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

Penn · 10-02-2009 05:31PM

mysterious wrote: »

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

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:

I'm sorry, but if you're just going to skim over my posts and pick out random words I'm not going to be able to have a discussion with you. As I said, demolitions take months to set up, because it has to be planned. A fire is an unforeseen event. I never claimed the fire was organised by Muslims. I'll say it again as simply as I can. Falling debris from the other towers (or hailstones as you like to call it) damaged and exposed the steel frame. This steel frame was then weakened by the fires which started as a result of the debris. After a considerable period of time, the building collapsed.

In all honesty mysterious, I think we both finally agree on one thing. This is becoming laughable. I've stated what I perceive to be true. You have done likewise. I thank you for your time and bid you farewell.

Nick_oliveri · 10-02-2009 05:46PM

mysterious wrote: »

your brainwashed and live in delusion.

Please dont talk like that. The main problem here is that people on both "sides" think that they are more enlightened than everyone else and resort to (mild) personal attacks. You wouldn't like me or Paddy saying that to you (or Mahatma or Bonkey...).

Youv'e got an absence of proof, and "what looks like" or "we decided to pull it" isnt worth a ****. You are not going to convince people by saying the same thing thats been said here since the creation of the other massive 9/11 thread.

mysterious · 10-02-2009 05:54PM

Read post below.

mysterious · 10-02-2009 05:55PM

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

I'm sorry, but if you're just going to skim over my posts and pick out random words I'm not going to be able to have a discussion with you.

Again I have to pull you up:)

Your doing these action's all by yourself.
One on hand you say these "factors" are the reason the whole building came down in a matter of seconds. Easily and magnificently. little or no evidence provided to your claim. Yet.....

On the other you say its impossible to have been a demolition job by explosives, as it needs months of preparation and much explosives to take the building down. But fire? Give me a f**** break.

Yet your exaggerated factors is what brought down a 50 storey building. There was no structural damage to the steel frame of the building. And fire would not of brought down the way it did, vertically down in a matter of seconds.

There were a very large building and another road in the way. The shower of debris only affected one corner as it did with the other two buildings on each side of the WT7.

Your quite simple been delusional and picky in what you want to admit is reality.:rolleyes:

As I said, demolitions take months to set up, because it has to be planned.

Clap clap. I mean marvelous.

. I'll say it again as simply as I can. Falling debris from the other towers (or hailstones as you like to call it) damaged and exposed the steel frame. This steel frame was then weakened by the fires which started as a result of the debris. After a considerable period of time, the building collapsed.

Structural damage was minimal, it was to one corner the steel frames would have to be struck from the main central columms in order to weaken it.

The building fell vertically. This shows more flaws, as the building was only hit on one side and one corner. The same damage that was done to the left building that still stands to day. The damage could of easily been repaired.

In all honesty mysterious, I think we both finally agree on one thing. This is becoming laughable. I've stated what I perceive to be true. You have done likewise. I thank you for your time and bid you farewell.

Again the funny part, is your choosing what you want to believe, and it turns out to be laughable.

Your quotes on the are appearing like government planning it isn't really a demoninator and it's deemed to difficult. and yet the muslims hijackers managed to take two planes with a pen knife and take over downtown manhatten. and seeming to plan the whole 9/11 easily and the government couldnt do it. Is retarded and utter fallacy.

It's so laughable, that if it was proved that it was a demolition job, you will still be the one person that would say

"but if the muslims didnt do that, the governmetn wouldnt of done that so there" You make excuses all the time. Your views are the same as Elizabeth Hasselback on the view. Your loyalty to the the government and official facts will never sway you to reality no matter what evidence you ahve been shown to prove otherwise.

It's your all your doing.

GreeBo · 10-02-2009 06:17PM

mysterious your posts are largely incoherent. May I politely suggest that you think about what you want to say and use some punctuation to make it more readable?

regarding the point comparing this fire to other fires that burnt for longer.
Using a basic example, if I have two quantities of combustible material and I set them both alight, logic tells me that the one that burns the fastest had:
a) some reason to burn faster
b) had a more intense fire

Now, since none of the other buildings u cite were hit by planes containing jet fuel, Im going to point out that perhaps the fact that there was jet fuel comes into it.
So, summing up, two similar buildings are on fire but one burns out much quicker than the others and had jet fuel as an accellerant. I put it to you, that this jet fuel had an effect that increased the intensity of the fire and thats why the other fires lasted longer and thus were less intense.

If you can compare fires in two totally different buildings then so can I.

bonkey · 10-02-2009 06:31PM

A bit more politeness wouldn't go astray on this thread, gents.

mysterious · 10-02-2009 06:57PM

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

Youv'e got an absence of proof, and "what looks like" or "we decided to pull it" isnt worth a ****. You are not going to convince people by saying the same thing thats been said here since the creation of the other massive 9/11 thread.

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

I've clearly debunked the bull**** that it was damaged severely. Knowhere did anyone say or show that it was. The building adjacent had the same if not more damage. The left adjacent building is closer to the North tower, but didnt collapse.

My arguements, is filled with logic.

Nobody has defenite proof of the WT7 collapse as, the rubble and steel was removed prior to any official investigation. No one has actually given any proof on the other side.

Fire and rubble from a building further away will not cause a 50 story building to collapse in a matter of seconds vertical down.

I'm just debunking the bull****

mysterious · 10-02-2009 07:03PM

GreeBo wrote: »

mysterious your posts are largely incoherent. May I politely suggest that you think about what you want to say and use some punctuation to make it more readable?

And you think this was coherent and readable.

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.

Take your own advice.

regarding the point comparing this fire to other fires that burnt for longer.
Using a basic example, if I have two quantities of combustible material and I set them both alight, logic tells me that the one that burns the fastest had:
a) some reason to burn faster
b) had a more intense fire

Now, since none of the other buildings u cite were hit by planes containing jet fuel, Im going to point out that perhaps the fact that there was jet fuel comes into it.
So, summing up, two similar buildings are on fire but one burns out much quicker than the others and had jet fuel as an accellerant. I put it to you, that this jet fuel had an effect that increased the intensity of the fire and thats why the other fires lasted longer and thus were less intense.

If you can compare fires in two totally different buildings then so can I.

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.

bonkey · 10-02-2009 07:12PM

mysterious wrote: »

I've clearly debunked the bull**** that it was damaged severely.

I think you may be confusing "emphatically disagreed with" and "clearly debunked" there, but how and ever...

You've completely ignored the fact that the official findings on the reasons for the collapse concluded that it didn't matter whether or not it was damaged, it was a design-weakness which led to the collapse.

Only a day or so ago, you were expressing surprise that NIST's investigation regarding WTC7 was complete, and indicated that you didn't know what they concluded. Now, you're saying that some explanation other than what they concluded is wrong, and this somehow shows that NIST's findings are incorrect.

What, exactly, are you disagreeing with? Can you clearly explain what NISTs conclusion was, and explain why its wrong?

As for your 9 seconds claim...it involves ignoring the collapse of the East Penthouse, starting the clock some 5 seconds later, when the main facade begins to buckle.

bonkey · 10-02-2009 07:13PM

mysterious wrote: »

A building in Cacarass, had a fire raging for 17 hours through all floors three times LONGER than WT7, yet still stands perfectly.

Did it have the same design-flaw that was identified in WTC7 as the cause of that building's collapse?

i'm sure WT7 is a better designed building that a skyscraper in a third world country.

Let me guess...intuition?

mysterious · 10-02-2009 07:46PM

bonkey wrote: »

Did it have the same design-flaw that was identified in WTC7 as the cause of that building's collapse?

A design flaw now is it. LMFAO:rolleyes: "shakes head*

What other excuse is next, the wind helped.

Let me guess...intuition?

I wonder where you get your sources.
"The official CIA al la governmont facts"

Give me a break lol..

mysterious · 10-02-2009 07:48PM

bonkey wrote: »

As for your 9 seconds claim...it involves ignoring the collapse of the East Penthouse, starting the clock some 5 seconds later, when the main facade begins to buckle.

So which knocked the east penthouse.

Proof and what caused it?

bonkey · 10-02-2009 07:52PM

mysterious wrote: »

A design flaw now is it. LMFAO:rolleyes: "shakes head*

You're basically saying that no, you haven't a clue what the official findings are, despite insisting that they're wrong.

Fair enough.

I don't think I could undermine your position as thoroughly as you're doing yourself.

I wonder where you get your sources.

I've referred to the design flaw being stated in the official findings more than once. If that doesn't tell you what my source is, then you're indicating that not only do you not know what the findings are, you don't know who produced them.

bonkey · 10-02-2009 07:56PM

mysterious wrote: »

So which knocked the east penthouse.

The same thing that "knocked" the rest of the building: a design flaw.

Proof and what caused it?

More indication that you're unfamiliar with the very findings you're trying to say are wrong...

If you agree you don't know what those findings are, and therefore have no basis on which yet to claim their incorrectness, I'm more than willing to point you to them.

If, on the other hand, you feel the need to persist with the eye-rolling smilies, laughing, and so forth, then I don't really see what the point would be.

I'll let you decide.

mysterious · 10-02-2009 08:00PM

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

[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." 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.
Evacuation

Building 7 was supposedly evacuated around 9 AM. 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:
Firemen evacuated the area as they prepared for the collapse of Building Seven. [SIZE=-1]1 [/SIZE]
There are no photographs that show large fires in Building 7. 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

Building 7 underwent a total structural collapse at 5:20 PM. [SIZE=-1]2 [/SIZE] Although there were few people in the area to witness its destruction, several videos captured the event. Like the collapses of the Twin Towers, the collapse of Building 7 commenced suddenly and was over in seconds At first the penthouse, which rests on central columns, began to drop. Within a second the entire building began to drop as a whole, falling into its footprint in a precisely vertical fashion. The destruction of Building 7 which is not explained by the official theory, looked exactly like a standard controlled demolition.

[SIZE=-1]In under seven seconds Building 7 was transformed from a skyscraper to a tidy rubble pile. [/SIZE]
It is commonly believed that "ancillary damage" from the collapses of the Twin Towers led to the collapse of WTC 7 In fact Building 7 was separated from the North Tower by Building 6 and Vesey Street. A photograph of its north facade taken in the afternoon shows isolated small fires, and not even a single window was broken.
References

[SIZE=-1]1. <A class=offsite href="http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/fireman-01.htm">Getting the photo of a lifetime, arlingtoncemetary.net, 9/13/01 [cached]
2. <A class=offsite href="http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/chronology.attack/">September 11: Chronology of terror, CNN.com, 9/12/01 [/SIZE]

Source and links can you all see this, I know of you can't see demolition jobs, but have a look LINKS AND SOURCES:D

mysterious · 10-02-2009 08:04PM

bonkey wrote: »

The same thing that "knocked" the rest of the building: a design flaw.

More indication that you're unfamiliar with the very findings you're trying to say are wrong...

Forgive me, but I don't listen to facts, of the US government. You obviously don't realise they are a bunch of nazis liars.

But please do tell me where you get your facts from, this design flaw?

I would love to hear it. I mean what else made it fall now :rolleyes:

If you agree you don't know what those findings are, and therefore have no basis on which yet to claim their incorrectness, I'm more than willing to point you to them.

Please do, but you know I'll will point and laugh if you give me government sources. It's 2009 and you should know the situation that they are not to be trusted in the info. As they are also in theory to have plotted 9/11.:) This logic and intution combined you see. It's called greater awareness.

If, on the other hand, you feel the need to persist with the eye-rolling smilies, laughing, and so forth, then I don't really see what the point would be.

I'll let you decide.

what? lol...

mysterious · 10-02-2009 08:31PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QJWfe6t5V8
I'm not to sure how to insert the video link properly.
This video is worth watching. Bonky again you should watch this, and turn of the government spewing crap that
you seem to read from the Media or watch from their mouth etc.

The reason why Rosie had was sacked. They don't like people who use their brains. So they get them off the T.V.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZPetClvn2o

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KXq6PPvVBM&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58h0LjdMry0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8T2_nedORjw&feature=related

Bonky you should watch this. Sept 10th, my intution told me something bad was going to happen. You should watch this. I mean whoa.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlnQTcLHaMM&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ml_n5gJgQ_U

All the naysayers to how fast it fell, watch this, and this should solve your ignorance.

Gordon · 10-02-2009 08:52PM

mysterious wrote: »

Source and links can you all see this, I know of you can't see demolition jobs, but have a look LINKS AND SOURCES:D

Copypasted. Your links don't work, hence you have not provided any links. Maybe you haven't read what you posted, but just copypasted it without actually reading it. Oh I forgot your favourite seemingly condescending smiley:

bonkey · 10-02-2009 08:58PM

mysterious wrote: »

:rolleyes:
...
lol...

You've made your decision - its clear that you're not interested in a serious discussion.

Thanks for playing, though.

Gordon · 10-02-2009 09:20PM

mysterious wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ml_n5gJgQ_U

All the naysayers to how fast it fell, watch this, and this should solve your ignorance.

So you're saying that the government created a vacuum around the building by causing an explosion. The explosion, instead of pushing matter away from itself actually created a vacuum and sucked matter into the explosion. So the government used an implosion bomb on WTC7? That must have cost them a fair few bob.

Penn · 10-02-2009 09:23PM

Thats your proof? Rosie O Donnell? Thats your proof?

Structural magazine explanation regarding WTC7
http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf

History Channel Documentary on WTC7:

And as for the Italian video. A few points:

It showed WTC7 and a controlled explosion side by side, supposedly falling at the same speed. It neglected the fact that the videos were taken at different distances from the buildings, and that you cannot see the base of WTC7 due to the surrounding buildings, so it can't be determined how long it took to collapse from any of the videos you linked to.
The emergency services had already evacuated WTC7 and in order to help the people in towers 1 and 2, were told to let the fire in WTC7 continue. They knew there was a possibility it would collapse, so they cleared the area. This also explains the BBC prematurely saying WTC7 had collapsed, whereas it was based on the fact that they knew a collapse was imminent.

I'm done here. I know you'll instantly rebuke everything I just said with no basis or a link to Rosie O Donnell. So whats the use. Believe what you want to believe man. I'm happy here with all the other sheeple

mysterious · 10-02-2009 09:28PM

Gordon wrote: »

So you're saying that the government created a vacuum around the building by causing an explosion. The explosion, instead of pushing matter away from itself actually created a vacuum and sucked matter into the explosion. So the government used an implosion bomb on WTC7? That must have cost them a fair few bob.

I'm not saying what type of bomb they used. They could of use any matter of kinds.

The few bob, was more than made up for. Post 9/11. As Donalds Rumsfield's speech proved that. War is profits

Fueling a war is like saving up for a big splash of gold.

mysterious · 10-02-2009 09:30PM

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

Thats your proof? Rosie O Donnell? Thats your proof?

Structural magazine explanation regarding WTC7
http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf

History Channel Documentary on WTC7:

And as for the Italian video. A few points:
It showed WTC7 and a controlled explosion side by side, supposedly falling at the same speed. It neglected the fact that the videos were taken at different distances from the buildings, and that you cannot see the base of WTC7 due to the surrounding buildings, so it can't be determined how long it took to collapse from any of the videos you linked to.

The emergency services had already evacuated WTC7 and in order to help the people in towers 1 and 2, were told to let the fire in WTC7 continue. They knew there was a possibility it would collapse, so they cleared the area. This also explains the BBC prematurely saying WTC7 had collapsed, whereas it was based on the fact that they knew a collapse was imminent.

I'm done here. I know you'll instantly rebuke everything I just said with no basis or a link to Rosie O Donnell. So whats the use. Believe what you want to believe man. I'm happy here with all the other sheeple

Rosie O donnel was one person and one example. Knock it off. She isn't any less of a person than you or I. She happens to be a big 9/11 activist. A very intellegent woman. A humanitarian and she also lives in New york.

They were many other examples I posted. ffs.

mysterious · 10-02-2009 09:32PM

bonkey wrote: »

You've made your decision - its clear that you're not interested in a serious discussion.

Thanks for playing, though.

Mysterious isn't bothered to play. Unless you can clarify this mind playing here bonky. I'd rather stick to this topic.

Penn · 10-02-2009 09:32PM

mysterious wrote: »

I'm not saying what type of bomb they used. They could of use any matter of kinds.

The few bob, was more than made up for. Post 9/11. As Donalds Rumsfield's speech proved that. War is profits Fueling a war is like saving up for a big splash of gold.

So why bother with the war to get oil? If trillions of dollars is unaccounted for, why spend that on setting up a war to get trillions of dollars. You said before about how its so they can become the most powerful nation. They are the most powerful nation! And they already were before 9/11

mysterious · 10-02-2009 09:34PM

Gordon wrote: »

Copypasted. Your links don't work, hence you have not provided any links. Maybe you haven't read what you posted, but just copypasted it without actually reading it. Oh I forgot your favourite seemingly condescending smiley:

Gordon I have read the links. Why would you say such a silly accusation? It's irrelevant to the topic what you think or not about that.

So what would you like me to do, go to Washington D.C and uncover a secret non copy and paste leaflet on WT7 within the pentagon.

I give videos, specific sites and particular youtube videos to counter my claims. What would you like me to do?

