qaeda was formed in the late 1988 (although it should be pointed out that it's never been formally called Al Qaeda, that term was used by the FBI in order to use anti mafia laws against organised Muslim Terrorists) anyway Al Qaeda was formed over a split in the operational planning of the Afghan resistance.

Funny you never said CIA. hhhmm.

Where is your source, I could swear I could have heard this really general soap type info about a so called "terrorist" on fox news before:rolleyes:

I think your focused again on what the media says. I'm afraid I can't help someone who has fallen into that box.

How's that for a start.

Generic would be the word. The dumb stuff we are told to believe I'm afraid. But you go ahead and beleive what you want:D

No Osama didn't attack on 9/11. 19 Fundamentalist Muslim terrorists attacked on 911 in a plan devised by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Osama's right hand man.

Oh yes the 19 penciled drawn pictures:D

Give me a break.

And who said the plan was devided by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, The news for the sheeple again?

Pray tell what is your source for this unvarnished true, tell us so we may drink from this well spring of true knowledge.

I'm drinking water now.

So oh mysterious one, could you please tell us who the real Osama Bin Laden is?

If I told you, would you beleive it.

toiletduck

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

"Something will happen somewhere at some time" - paddyirishman85

:eek: Hey wait a minute, you're plagiarising this thread!

mysterious wrote:

Well WT7, demolition from a naked eye.

So that's your main argument, it looked like a demo job to the untrained eye?

Penn

mysterious wrote: »

I was in New york. Infact the closest towers that were damaged still withstood the WTC collaspse. Infact alot of building's were damaged, some damaged so much they were knocked a few weeks after.

Also Sofa King, yes, in retrospect, my comments may have been patronising and for that I apologise. I was merely trying to lighten the mood a little. No offence was intended by those comments.

But mysterious calling my posts ignorant, my views retarded, and complaining when I write in detail about structural elements which prove my point is far worse in my opinion.

GreeBo

mysterious wrote: »

4.
But, despite the difficulties confronting the perpetrators, the bottom line was that Building 7 had to go. If WTC 7 was indeed an operations and control center for this sprawling conspiracy, it was, essentially, a crime scene that needed to be destroyed. It was also the only WTC building left standing, making the plan to level the entire complex incomplete. This theory is supported by the fact that, throughout the day, absolutely no effort was made to save this extremely sensitive and valuable building (one that housed several key governmental and intelligence agencies) that was being threatened by only modest fires. This is all the more baffling when you consider that WTC 7 must have had a built in fire suppression system of some kind as well, one that presumably would have made short work of such a marginal threat.

Surely if they were able to secretly plan all this for years in the building (what with being the shadow government 'n all) they would be equally able to remove any incriminating evidence in a slightly less noticeable fashion than blowing up said building?

Also, I have some magic beans for sale if you are interested?
If it helps I can make some movies and some pathetically immature fora with tales of the magical powers and growing prowess? I could sell them and solve world hunger but the man wont let me.

mysterious

So that's your main argument, it looked like a demo job to the untrained eye?

A plane didnt hit the building. Most buiding's are designed to withstand plane crashes. Nothing hit the building. Little structural damage was caused due to falling rubble.

Btw WT7 was not severely structurally damaged. Again that is the deception the government want you to believe. But it is not in the block of the WTC towers. There is also another building and a road between the North tower and WT7. The left adjacent building is slighty closer to the North tower but yet still standing.

It has been proven time and time again, that no building was ever knocked due to fire damage. The structural damage was ruled out to be the cause yonks ago. If that was the case the two adjacent buildings deserved the same faith.

It's all in plain view.

mysterious

GreeBo wrote: »

Surely if they were able to secretly plan all this for years in the building (what with being the shadow government 'n all) they would be equally able to remove any incriminating evidence in a slightly less noticeable fashion than blowing up said building?

They did, by taking all the rubble and steel before they could do anything.

It's not a crime scene anymore.

Anyway I don't think anyone is willing to believe in the obvious. I'm in the position to say, the government don't need top secret planning. We are the sheeple. Easily fool the sheeple.

I mean it worked didnt it.

Also, I have some magic beans for sale if you are interested?
If it helps I can make some movies and some pathetically immature fora with tales of the magical powers and growing prowess? I could sell them and solve world hunger but the man wont let me.

This is not the topic, lay it off.

Sofa_King Good

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

Also Sofa King, yes, in retrospect, my comments may have been patronising and for that I apologise. I was merely trying to lighten the mood a little. No offence was intended by those comments.

.

No bother. I'm a sensitive soul really.


seems like another pointless ego-trip

GreeBo wrote: »

Also, I have some magic beans for sale if you are interested?
If it helps I can make some movies and some pathetically immature fora with tales of the magical powers and growing prowess? I could sell them and solve world hunger but the man wont let me.

mysterious

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

Also Sofa King, yes, in retrospect, my comments may have been patronising and for that I apologise. I was merely trying to lighten the mood a little. No offence was intended by those comments.

