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

Penn

No thanks. To be honest, I have no interest in stuff like that, I was merely curious about that one point and you've answered it. I was mostly only posting in this thread to help explain the reasons behind the buildings collapse, and to debunk certain unsubstanciated claims which had been made using what little knowledge of structural engineering I have. I've done that to the best of my abilities and have wasted far too much time here.

So, until the next thread about this topic is made, I bid you all farewell and a safe journey home

(And it wasnt the Youtube links he was referring to, it was the previous post where you copied and pasted from another website. Try clicking some of the links on that page, they didnt work for me and I presume they didnt work for him either)

Diogenes

mysterious wrote: »

Funny you never said CIA. hhhmm.

Yes, because Bin Laden was independently wealthy and didn't need CIA funding.

Perhaps you could provide your sources than Bin laden was a CIA asset.

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:

Y'know what is hi-larious your claim that you never watch tv, combined with your authoritive claims about what is broadcast on fox news.

I mean do understand what the word "paradox" means?

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

Two Words "ad" and hominem" Spring to mind.

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

Not to be funny here but your entire points seem short on facts and high on abuseusive arguments, you claim to immune from tv, yet seem well versed in the tactics of fox news, and use them when it suits you.

Irony much?

Oh yes the 19 penciled drawn pictures:D

By "pencil drawn" the martyrdom videos, the training camp videos, the CCTV at the airports, the fact that Atta's father admitted his son commited the acts. the passenger manifests, the testimony from flight school traineers, the overwhelming circumstantial and confessional evidence.

You seem woefully illinformed about an event you claim to have absolute certainy over.
Give me a break.

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

Well similar things like Khalid's nephew was convicted over the 93 bombing.

Mysterious you seem eager to pour scorn over the events of 911 dismissing any evidence as the offcial version and therefore beneath contempt.

If we were to take say an event from our History the conviction of the Birmingham 6 or the Guilford 4, the retrial and overturning of the original convition was based on detailed critiques of the flaws and bias of the original prosecution. Your argument is essentially "yeah prove it" KSM admitted his guilt (possibly after torture) yet his involvement in Muslim extremists is well documented among intelligence agencies from dozens of countries.

You might gain, a modicum of credibility on this forum if you could outline your reasoning why KSM isn't a credible suspect for 911.

I'm drinking water now.

Good for you.

I've explained my argument clearly, with evidence and knowledge of the event with regards to WT7.

You've exposed your ignorance of the NIST report in the WTC 7 building, you've not acknowledged that many of the building in the surroundings area were badly damaged to the point of being demolished after the fact.

Bascially you're just running around displaying your ignorance.

I've explained the aspect, the location, I've given links, quote's examples of many buildings that had worse faith than WT7 yet still stand.

Were many of those buildings built over existing structures like a NYC subway stop and a Con Ed power substation? You're basically saying every building around the WTC was build out of some lego blue print. WTC differed radically from all of the other buildings in the area, it had it's own unique design weaknesses.

All your foot stamping and ranting won't change that fact.

If I told you, would you beleive it.

Frankly if you told me it wasn't raining I'd open my umbrella.

Diogenes

mysterious wrote: »

Building 7

The September 11th Attack

Building 7 (also known as WTC 7) was a 47-story skyscraper that stood on the block immediately north of the block that contained the rest of the World Trade Center complex. Building 7 was shrouded in secrecy. Then-Mayor Rudolph Giuliani had a bunker on the 23rd floor.
Fires

No it was a commercial building open to the public.

[SIZE=-1]Photographs of Building7 prior to its collapse show only small areas of fire. [/SIZE]
Building 7 was not hit by any aircraft, and apparently did not suffer massive damage from the violent destruction of either of the Twin Towers. Small fires were observed in a few different parts of the building prior to its "collapse."

Do I need to link to the quotes from dozens of firefighters who saw the building throughout the day and knew it was about to collapse?

Most of the fires were barely visible, and were not hot enough to cause window breakage, at least on the north side of the tower, of which there are photos shortly before the collapse. The largest observed fires were the ones visible on the southeast wall shown in the photograph.

You're ignoring the photo posted on this thread already showing the fire on many floors.

Evacuation

Building 7 was supposedly evacuated around 9 AM.

That would mean that WTC 7 was evacuated before either of the towers were. And goes at odds with Barry Jennings claims.

I don't suppose you have any source for your claim?

The area around the building was evacuated in the hour before the collapse. Photographer Tom Franklin, who took the famous photograph of firemen raising the American flag, said:

You mean a photograph taken days after the attack.

Firemen evacuated the area as they prepared for the collapse of Building Seven. [SIZE=-1]1 [/SIZE]

Wait are you saying FDNY were aware of the plan to demolish WTC7?