Where is your argument?

Penn · 10-02-2009 09:35PM

mysterious wrote: »

Rosie O donnel was one person and one example. Knock it off. She isn't any less of a person than you or I. She happens to be a big 9/11 activist. A very intellegent woman. A humanitarian and she also lives in New york.

They were many other examples I posted. ffs.

And I gave my reply to the other examples you posted. I eagerly await your response to mine

Penn · 10-02-2009 09:37PM

mysterious wrote: »

Gordon I have read the links. Why would you say such a silly accusation? It's irrelevant to the topic what you think or not about that.

So what would you like me to do, go to Washington D.C and uncover a secret non copy and paste leaflet on WT7 within the pentagon.

I give videos, specific sites and particular youtube videos to counter my claims. What would you like me to do?

Where is your argument?

I think Gordon was referring to the fact that a lot of the links on the post at the top of page 6 do not work, and do not link to where they are meant to

mysterious · 10-02-2009 09:43PM

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

So why bother with the war to get oil? If trillions of dollars is unaccounted for, why spend that on setting up a war to get trillions of dollars. You said before about how its so they can become the most powerful nation. They are the most powerful nation! And they already were before 9/11

It's not just about oil. Again you fail to see the whole picture. America has been out of recources for many years. War is the only means of gaining vast profits and mineral/oil wealth. EDIT: I'm aware they have vast quantities of Oil in Alaska, but they would rather take from other countries. This is greed. The Elite of America again prove to be the opposite of the "good guys"

This no inside job yet? hmmm.

The reason of this war. I've told you already. Is that Saddam had threatened to dump the Dollar back in 2000. A year after the Euro was formed. USA would lose trillions on the stock market. The value of the dollar would plummet following. One the biggest money maker for USA is the strength of the dollar and it is the main currency for trading goods in the world.

They needed a war. Sept 11 is the beginning of this behaviour. The WMDs and "war on terror" were deceptive factors to trick the people into thinking America was endangered by the east. The common way to control the masses. Is to Divide and control.

Yes they are the most powerful nation. So was Rome and Rome fell. This is what is now happening to America, they cannot sustain this any longer. America needs mineral recources including oil in other to be the most dominant nation on the planet for another few years. The only way they will keep been the threshold, is by behaving like a bully and causing more genoicide, more wars, selling more arms, occupying nations and taking them over. If it means another 9/11 they will do that.This is called organised warfare. This is precisely the reason 9/11 is heavily linked. This is to protect the wealth of the riches that run America

It was always about money. The CIA have been in this dirty business of sponsoring terrorism for the last 50 years. Everyone should stop waffeling over trivial details, and get to know the reality of how this world is operating right now. It is not good.

China and Russia are becoming stronger and their ties with Iran and Saudi Arabia are growing stronger. This is threatening to USA's interest. This is why they needed to act fast and quickely. They knew they would have trouble starting a war against the UN, and a heavily sanctioned Iraq given the fact that America gave Saddam to do all the slaughtering he ever wanted. It's all pre ordained. The conclusion they need a world scale event that would shock the world. 9/11 was the job. The nazis style drumming "they are bad" "we must kill them" "we must win" our safety from saddam is under threat" so on so forth, a mass parade of war fuelinng antics from sept 11 till they managed to sway the United states of America into Iraq

Now Iran is threatening to the same thing. Now Iran is "suddenly" on the invasion list. The same behaviour will apply with Iran. This excuse here, is more propaganda "Iranian leader very bad" they have nucs very bad" the drumming continues. Until you all fall for it again,

I wont though.

Sooner or later most of Opec will dump the dollar. And America will be screwed. The US government would sacrifice another few thousands simpleton Americans and a few more 9/11 not a bother in order to keep USA the dominant nation in the world. USA is basically like an old man refusing to accept hes getting old.

I suggest you to
Watch
Iraq conspriacy. On youtube. It was documentated very unbiased. A uk journalist went to America to find out the answers as to why USA invaded Iraq. You can watch the full video on youtube. or alluc.org (I think) It's well worth a watch. Give's good logical conclusions to many of the unanswered question's

mysterious · 10-02-2009 09:51PM

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

I think Gordon was referring to the fact that a lot of the links on the post at the top of page 6 do not work, and do not link to where they are meant to

I don't know how to post the youtube videos directly onto the thread in play per view form.

I would appreciate if someone could fix that.

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

Comments