But mysterious calling my posts ignorant, my views retarded, and complaining when I write in detail about structural elements which prove my point is far worse in my opinion.

Calling a post ignorant, was proven due to what you accused me of. Etc. and your lame insults such as the loose change comment. You said alot of off topic posts to me.

The thing is, you haven't prooved anything about the structural damage tbqh. That I willl admit to accusing you of.

Penn

mysterious wrote: »

A plane didnt hit the building. Most buiding's are designed to withstand plane crashes. Nothing hit the building. Little structural damage was caused due to falling rubble.

Btw WT7 was not severely structurally damaged. Again that is the deception the government want you to believe. But it is not in the block of the WTC towers. There is also another building and a road between the North tower and WT7. The left adjacent building is slighty closer to the North tower but yet still standing.

It has been proven time and time again, that no building was ever knocked due to fire damage. The structural damage was ruled out to be the cause yonks ago. If that was the case the two adjacent buildings deserved the same faith.

It's all in plain view.

Yet again, I must point out that the building did not collapse due to fire. And the building did not collapse due to the falling rubble. It collapsed due to a combination of factors.

No building was ever knocked due to fire damage, becuase the structural steel in buildings is protected and designed to withstand fire. But when the rubble hit it, although it wasnt enough to cause major structural damage, damage was caused to the steel and it became exposed to fire, something it is not designed for.

Its like a tooth. You have the enamel, and the nerves on the inside. The enamel gets damaged, you have a cavity. The nerve is exposed and susceptible to damage.

And no one is saying WTC7 is in the same block, but the debris spread a considerable distance Which was in plain view, of the thousands of people whose homes and workplaces were damaged by it.

mysterious

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

Yet again, I must point out that the building did not collapse due to fire. And the building did not collapse due to the falling rubble. It collapsed due to a combination of factors.

No building was ever knocked due to fire damage, becuase the structural steel in buildings is protected and designed to withstand fire. But when the rubble hit it, although it wasnt enough to cause major structural damage, damage was caused to the steel and it became exposed to fire, something it is not designed for.

Yeah you like to choose your factors (ignoring demolition as a factor why)
The building collapsed like a demolition job, it just would not have fallen so fast in a short space of time. Due to exaggerated factors, that I keep allowing myself such bull**** enter my brain.

There has been taller buildings with fire going on for twice as long still standing. I posted many examples.

The rubble that hit the building was like hailstones, that is all. That factor is completely flawed. all buildings in the WT7 block survived and had not much damage.

Penn

mysterious wrote: »

Anyway I don't think anyone is willing to believe in the obvious. I'm in the position to say, the government don't need top secret planning. We are the sheeple. Easily fool the sheeple.

But this is the problem mysterious, what you say isn't 'the obvious'. Its the unsubstantiated rumours and hearsay with absolutely no basis in the modern world. I'm basing what I say on simple logic and an understanding of engineering and structural steel design. While I haven't provided proof to back up what I say, it would be far easier to prove what I'm saying than what you're saying.

You said how we don't know anything about Bin Laden, then when you were asked what you know about him, you said we wouldnt believe you.

And the Loose Change comment wasn't an insult, as Diogenes (I think it was him) said, I was merely referencing the fact that a lot of what you said was similar to that of the Loose Change films. If you took it as an insult, I don't apologise for it.

Penn

mysterious wrote: »

Yeah you like to choose your factors (ignoring demolition as a factor why)
The building collapsed like a demolition job, it just would not have fallen so fast in a short space of time. Due to exaggerated factors, that I keep allowing myself such bull**** enter my brain.

There has been taller buildings with fire going on for twice as long still standing. I posted many examples.

The rubble that hit the building was like hailstones, that is all. That factor is completely flawed. all buildings in the WT7 block survived and had not much damage.

I don't ignore demolition as a reason. I've already stated why I believe it was not a demolition job. The amount of set-up that building would have had to endure to be a controlled demoliton instantly rules it out as a factor. It would take more than a bomb in the lobby to make it collapse like that. The amount of work and preparation necessary would simply not have gone unnoticed unless it was factored into the design of the building when it was being built.

mysterious

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

I don't ignore demolition as a reason. I've already stated why I believe it was not a demolition job. The amount of set-up that building would have had to endure to be a controlled demoliton instantly rules it out as a factor. It would take more than a bomb in the lobby to make it collapse like that. The amount of work and preparation necessary would simply not have gone unnoticed unless it was factored into the design of the building when it was being built.

Yeah:rolleyes:
I'm going to quote this again.

The amount of set-up that building would have had to endure to be a controlled demoliton instantly rules it out as a factor

Yet fire brought it down in little set up. Some set up that was. Sure Muslims seem to be the only ones who can set things up. This is first clear indication that your brainwashed and live in delusion. Why cus I quoted one of the worst quotes I've ever seen in my life.


I think this thread is laugable now. I'm serious, where do you get your notions from. This is like disney land. I actually have gone to the stage.

The next 9/11 can be planned by Neanderthal, and it will still be successful. Put my lfie on it. I would. FFS.....:rolleyes: