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

meglome

mysterious wrote: »

It's not a fact, just you state it's fact at the end of the line.

The rubble, steel and everything was GONE before investigation.

Why?

Yes in places but the fire was throughout and proves that it wasn't that significant.

In forensics, any evidence small or large is signifcant, again don't just state your opinion as fact. It would of been vital.
They would of been able to test the quality, strenght, faults, temputure of the fire, the state of the steel frames and on and on.

All GONE. shipped away, and your telling me all this evidence that could be used, is irrelevant. My head hurts like it did yesterday.

But it was shipped away

I don't like the smell of that do you?

I suggest you do some research on WTC7 and what was housed in it, otherwise don't make up ramble.

You didn't actually answer my question. It doesn't matter what I think or you think. How much material is normally kept when three big buildings collapse? Two of them which have been obviously hit by planes being flown into them and the third which has been left to burn. Until we prove that they didn't keep a prudent amount, or the 'normal' amount, or enough for the investigators to satisfied then your whole question means nothing.

So that picture in which an entire one side of the building is covered in smoke proves nothing? Right okay.

What percentage of the WTC office space was used by government agencies? I'm not sure but my understanding is it's a small percentage. You seem to know so tell me? (you won't mind showing me the evidence too, I'm sure)

meglome

Mysterious?

mysterious

meglome wrote: »

Mysterious?

Yes?

meglome

meglome wrote: »

You didn't actually answer my question. It doesn't matter what I think or you think. How much material is normally kept when three big buildings collapse? Two of them which have been obviously hit by planes being flown into them and the third which has been left to burn. Until we prove that they didn't keep a prudent amount, or the 'normal' amount, or enough for the investigators to satisfied then your whole question means nothing.

So that picture in which an entire one side of the building is covered in smoke proves nothing? Right okay.

What percentage of the WTC office space was used by government agencies? I'm not sure but my understanding is it's a small percentage. You seem to know so tell me? (you won't mind showing me the evidence too, I'm sure)

So leaving aside that incredible intuition of yours for a moment, you want to answer these?

mysterious

meglome wrote: »

So leaving aside that incredible intuition of yours for a moment, you want to answer these?

Sorry Meglome, I'm not contributing to this thread any longer.

It's obvious to me, why and what has caused the WTC7 t fall, this is only a stone is a bath, in comparison to what's is the real agenda behind all these works since 9/11

It started with the Euro, The American powers of be, panicked in 2001 when OPEC and especially Iraq started trading in Euros rather than dollar's, they needed to put their country in panick. So lets bring down a few of our own buildings, and get us into a war, and trick the people into thinking they did it. the muslims, and get our dolar back in the circulation again, then lets totally put the wool over our eyes with 9/11 This is the big picture, I'm not going to continue into this banter when I'm aware of the reasons behind all this chaos intially.

Now this is just me saying this. but blaaaaaaaaaaah. Believe what you all want people.

I know the mallacy on this planet, and there are game players, and they are playing you all around like fools. IMO.

Second point to your question. What was housed in it was already discusssed, there are a few videos showing what was housed in this building. It's is widely known that the ministry of defence was housed in it. I could tell you more, But information is fast now in this world. If you google WTC7 even, I'm sure you will have all the glorious info at your tips.

I'm not getting into this topic anymore:)
It's absurd, for anyone to put this much time arguing and wasting so much energy and still split down the middle to right or left field only. Especially when you have the game players sitting and watching everyone fighting over who and what caused it to fall.

I'm just going to finally say, I will pay more attention to my own awarness, logic and intuition than having to waste my energy and giving my time and recources in trying to prove to people what happened that day when none of you are going to open your own minds, or open to all possiblities.

4 pages later, I just couldn't be bothered, and I'm happy not having to share what I know any longer.

Mysterious.

meglome

mysterious wrote: »

Sorry Meglome, I'm not contributing to this thread any longer.

It's obvious to me, why and what has caused the WTC7 t fall, this is only a stone is a bath, in comparison to what's is the real agenda behind all these works since 9/11

Hmm, you see the questions I asked are very important. I'm not a structural engineer, nor an investigator of any kind, nor a fireman etc. When I saw WTC7 collapse I was surprised to say the least, was I suspicious too... perhaps. But my knowledge of these things was pretty much non-existent so I couldn't make an informed judgement, that I knew as a fact. I took the time to read everything I could read about it, even the conspiracies. At the end of that process I'm still not any of the things I mentioned above but I used simple logic and evidence to decide that the building collapsed due mostly to a fire. I've found the people who push the conspiracy are often dishonest and refuse to answer questions that don't suit their agenda, but still take the moral high ground. It seems to me you saw the collapse and decided that it was dodgy, even though you had no frame of reference to base that on. I kept an open mind. Funny that I get branded a sheeple.

mysterious wrote: »

It started with the Euro, The American powers of be, panicked in 2001 when OPEC and especially Iraq started trading in Euros rather than dollar's, they needed to put their country in panick. So lets bring down a few of our own buildings, and get us into a war, and trick the people into thinking they did it. the muslims, and get our dolar back in the circulation again, then lets totally put the wool over our eyes with 9/11 This is the big picture, I'm not going to continue into this banter when I'm aware of the reasons behind all this chaos intially.

Now this is just me saying this. but blaaaaaaaaaaah. Believe what you all want people.

I know the mallacy on this planet, and there are game players, and they are playing you all around like fools. IMO.

I'm not trying to insult you but I don't think you've any idea how paranoid this comes across as. Do people think you're paranoid?

mysterious wrote: »

Second point to your question. What was housed in it was already discusssed, there are a few videos showing what was housed in this building. It's is widely known that the ministry of defence was housed in it. I could tell you more, But information is fast now in this world. If you google WTC7 even, I'm sure you will have all the glorious info at your tips.

wikipedia wrote:

At the time of the September 11, 2001 attacks, Salomon Smith Barney was by far the largest tenant in 7 World Trade Center, occupying 1,202,900 sq ft (111,750 m²) (64 percent of the building) which included floors 28–45.[24][6] Other major tenants included ITT Hartford Insurance Group (122,590 sq ft/11,400 m²), American Express Bank International (106,117 sq ft/9,900 m²), Standard Chartered Bank (111,398 sq ft/10,350 m²), and the Securities and Exchange Commission (106,117 sq ft/9,850 m²).[24] Smaller tenants included the Internal Revenue Service Regional Council (90,430 sq ft/8,400 m²) and the United States Secret Service (85,343 sq ft/7,900 m²).[24] The smallest tenants included the New York City Office of Emergency Management,[25] National Association of Insurance Commissioners, Federal Home Loan Bank, First State Management Group Inc., Provident Financial Management, and the Immigration and Naturalization Service.[24] The Department of Defense (DOD) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) shared the 25th floor with the IRS.[6] Floors 46–47 were mechanical floors, as were the bottom six floors and part of the seventh floor.[6][26]

Have to be out shortly so i'm not going to work out all the percentages but seems like the non commercial element of the building was tiny.

mysterious wrote: »

I'm just going to finally say, I will pay more attention to my own awarness, logic and intuition than having to waste my energy and giving my time and recources in trying to prove to people what happened that day when none of you are going to open your own minds, or open to all possiblities.

4 pages later, I just couldn't be bothered, and I'm happy not having to share what I know any longer.

So to sum up you decided it was dodgy and don't want to listen to clear logic and evidence that shows you to be wrong?

bluesguitar

well if its ne consolation mysterious I agree with you!

mysterious

meglome wrote: »

.



I'm not trying to insult you but I don't think you've any idea how paranoid this comes across as. Do people think you're paranoid?

this is the reason i will not answer any of your questions, you always direct anything I've said at a personal level.

In relation to that quote of mine, it was accurate. Unless you can prove to everyone that I'm paranoid now ffs...........

otherwise don't make silly judgments.

So to sum up you decided it was dodgy and don't want to listen to clear logic and evidence that shows you to be wrong?

No i'm just not a fan of wasting time on details, that I already know, and I've gone ahead of you in more important aspects of what the elite are doing in the present tense.

9/11 is past tense, I've worked it out already.


You however never will....:rolleyes:

uncleoswald

mysterious wrote: »

this is the reason i will not answer any of your questions, you always direct anything I've said at a personal level.

Which is of course much worse then calling everyone who questions your well thought out and rational arguments "sheeple."

meglome

mysterious wrote: »

this is the reason i will not answer any of your questions, you always direct anything I've said at a personal level.

He he he, coming from the man who repeatedly called people names and was aggressive it's quite funny.

So you don't want to answer the simple points I put to you. When I can show that the vast majority of WTC7 was used by commercial companies and not the government as you stated. It doesn't matter now what you think or I think we have fact.

mysterious wrote: »

In relation to that quote of mine, it was accurate. Unless you can prove to everyone that I'm paranoid now ffs...........

Was it relevant to the WTC7 collapsing?

mysterious wrote: »

No i'm just not a fan of wasting time on details, that I already know, and I've gone ahead of you in more important aspects of what the elite are doing in the present tense.

9/11 is past tense, I've worked it out already.

I know what you mean. I'm living in huge house by the beach, with servants catering to my every whim. I just know it's true and I don't need to care about the silly details, like having to prove to anyone else I'm not living in fantasy land.

You reached conclusions without any evidence or a frame of reference for those conclusions. I have no problem with intuition but when you then ignore cold hard facts when they don't fit your intuition you really are living in fantasy land.

Sofa_King Good

Building 7 if it was taken down by demolotion ultimately would not prove the bigger conspiracy as there were seperate motives for its destruction.

If it was felled by "natural causes" due to damage sustained in the fall of the twin towers likewise this would not be proof that it was not an "inside-job" merely a consequence of the greater conspiracy.

mysterious

meglome wrote: »

He he he, coming from the man who repeatedly called people names and was aggressive it's quite funny.

I never called people names, I used sheeple as, a term of behaviour.

Don't twist it meglome, it's you that seems to want this into slinging match.

I'm not going there:)

So you don't want to answer the simple points I put to you. When I can show that the vast majority of WTC7 was used by commercial companies and not the government as you stated. It doesn't matter now what you think or I think we have fact.

Go ahead.

Was it relevant to the WTC7 collapsing?

You asked me to point it out.:)

I know what you mean. I'm living in huge house by the beach, with servants catering to my every whim. I just know it's true and I don't need to care about the silly details, like having to prove to anyone else I'm not living in fantasy land.

You reached conclusions without any evidence or a frame of reference for those conclusions. I have no problem with intuition but when you then ignore cold hard facts when they don't fit your intuition you really are living in fantasy land.

Right....
Do you think anyone would bother to speak with you, and you behave like this?

I won't. I think I'm going to be smart and put this on ignore. It's a slnging match.

Penn

mysterious wrote: »

No i'm just not a fan of wasting time on details, that I already know, and I've gone ahead of you in more important aspects of what the elite are doing in the present tense.

But details are important mysterious. Details can make the difference between making assumptions and actually proving something. Thats why they say 'The proof is in the details'.

The point is, you haven't provided sufficient details to back up your claims. And I don't mean about 'why the elite did this' or who was in wtc7'. I mean 'Why did WTC7 collapse'. We have provided details which help prove our theories as to what may have caused wtc7 to collapse. You have provided nothing but hearsay and conjecture as to who may have been responsible.

I agree with you about the childish remarks directed towards you however, they are uncalled for and add nothing to the thread.

lostexpectation

so hows the chinese building?

meglome

mysterious wrote: »

I never called people names, I used sheeple as, a term of behaviour.

Don't twist it meglome, it's you that seems to want this into slinging match.

Sorry but you called people who disagreed several names. I'm not saying it makes it all right for me to do similar but then I'm not denying I did it.

mysterious wrote: »

Go ahead.