There are no photographs that show large fires in Building 7.

Aside from the one already shown on this thread you mean?

Tom Franklin did not take any photos of the building before heeding firemen's orders to evacuate the area. Had there been large fires, one would expect that the professional photographer would have documented them.
<A shape=rect name=leveling>Destruction

You mean a photographer might have missed a photo in the middle of all that confusion and chaos?

mysterious

Diogenes wrote: »

Yes, because Bin Laden was independently wealthy and didn't need CIA funding.

Was he, how do you know, do you know if CIA and Bin laden were linked, despite the obvious.

Perhaps you could provide your sources than Bin laden was a CIA asset.
Taken fromhttp://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO109C.html
Since the Cold War era, Washington has consciously supported Osama Bin Laden, while at same time placing him on the FBI's "most wanted list" as the World's foremost terrorist.

Taken from the same site.
Is the tape authentic? Why should we be skeptical?
First, the tape sustains the illusion of an "outside enemy", when in fact it is known and documented that Osama bin Laden is a US sponsored intelligence asset. Al Qaeda is an instrument of the US intelligence apparatus.
(see Who is Osama bin Laden, by Michel Chossudovsky, September 2001, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO109C.html )
Second, several members of the Bush administration were the architects of Al Qaeda, going back to the Soviet-Afghan war and the Iran Contra scandal.

http://www.counterpunch.org/nimmo01282003.html.
Explains in detail of Osama and CIA connections.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_CIA_assistance_to_Osama_bin_Laden
In an article on American "weapons deals", Der Spiegel called Bin laden"one of the CIA's best weapons customers."[2] The Russian journal Demokratizatsiya has described U.S. support for the Afghan Mujahideen as "the model for state-sponsored terrorism."[3] A BBC article on al-Qaeda claims, "some analysts believe Bin laden himself had security training from the CIA"[4]

I'm not even a fan of Wikipeadia.....

In conversation with former British Defence SecretaryMichael Portillo, two-time Prime Minister of PakistanBenazir Bhutto said Osama bin laden was initially pro-American.[8] This view is corroborated by Prince Bandar bin Sultan of Saudi Arabia, who when questioned by CNN's Larry King, divulged that Osama bin laden was appreciative of his personal efforts in bringing the United States to Afghanistan to help him fight the Soviets.[9]


http://www.tomflocco.com/fs/CiaAsset.htm
"It’s not a stretch to think that the CIA and Bin laden both used Ali Mohammed to infiltrate the FBI, since bin laden has been a long-time CIA asset” he said. “Look who’s named in that FBI memo.”

http://www.scribd.com/doc/1501752/How-the-CIA-Created-Osama-Bin-Laden A detailed paragraph how the CIA created him.
http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/NWO/CIA_Created_Osama.htm.
Another website saying more of the same.

Another example of a CIA puppet
http://islamic-intelligence.blogspot.com/2007/09/cia-puppet-wipped-out-of-map-pakistan.html

Shall we go into more detail. LIKE SADDAM SHAKING HANDS WITH RUMSFIELD.???

I could post millions more but the fact remains and pulls up the the secrecy and acts that are taking place.

This is orgainsed warfare. The US government and the CIA are not saints if you had dicernment and open eyes over the years. They want the west to think the East is full with terrorists and want to destroy America. When that is infact lies and propaganda, fuelled by the biased western media, the CIA sponsoring terrrorism throughout the Middle east. The US givng arms to all the most warnted list. Including Saddam, Osama bin laden, Pakistani US backed dictator and son on. The CIA created the Taliban and al queaida orginially too! They need to create all this, to give the west the perception we need to fight wars.

When really what his happening, is the secret agenda that the US/CIA are creating I.e this organised warfare. This war then gives the excuse to go in and take and do what they want. Take mineral wealth, dominate, take oil or whatever.

Osama bin laden was blamed for 9/11, so was Saddam, why them and not the "people behind the 19 hijackers"

Do you see any illogic in your posts.

Y'know what is hi-larious your claim that you never watch tv, combined with your authoritive claims about what is broadcast on fox news.

I mean do understand what the word "paradox" means?

I don't watch them in the sense, that I take my life into it:rolleyes: I don't fall for the media propaganda. I'm just pointing out that I'm aware, that was the reason I brang up the example:)

Not to be funny here but your entire points seem short on facts and high on abuseusive arguments, you claim to immune from tv, yet seem well versed in the tactics of fox news, and use them when it suits you.

Abusive? You've already been shown up on earlier pages for your insults. I don't know what you deem was abusive towards you.

But I wasn't abusive. ffs.

By "pencil drawn" the martyrdom videos, the training camp videos, the CCTV at the airports, the fact that Atta's father admitted his son commited the acts. the passenger manifests, the testimony from flight school traineers, the overwhelming circumstantial and confessional evidence.

Can you provide links. (non government based)

You seem woefully illinformed about an event you claim to have absolute certainy over.
Give me a break.

Do you know anything about sponsored terrrorism.

Do you have any history on these hijackers?

Well similar things like Khalid's nephew was convicted over the 93 bombing.

You mean the US/CIA convicted him. I see:rolleyes:

Do you know what the US/CIA do in Pakistan(if thats where hes from)

Mysterious you seem eager to pour scorn over the events of 911 dismissing any evidence as the offcial version and therefore beneath contempt.

I dismiss bull**** and government backed info.

You might gain, a modicum of credibility on this forum if you could outline your reasoning why KSM isn't a credible suspect for 911.

It was Afghanistan oh it's not
It was Iraq oh no it's not
It was Saudi arabia Oh wait it's not

Now its pakistan that's where they are now.

Give me a break.....

You've exposed your ignorance of the NIST report in the WTC 7 building, you've not acknowledged that many of the building in the surroundings area were badly damaged to the point of being demolished after the fact.

I posted a video on NIST reports, from youtube. And independant sources and pictures from public, are different to that of NIST.

So someone is lying here.

Bascially you're just running around displaying your ignorance.

You haven't shown any proof for your claims, I have.

Were many of those buildings built over existing structures like a NYC subway stop and a Con Ed power substation? You're basically saying every building around the WTC was build out of some lego blue print. WTC differed radically from all of the other buildings in the area, it had it's own unique design weaknesses.

No I'm basically saying it's the first time in history that isolated fires on WT7 knocked a 47 story building down in 6.8 seconds from 47 floors to ground floor. Structural damage has been proven to be minimul and merely cosmetic. like the two adjacent buildings the Right building is the exact same distance to WT7 is more or less untouched

Explain that, or you still ignorant of these facts.

All your foot stamping and ranting won't change that fact.

Where is your proof for my foot stamping:D
Source please.

Frankly if you told me it wasn't raining I'd open my umbrella.

Falls over laughing....Not.

Diogenes

Can you provide links. (non government based)

Well can I use wikipedia.

Do you know anything about sponsored terrrorism.

Do you know anything about non sponsored terrorism?

Do you have any history on these hijackers?

Like Palestinian terrorists at Munich, Sri Lanken, what do you want?

You mean the US/CIA convicted him. I see:rolleyes:

In a court with a trial, with the family members of those murdered present. Did you miss that part?

Do you know what the US/CIA do in Pakistan(if thats where hes from)

Do you?

I dismiss bull**** and government backed info.

A label you affix to anything that disagrees with your worldview.

It was Afghanistan oh it's not
It was Iraq oh no it's not
It was Saudi arabia Oh wait it's not

Now its pakistan that's where they are now.

What? Seriously? What?

Give me a break.....

Have a kit kat.

I posted a video on NIST reports, from youtube. And independant sources and pictures from public, are different to that of NIST.

Oh so you now admit there was an investigation?
So someone is lying here.

You haven't shown any proof for your claims, I have.

You've changed the time of the collapse from 9 to 7 to 6.8 seconds, you've not proven any of these three times.

No I'm basically saying it's the first time in history that isolated fires on WT7 knocked a 47 story building down in 6.8 seconds from 47 floors to ground floor. Structural damage has been proven to be minimul and merely cosmetic. like the two adjacent buildings the Right building is the exact same distance to WT7 is more or less untouched

And few buildings in this world are built like WTC 7 and the fires were allowed to burn without any attempt to fight them, and the structural
damage, but hey ignore all those unique factors.

Where is your proof for my foot stamping:D
Source please.

Childish or don't you know what an idiom is?

Falls over laughing....Not.

Wheres your proof you did or didn't fall over.

mysterious

Diogenes wrote: »

Well can I use wikipedia.




Do you know anything about non sponsored terrorism?



Like Palestinian terrorists at Munich, Sri Lanken, what do you want?




In a court with a trial, with the family members of those murdered present. Did you miss that part?



Do you?



A label you affix to anything that disagrees with your worldview.





What? Seriously? What?




Have a kit kat.




Oh so you now admit there was an investigation?
So someone is lying here.



You've changed the time of the collapse from 9 to 7 to 6.8 seconds, you've not proven any of these three times.



And few buildings in this world are built like WTC 7 and the fires were allowed to burn without any attempt to fight them, and the structural
damage, but hey ignore all those unique factors.




Childish or don't you know what an idiom is?





Wheres your proof you did or didn't fall over.