Okay I'll try once again, you don't seem to have seen the previous time I posted this.

wikipedia wrote:

At the time of the September 11, 2001 attacks, Salomon Smith Barney was by far the largest tenant in 7 World Trade Center, occupying 1,202,900 sq ft (111,750 m²) (64 percent of the building) which included floors 28–45.[24][6] Other major tenants included ITT Hartford Insurance Group (122,590 sq ft/11,400 m²), American Express Bank International (106,117 sq ft/9,900 m²), Standard Chartered Bank (111,398 sq ft/10,350 m²), and the Securities and Exchange Commission (106,117 sq ft/9,850 m²).[24] Smaller tenants included the Internal Revenue Service Regional Council (90,430 sq ft/8,400 m²) and the United States Secret Service (85,343 sq ft/7,900 m²).[24] The smallest tenants included the New York City Office of Emergency Management,[25] National Association of Insurance Commissioners, Federal Home Loan Bank, First State Management Group Inc., Provident Financial Management, and the Immigration and Naturalization Service.[24] The Department of Defense (DOD) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) shared the 25th floor with the IRS.[6] Floors 46–47 were mechanical floors, as were the bottom six floors and part of the seventh floor.[6][26]

mysterious wrote: »

You asked me to point it out.:)

Why would I ask you to point out something that has nothing to do with what were talking about.

mysterious wrote: »

Right....
Do you think anyone would bother to speak with you, and you behave like this?

I won't. I think I'm going to be smart and put this on ignore. It's a slnging match.

I really don't want a slanging match but I would like for you to see how you talk to people. Then I'd really like you to stop playing the martyr and answer the points since it seems the facts don't match your intuition.

mysterious

meglome wrote: »

Sorry but you called people who disagreed several names. I'm not saying it makes it all right for me to do similar but then I'm not denying I did it.

No I didn't sorry:) I used the word sheeple, as people are behaving as sheeple in certain aspects, I didnt call anyone a name in a personal attack, nor did i say things like labeling poeple, nutters, paranoia, fool and wat not. Nor did I call you anything.

I will leave this to mods, cus this is not the topic, or actually accurate.

I can dissagree without having to go at your level.
It seems you had to attack me on the previous page. Therefore, I will not give you the time of day on anthing.:)

I really don't want a slanging match but I would like for you to see how you talk to people. Then I'd really like you to stop playing the martyr and answer the points since it seems the facts don't match your intuition.

As I said I'm finished here. I given, my views, my opinions, my evidence, my vidoes and given a fair few contructive arguments, and were very valid. I answered question's where I can

Now I had enough of the level of immaturity on this thread. People swinging far and right.

When I've already made it clear, there is no proof to either argument. It is just theory. I'm not here to convince anyone of either side. I gave my viewtake, you either accept it for what it is, or you ignore it.

This rant will go on for years. I know what happened. Do have evidence, yes, do I have defenate proof for my argument, no I don't. Will the proof be there in the future, maybe so.

Do I need to sit here and listen to this silly no where land arguement.

No I don't. Can you fight with someone else. I've already dicern the reality in front of me, and have agreements with many open minded people including many people on this thread.

This is my final post on this matter.

meglome

Well okay you've decided that you'll ignore most of what I said, I'll assume as it shows you to be at least mistaken. And it seems that your understanding of what constitutes proof and mine are very different. Good luck with that.

mysterious

meglome wrote: »

Well okay you've decided that you'll ignore most of what I said, I'll assume as it shows you to be at least mistaken. .

LMAO.
No Meglome, there are many people on this planet who just don't agree with you, doesn't mean they are wrong or I am mistaken:D:D

Sigh
You haven't shown any proof rofl....... you have only shown the waffle and some facts from the government. Yeah I said waffle. Governments lie alot. Therefore alot of it is not to be trusted. Your argument doesn't prove anything.

Please don't insult me, just because I dissagree with you, I repeat, just because I dissagree with your argument does not mean I'm mistaken. Thanks for the good laugh

Penn

mysterious wrote: »

Please don't insult me, just because I dissagree with you, I repeat, just because I dissagree with your argument does not mean I'm mistaken. Thanks for the good laugh

But it doesn't mean you're right either. And dismissing reports etc. from the government as waffle because "they lie a lot" is not proof that those reports are not accurate.

I know what happened. Do have evidence, yes, do I have defenate proof for my argument, no I don't.

Sorry mysterious, but could you clarify your point on this. You say you have evidence, but you don't have definite proof. Surely evidence is proof, and vice versa. Unless I'm mistaken.

I know you said you were not posting in this thread again, so I'll understand if you don't reply

mysterious

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

But it doesn't mean you're right either. And dismissing reports etc. from the government as waffle because "they lie a lot" is not proof that those reports are not accurate.

ROFL....
I mean, people who are aware and dicern reality know exactly why I'm laughing. Why you all try to figure the Government is this angelic lord.

In the meantime, they are now preparing for an Iran war. They haven't got public support yet.

So you can take it, they need a few more buildings to knock.:D
God some of you really do need to wake up......

Evidence is all around you people, its your choice not to look ffs.

meglome

mysterious wrote: »

ROFL....
I mean, people who are aware and dicern reality know exactly why I'm laughing. Why you all try to figure the Government is this angelic lord.

In the meantime, they are now preparing for an Iran war. They haven't got public support yet.

So you can take it, they need a few more buildings to knock.:D
God some of you really do need to wake up......

Evidence is all around you people, its your choice not to look ffs.

I wasn't going to post in here again and yet here I am. I'm not sure we can meet anywhere on this. I like some sort of evidence, but even when you're shown evidence you just ignore it if it doesn't suit your view. I have no fixed view on what did or didn't happen on 911, I just read the available evidence and came to a conclusion based on it. You've point blank said that you used intuition to form your view. Intuition is sometimes shown to be correct but when cold hard facts show otherwise?

So according to you Governments Lie=Governments Always Lie (except where it agrees with you it would seem). I'm sorry but by no stretch of the imagination is one equal to the other.

mysterious

meglome wrote: »

I wasn't going to post in here again and yet here I am. I'm not sure we can meet anywhere on this. I like some sort of evidence, but even when you're shown evidence you just ignore it if it doesn't suit your view. I have no fixed view on what did or didn't happen on 911, I just read the available evidence and came to a conclusion based on it. You've point blank said that you used intuition to form your view. Intuition is sometimes shown to be correct but when cold hard facts show otherwise?

So according to you Governments Lie=Governments Always Lie (except where it agrees with you it would seem). I'm sorry but by no stretch of the imagination is one equal to the other.

Evidence hmmmm.

Ok lets break this down for you. Trying to think wonderful calm things while posting this:rolleyes:

RIIIIIIGHT.
Before we get to evidence.
Do you uses your senses, to gain knowledge in the environment around you. Reason being, cus you are totally dependant on people g-i-v-i-n-g you the information and knowledge on worldly events.

Do you not question the given reality, on events such as 9/11 or do you again as I repeat, rely on what other people say, and what the T.V says and what the government says.

I will not show you the reality.
I have been on 4 major forums, and dealth with 1000s of people on this conspiracy on 9/11. I have Muslims friends, I have American friends. I ask them. I research on this tirelessy. I dedicate my skills to such events. I study politics. I study people in politics. I study what are there motives. I study the dyamics of each political agenda on both sides of any argument. I look at the probable outcomes of each agenda in the present. I look around as much as possible.

This is called
Questioning, using awareness, listening to your thougths (logic) Listening to your feelings (intuition) Obseving the world in this way, and gaining the knowledge that is available to you, asking people what they think on both sides. Trying to gain many aspects as you can into consideration and then coming to the final conclusion. This is getting a full picture. This is why I'm a step ahead of you, as your focused on a particular detail, and seem so puzzeled and lost as to how I got to any conclusion.


You are here, to rely on other people, and you do as I will make sure I point this out meglome. You choose the facts you want to believe. You have not reached the cause of dicernment. It is noted on many threads, where the majority can see something and you either don't see it or refuse to see it.

What exactly do you want me to do, spoon feed you and tell you the reality of this world down to a tee. Why can't you put the pieces together?


Is how you dicern reality, of anything you have been focused on.


People today, and most that I deal with, are like prove to me that you put butter on toast. I do, prove to me that you actually eat it. I eat. prove to me that your body digest it. I did...

But what does this toast do in your body. I explain, but why eat toast. Can you tell me whats in butter

I'm sitting here, why don't you try answer your own question's.
Isn't obvious that you put butter on toast, or do I have to explain the reality in front of you.

This last paragraph Is the number one problem in this world today. People are to lazy to become aware of reality.

meglome

mysterious wrote: »

This last paragraph Is the number one problem in this world today. People are to lazy to become aware of reality.

Well thankfully you're here to help us.

I saw a video of Tom Cruise a while back where he said him and his scientology friends were the only ones who could help. He sounded crazy.

bonkey

mysterious wrote: »

People today, and most that I deal with, are like prove to me that you put butter on toast. I do, prove to me that you actually eat it. I eat. prove to me that your body digest it. I did...

Yeah, but what's happening here is that you're being asked what evidence you have that you put butter on your toast, and you're refusing to answer and asking for proof that you don't.

Isn't obvious that you put butter on toast, or do I have to explain the reality in front of you.

You're being asked to provide the evidence for what you claim to be reality. That is not an unreasonable request.

You're being asked what grounds there are to show that your perspective is reality and not fiction. That's not an unreasonable request.

If you feel the need to think calming thoughts in order to be able to refuse to answer such questions, then I'd suggest that this isn't actually a discussion you want to have.

This last paragraph Is the number one problem in this world today. People are to lazy to become aware of reality.

No argument from me. Most people seem happy to just come up with their own "feeling" about what reality is, and stick with that, rather than looking for evidence to show that they're correct, then offering that evidence to others when they choose to discuss those feelings.

Penn

mysterious wrote: »

This is called Questioning, using awareness, listening to your thougths (logic) Listening to your feelings (intuition) Obseving the world in this way, and gaining the knowledge that is available to you, asking people what they think on both sides. Trying to gain many aspects as you can into consideration and then coming to the final conclusion.

Following this process is how I ended up at the conclusion that WTC7 collapsed due to a combination of the damage sustained by falling debris and fires in the building. Does that mean I am right? I study engineering. I thought logically about what happened to the building. Not who may have caused it, or who was in the building, but the building itself. I thought logically, and I listened to my intuition. Does that mean I am right?

Sofa_King Good

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

Following this process is how I ended up at the conclusion that WTC7 collapsed due to a combination of the damage sustained by falling debris and fires in the building. Does that mean I am right? I study engineering. I thought logically about what happened to the building. Not who may have caused it, or who was in the building, but the building itself. I thought logically, and I listened to my intuition. Does that mean I am right?

NO. Not according to the NIST report

mysterious

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

Following this process is how I ended up at the conclusion that WTC7 collapsed due to a combination of the damage sustained by falling debris and fires in the building. Does that mean I am right? I study engineering. I thought logically about what happened to the building. Not who may have caused it, or who was in the building, but the building itself. I thought logically, and I listened to my intuition. Does that mean I am right?

One thing is, your not applying my process.

Eg.
Why
Because, I've already looked where you haven't
You can sing all day, as other that your right and that your a structural engineer.

But as I said, This argument is theory, it is not proven to either
Point second
There are structural engineers who don't agree with your argument.

See how I'm already a step further than you, is dicerning reality.

Penn

I know, but this is my point. To quote mysterious:

using awareness, listening to your thougths (logic) Listening to your feelings (intuition) Obseving the world in this way, and gaining the knowledge that is available to you, asking people what they think on both sides. Trying to gain many aspects as you can into consideration and then coming to the final conclusion.

I did this and arrived at my conclusion, without being influenced by things like the NIST report or pretty much anything by the government. I did this without taking sides, without investigating who may have organised these attacks, or who had the most to gain. I arrived at this conclusion using logic and my intuition. So does that mean I am right?

mysterious

meglome wrote: »

Well thankfully you're here to help us.

I saw a video of Tom Cruise a while back where he said him and his scientology friends were the only ones who could help. He sounded crazy.

Riiiight.

Penn

mysterious wrote: »

There are structural engineers who don't agree with your argument.

But there are others who do. And there are far more who agree with the findings of the NIST report.

mysterious wrote: »

See how I'm already a step further than you, is dicerning reality

You're a step further than I am, but at least I'm walking in the right direction