I quoted everything.

Basically you asked me to quoted links and sources, you ignored it.
Posted another post to get into another immature banter with no facts, no proof and no evidence.

I guess I can't help you any further.

On ignore list for future reference. I have no time in constantly trying to give you sources when your not able to repond to any. I asked you to provide any links to your claims, you have provided absaloutely nothing to ANY of your claims.

Gordon

mysterious wrote: »

I quoted everything.

Basically you asked me to quoted links and sources, you ignored it.

I told you earlier that your links didn't work and you ignored what I said, instead you tried to tell me that you had read the links. But the links were broken so I don't know how that's possible.

GreeBo

mysterious wrote: »

Go ahead. A building in Cacarass, had a fire raging for 17 hours through all floors three times LONGER than WT7, yet still stands perfectly. i'm sure WT7 is a better designed building that a skyscraper in a third world country. Jet fuel was not involved in WT7 get your facts right.

Congratulations for entirely missing my point.
Did you even read my post?
Assuming WTC7 and your building in Caracas had roughly the same internals (otherwise your point is entirely flawed) then the fact that one of them burnt for 17 hours logically implies that it was not burning at the same rate or intensity as the building that burnt out much quicker.
Now do you see the point?

You could have a piece of steel in a fire for 3 days and it wouldnt be harmed whereas a much hotter fire for 5 minutes could render it very malleable and useless for structure support.

Im actually amazed at your posts (and no, not in a good way)
You say that we are all sheep because we all believe the media and the government, yet you are perfectly willing to follow all this conspiracy theory crap without the slightest bit of evidence.
Your arguments are all circular. You people throw out so much hearsay it becomes impossible to follow. You then base other assumptions on this hearsay, in some misguided attempt to add credibility to them. Its all a house of cards and you are unable to prove any of your points.

Personally I dont care how long it took the building to actually fall down, its largely irrelevant to me as we are not dealing with controlled conditions. You cannot state as fact what happened inside or to the structure of the building as neither your good self nor anyone else were there at the time. So you have decided that it was blown up from the inside by the CIA to cover their tracks.

You wouldnt get that storyline in Family Guy, manatees or no manatees.

/me shakes head

mysterious

GreeBo wrote: »

Congratulations for entirely missing my point.
Did you even read my post?

But didn't you insult me earlier. I was busy replying to many people. But I will go read again, as it's a few pages back:)

Assuming WTC7 and your building in Caracas had roughly the same internals (otherwise your point is entirely flawed) then the fact that one of them burnt for 17 hours logically implies that it was not burning at the same rate or intensity as the building that burnt out much quicker.
Now do you see the point?

Lol. No it doesn't just cus you say so. Rofl that was a very stupid point. ugh.....

The fires were insolated sections. It still does not mean that it was intense or whatever.

Excuses excusese excuses, unless you have a good argument. The Caracas building had fire for 17 hours, and STILL didn't fall. Stop twisting the WTC7 fire to be more significant just to a silly biased arguement that makes no sense whatsover with little back up or evidence.

Unless you can clarify this with facts.

You could have a piece of steel in a fire for 3 days and it wouldnt be harmed whereas a much hotter fire for 5 minutes could render it very malleable and useless for structure support.

But the fire was not in the entire building, plus it was not burning long enough to bring a building down I'm sorry

No steel building was ever brought down by fire. So that argument is again moot. As the fire was not even long enough to do serious internal damage, even still it wouldn't of caused the building fall the way it did, without some help of explosives.

Im actually amazed at your posts (and no, not in a good way)
You say that we are all sheep because we all believe the media and the government, yet you are perfectly willing to follow all this conspiracy theory crap without the slightest bit of evidence.

Conspriacy crap, who and what is, evidence please?

The government we are talking about are nazis? Their behaviour and actions are not conspiracy. I'm basing my conclusion's on dicernment, logic, questioning, evidence, videos, reasoning, website links and asking for other peoples view's. I'm doing all this, your not. So your indeed wrong again. I have a little more cop on. I like to Look at all sides of a situation. I don't stick to one side, nor do I stick to government offcial stories. They are about corruption and money. There behaviour over the 8 years was disgusting. The Media was indeed biased too. It's nothing new.

I don't want to fill my brain with garbage. If you think I should, then your very wrong.

I try answer all the question's I can, but somehow we are on conspiracy thread, and there is no proof for either side, since its tampered and altered in event. This means it's conspiracy. I don't have the proof in paper. But there is far more logic to my answers than yours. As you have not given any evidence other than a bisased opinion, regardless of how right or wrong you maybe.

Don't insult me or label, just because I don't agree with the government facts. There is no conpiracy in this fact that I don't agree with it. I'm not someone who drags up conspiracy all the time. I'm well aware of the logic behind the evil agenda of the government. I like answers, I like truth, I like people who use their own intellegence and look for the answers themselves.

Just because I don't rely on government information on certain conspiracies. Does not put me into a label "your a conspiracy nut".

Do please contain yourself, and attack the post and not me personally please.

Your arguments are all circular. You people throw out so much hearsay it becomes impossible to follow.

Really I conisder myself the opposite. Why are your post continually about attacking me?

You then base other assumptions on this hearsay, in some misguided attempt to add credibility to them. Its all a house of cards and you are unable to prove any of your points.

This is getting off topic, care to explain where I'm getting this hearsay. If i am.

Where am I getting it from?:rolleyes: Can you answer your own insinuation's.

Personally I dont care how long it took the building to actually fall down, its largely irrelevant to me as we are not dealing with controlled conditions.

Again just because you said so? It's not controlled? again cus you say so? oh ffs...... So fire had the control to bring 47 floors down to 6.8 seconds vertically. I mean 47 stories and the buildings on either side didnt budge? Your been ignorant of a very important flaw in the reasononing of how it fell.

You cannot state as fact what happened inside or to the structure of the building as neither your good self nor anyone else were there at the time. So you have decided that it was blown up from the inside by the CIA to cover their tracks.

I didn't. But I am surprised before any investigation was done the steel and rubble was shipped away first. This is a ironic fact. It's quite revealing too.

You wouldnt get that storyline in Family Guy, manatees or no manatees.

/me shakes head

Quoted.

mysterious

Gordon wrote: »

I told you earlier that your links didn't work and you ignored what I said, instead you tried to tell me that you had read the links. But the links were broken so I don't know how that's possible.

I do apologise, I will find the website and post it up the links.

Diogenes

mysterious wrote: »

Unless you can clarify this with facts.


No steel building was ever brought down by fire. So that argument is again moot.

Oh Rly?

Firstly there are two points. One ifvSteel is immune to the properties of fire how the devil do we make and mould it? Secondly, if steel buildings never collapse due to fire, why on earth do we bother going to the trouble of fire proofing Steel?

As to you astonishing claim about no steel building ever being brought down due to fire, ahem,

Three multi-storey buildings collapsed due to fire after burning less than two hours
http://www.ilo.org/encyclopedia/?doc...8&nh=0&ssect=1

A toilet paper factory collapsed during a fire, “Intense heat buckled the steel girders holding the roof.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e...cs/6105942.stm

See also the Kaeder Toy Factory Fire





Taken from a fire at English toilet Paper factory

And a news story about a fire in a steel framed building in NJ.

What do all these fires have in common all occured in steel framed building, all concluded in either partial or total collapse of the structure.

Quoted.

You keep doing that, why?

Sofa_King Good

Diogenes wrote: »

Yes, because Bin Laden was independently wealthy and didn't need CIA funding.

He would have been funded thorugh his involvement with CIA/Taleban heroin trafficking though.

He lost access to his inherited wealth in 94 when he was apparently disowned.

Diogenes wrote: »

Perhaps you could provide your sources than Bin laden was a CIA asset.

surely you are arguing for arguments sake here. Firmly established that the Mujhadeen? /Al Qaeda were CIA run.

Diogenes wrote: »

By "pencil drawn" the martyrdom videos, the training camp videos, the CCTV at the airports, the fact that Atta's father admitted his son commited the acts. the passenger manifests, the testimony from flight school traineers, the overwhelming circumstantial and confessional evidence.

According to this http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/atta.html
Atta Jnr called him 2 days after the attacks.

-
"Asked where Muhammad was now, he said, "Ask Mossad."

wasn't there also flight trainers that highly doubted some of the hijackers abilty.

Re flight records. http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0212/S00058.htm

"Whatever secrets Dekkers may possess about the terrorists, records from his flight school were deemed sensitive enough to have merited being escorted back to Washington by Florida Governor Jeb Bush aboard a C-130 cargo plane, which left Sarasota less than 24 hours after the September 11 attack."

CCTV footage could be anyone, anywhere. Bit cheeky of you to try and use circumstancial evidence.

Especially when the evidence is passports found in rubble of living people. Flight manuals in their car??? And good ol' Obama bin Laden praising hijackers in a CIA retrieved video praising hijackers by name that were living

Diogenes wrote: »

Well similar things like Khalid's nephew was convicted over the 93 bombing.

Now, now, now Diogenes I'd hate to bring up one of your favourite words, contemptable but that is how you described alluding guilt through kinship...Remember Rahm Emanuel ??

Thats all the energy I got but there are a huge list of inconsistiencies.


Y

Penn

mysterious wrote: »

The fires were insolated sections. It still does not mean that it was intense or whatever.

Excuses excusese excuses, unless you have a good argument. The Caracas building had fire for 17 hours, and STILL didn't fall. Stop twisting the WTC7 fire to be more significant just to a silly biased arguement that makes no sense whatsover with little back up or evidence.

Unless you can clarify this with facts.

But the fire was not in the entire building, plus it was not burning long enough to bring a building down I'm sorry

No steel building was ever brought down by fire. So that argument is again moot. As the fire was not even long enough to do serious internal damage, even still it wouldn't of caused the building fall the way it did, without some help of explosives.

Mysterious, for the last time, Steel members in buildings have to be protected by fireproofing, in order to ensure they dont collapse. But WTC7s fireproofing was damaged because it was hit by rubble from the other towers. That is a fact, and I have already posted a video explaining this in detail, from a non-government source.

I really don't know how many times I've posted this FACT now. You say it didnt receive much structural damage by being hit by the rubble. You say the fire alone couldnt bring down this building. You are right on both counts. But COMBINING these two WOULD bring a building like that down. Not to mention the design flaws in the building which I already posted another non-government link to from an engineering magazine.

I'll explain it again, as simply as I can:

Controlled explosives:
- Would require months of planning
- Would require months of preparing the building
- Preparation of the building would not have gone unnoticed in this public building
- The sound of explosives throughout the building would be obvious
- The building would collapse in its own footprint

Fire:
- Fire protection of steel damaged by rubble
- Steel weakened and exposed to fire
- Fire caused by diesel which was used to heat the building. This did not happen in the other buildings.
- Emergency services told to let the fires burn out as it had already been evacuated and to focus water and energy on the people trapped by the Twin Towers
- Fire weakens exposed steel after several hours due to DAMAGED FIRE PROTECTION
- Small sections of WTC7 begin to collapse
- Emergency services evacuate area as they believe WTC7 will collapse soon
- Building collapses. Large noises heard are not similar to a controlled explosion, and are most likely the building collapsing internally before dragging the whole building down, giving it an indeterminable collapse time.
- Building does not collapse in own footprint. Contiguous buildings damaged by collapse.

GreeBo

mysterious wrote: »

But didn't you insult me earlier. I was busy replying to many people. But I will go read again, as it's a few pages back:)

so you were ignoring me, yet you replied to my post and missed 100% of its contents.

mysterious wrote: »

Lol. No it doesn't just cus you say so. Rofl that was a very stupid point. ugh.....

Im done here. Your posts are impossible to read. Im not sure if English is your first language but either way, Id advise you to just stick to basic sentences.
FYI: You dont need to type every sound that you make or thought that you have.

The irony is that you are the one with your head in the sand refute any and all of the facts that we put to you with childish replies containing no facts other than the ones you have made up previously.

You sir, are a baboon.

bonkey

GreeBo wrote: »

You sir, are a baboon.

And you, sir, are banned for a week for that comment.

KateF

deswalsh wrote: »

So what's the conspiracy theory on that then?

How many jets hit the one in Beijing?
Was a similar building in construction, materials etc. or is its only similarity that it was tall.

+1

Diogenes

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

He would have been funded thorugh his involvement with CIA/Taleban heroin trafficking though.

The Taliban, didn't make money from Opium trafficking. They actively discouraged.

He lost access to his inherited wealth in 94 when he was apparently disowned.

I would suggest you read Rory Mc Carthy's excellent book "Al Qaeda" to see how very wrong you are.

surely you are arguing for arguments sake here. Firmly established that the Mujhadeen? /Al Qaeda were CIA run.

Really? By whom? Mujhadeen were mainly supported by independently wealthy Saudi's the CIA and US state deparment provided training and logistical support through Pakistine's ISI.

Oh you didn't think Rambo III was a documentary did you?

According to this http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/atta.html
Atta Jnr called him 2 days after the attacks.

-
"Asked where Muhammad was now, he said, "Ask Mossad."

Oh FFS Atta's dad now? The man who claimed his son wasn't involved, then claimed he was involved, and then went on to praise the July 7th tube bombers, and demanded 5,000 dollars from CNN for an interview, money he claimed he would use to stage a Jihad in American.

TOTALLY CREDIBLY SOURCE THERE.

wasn't there also flight trainers that highly doubted some of the hijackers abilty.

THIS BULLL**** AGAIN?

Heres a full list of quotes from flight school trainers that demolishs this bull****.

Especially when the evidence is passports found in rubble of living people.

The Passports were not the only personal effects found from flights in the rubble you missed that bit.

Flight manuals in their car??? And good ol' Obama bin Laden praising hijackers in a CIA retrieved video praising hijackers by name that were living

Which still living hijackers. This should be entertaining.

Now, now, now Diogenes I'd hate to bring up one of your favourite words, contemptable but that is how you described alluding guilt through kinship...Remember Rahm Emanuel ??

OH for f**Ks sake. KSM masterminded the 93 bombing, his nephew was the bomber, to compare that to your snide accusations about any and every Jew in american politic is phenomenally pathetic.

Thats all the energy I got but there are a huge list of inconsistiencies.


Y

Lets see, you've quoted a raving nutter, pronounced skeptism about passports, claimed definitively that some of the hijackers are alive. Wow, christ the internet's gain is the legal professions loss. :rolleyes:

Sofa_King Good

Diogenes wrote: »

:rolleyes:

"Mr Al-Hamzi is 26 and had
just returned to work at a petrochemical complex in the
industrial eastern city of Yanbou after a holiday in Saudi
Arabia when the hijackers struck. He was accused of
hijacking the American Airlines Flight 77 that hit the
Pentagon.
He said: "I have never been to the United States and have
not been out of Saudi Arabia in the past two years." The
FBI described him as 21 and said that his possible
residences were Fort Lee or Wayne, both in New Jersey."

"The real Salem Al-Hazmi, however, is alive and indignant in Saudi Arabia, and not one of the people who perished in the American Airlines flight that crashed on the Pentagon. He works at a government-owned petroleum and chemical plant in the city of Yanbu."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/sep/21/afghanistan.september112
http://physics911.ca/pdf/2001/harrison_stolen_identities.pdf

Waleed Al Shehri..."Alive and well".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm

OK and here from CBS

"(CBS) Osama bin Laden names some of the Sept. 11 hijackers and commends them to Allah, according to a more thorough translation by one of the experts hired by the government to review a videotape of the suspected terrorist.

A more leisurely review of the tape released by the government last week came up with "a whole bunch of names," translator George Michael said Thursday in an interview with The Associated Press. He would identify only three: Nawaq Alhamzi, Salem Alhamzi and Wail Alshehri."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/12/20/attack/main322092.shtml

now i am really late for work.

Sofa_King Good

KateF wrote: »

+1

a similar amount of planes hit both buildings - 0.

bonkey

SKG...do you think there's anything to be noted by the fact that all of your "alive and well" articles are dated from 2001?

Could it, for example, indicate that there was some confusion at the initial list of names, leading to mistaken identity?

Note that even in the information you supply, some of the names are spelled differently. Is it not possible that some of these people found to be alive and well were not actually the people mentioned, but people with the same (or a similar) name?

Penn

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

a similar amount of planes hit both buildings - 0.

I agree. No plane hit both buildings. Each plane only hit one tower.

Can we get this back on topic? We're talking about why WTC7 collapsed, and aside from Mysterious not grasping the concept of what I've been saying, no one has provided proof from a reputable source disproving that logical, scientific reasoning behind events.

Diogenes

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

"Mr Al-Hamzi is 26 and had
just returned to work at a petrochemical complex in the
industrial eastern city of Yanbou after a holiday in Saudi
Arabia when the hijackers struck. He was accused of
hijacking the American Airlines Flight 77 that hit the
Pentagon.
He said: "I have never been to the United States and have
not been out of Saudi Arabia in the past two years." The
FBI described him as 21 and said that his possible
residences were Fort Lee or Wayne, both in New Jersey."

"The real Salem Al-Hazmi, however, is alive and indignant in Saudi Arabia, and not one of the people who perished in the American Airlines flight that crashed on the Pentagon. He works at a government-owned petroleum and chemical plant in the city of Yanbu."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/sep/21/afghanistan.september112
http://physics911.ca/pdf/2001/harrison_stolen_identities.pdf

Yeah, All taken care of Here.

Waleed Al Shehri..."Alive and well".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm

OK and here from CBS

And here. You're using reports from the weeks in the aftermath of Sept 11th, confusion over muslim names, it's really pathetic, often debunked already on this forum, nonsense.

"(CBS) Osama bin Laden names some of the Sept. 11 hijackers and commends them to Allah, according to a more thorough translation by one of the experts hired by the government to review a videotape of the suspected terrorist.

A more leisurely review of the tape released by the government last week came up with "a whole bunch of names," translator George Michael said Thursday in an interview with The Associated Press. He would identify only three: Nawaq Alhamzi, Salem Alhamzi and Wail Alshehri."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/12/20/attack/main322092.shtml

Oh for f's sake you realise that the tape was released to Al Jazeera, and hundreds thousands of native Arab speakers also heard the tape, IS THE ENTIRE ARABIC SPEAKING WORLD IN ON THIS CONSPIRACY?

"The translators missed a lot of things on the tape," said Ali
Al-Ahmed, director of the Saudi Institute, an organization that
promotes human rights in Saudi Arabia.

Al-Ahmed said bin Laden identifies nine of the suspected hijackers --
not just Mohamed Atta as had the original translation.

Al-Ahmed and the independent translator -- who did not want to be
identified -- said bin Laden named two additional hijackers on the
tape: the brothers Nawaf al Hazmi and Salam al Hazmi.

Later, he said four other hijackers were from the Al Ghamdi tribe. He
also mentioned two others, both named al Shehri.

Also left out of the translation, they said, were the names of three
Saudi clerics who publicly backed the attacks, according to the man
speaking with bin Laden on the tape. At least one of those three
Saudi clerics was possibly a government official.

One more striking example of detail left out of the government
translation, according to Al-Ahmed and the independent translator:
Bin Laden's description of exactly what he said to others just before
the radio announcement that the first of the attacks had succeeded.

They quoted him as saying he told followers, "When you hear a
breaking news announcement on the radio, kneel immediately, and that
means they have hit the World Trade Center."

From here

There's also stuff like Atta's martyrdom video

Diogenes

bonkey wrote: »

SKG...do you think there's anything to be noted by the fact that all of your "alive and well" articles are dated from 2001?

Sorry I overlooked this excellent point, Atta all the truth movement needs to do to convince the world that the government is lying is to go find and interview any one of the supposedly alive hijackers. And yet in 8 years we've have zip denad zero, bubkiss.

Sofa_King Good

From the FBI website



Salem Alhazmi


Wail M Alshehri

These are the photographs that match the living men.

I'm open to correction on this or anything else, I welcome it, to be honest whatever common sense I have would tell me I am wrong.

But Diogenes you can't be critical of using Atta's dad as a source when you did yourself initially a few posts prior and please don't bring up any other matters to hide any double-standards.

Penn

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

From the FBI website



Salem Alhazmi


Wail M Alshehri

These are the photographs that match the living men.

I'm open to correction on this or anything else, I welcome it, to be honest whatever common sense I have would tell me I am wrong.

But Diogenes you can't be critical of using Atta's dad as a source when you did yourself initially a few posts prior and please don't bring up any other matters to hide any double-standards.

Post the pictures of the living men then, so we can compare them

Diogenes

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

From the FBI website



Salem Alhazmi

It's Salem Al-Hazmi, and I've already pointed out you're wrong. Ditto on Waleed al-Shehri.


And CTers have been able to interview and track down these supposedly alive men?

I'm open to correction on this or anything else, I welcome it, to be honest whatever common sense I have would tell me I am wrong.

That doesn't even come together as a sentence, what is the point you are trying to make?

But Diogenes you can't be critical of using Atta's dad as a source when you did yourself initially a few posts prior and please don't bring up any other matters to hide any double-standards.

I'm sorry what are you gibbering about?

I've NEVER used Atta's father as source, YOU DID. I pointed out that the only thing consistent in Atta's father's story is his constant inconsistencies. I mean is he saying? Mossad kidnapped his son, used him as a patsy, and then let him phone his Dad two days after the attack? How retarded is that? Atta's father has at times, said his son is alive, that his son is dead, that his son was murdered, and that his son carried out the attacks.

Sofa_King Good

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

Post the pictures of the living men then, so we can compare them

ok.





Salem Alhazmi


Wail M Alshehri



Looks the same to me.

Diogenes

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

ok.





Salem Alhazmi


Wail M Alshehri



Looks the same to me.

Wait this is getting ridiculous Are you saying Salem Al Hazmis and Wail M Al shehri are the same person?

Penn

haha, I thought they were two of the terrorists, I didnt know they were one terrorist and his supposed living counterpart

Sorry man, maybe you can see something I cant, but to me they don't look alike

It looks like Salems large nose crooks a little to the right, while Wails thinner nose crooks to the left. And Salems eyebrows have a much larger arch. Sorry, but I'd never figure them to be the same person

Sofa_King Good

Diogenes wrote: »

I've NEVER used Atta's father as source, YOU DID. I pointed out that the only thing consistent in Atta's father's story is his constant inconsistencies. I mean is he saying? Mossad kidnapped his son, used him as a patsy, and then let him phone his Dad two days after the attack? How retarded is that? Atta's father has at times, said his son is alive, that his son is dead, that his son was murdered, and that his son carried out the attacks.

Sure Ya did

Diogenes wrote: »

he fact that Atta's father admitted his son commited the acts

Don't want to get dragged into anything even more off topic