Architects & Engineers - Solving the Mystery of WTC 7 - AE911Truth.org

weisses · 07-09-2011 01:21PM

I meant it in the way that it brought down that skyscraper jaysus

You make it sound like i am assuming you could walk around in a office on fire for 20 mins and walk out eating a magnum ice cream don't be pathetic :mad:

Di0genes · 07-09-2011 01:27PM

weisses wrote: »

I meant it in the way that it brought down that skyscraper jaysus

You make it sound like i am assuming you could walk around in a office on fire for 20 mins and walk out eating a magnum ice cream don't be pathetic :mad:

You said "Oooh Dangerous Office Furniture

:eek:" The sarcastic tone of your post suggested you didn't really think a office fire would be dangerous. Or am I wrong?

Just because you're having trouble making yourself understood its not my fault.

And plenty of skyscrapers and large buildings have been destroyed or partially destroyed by office fires alone.

The Windsor Building in Madrid, The McCormick Center in Chicago, One Meridian Plaza,
http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm

Either way you're flat out wrong saying "Dangerous office furniture

:eek:" and deserved to be corrected.

What with you being a fireman and all...

weisses · 07-09-2011 01:54PM

Di0genes wrote: »

You said "Oooh Dangerous Office Furniture :eek:" The sarcastic tone of your post suggested you didn't really think a office fire would be dangerous. Or am I wrong?

Just because you're having trouble making yourself understood its not my fault.

And plenty of skyscrapers and large buildings have been destroyed or partially destroyed by office fires alone.

The Windsor Building in Madrid, The McCormick Center in Chicago, One Meridian Plaza,
http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm

Either way you're flat out wrong saying "Dangerous office furniture :eek:" and deserved to be corrected.

What with you being a fireman and all...

Okay just say it again OOOHHHH THAATT DANGEROUS OFFICE FURNITURE in the context of levelling a 47 story skyscraper in seconds

as i was trying to explain in the post at 12:17

You need to read things first ... then maybe you can understand the crap you post yourself ...

And the only one in here getting corrected is you with warnings and a ban ...

WhatNowForUs? · 07-09-2011 02:01PM

weisses wrote: »

Okay just say it again OOOHHHH THAATT DANGEROUS OFFICE FURNITURE in the context of levelling a 47 story skyscraper in seconds

as i was trying to explain in the post at 12:17

You need to read things first ... then maybe you can understand the crap you post yourself ...

And the only one in here getting corrected is you with warnings and a ban ...

I thought the fire lasted for hours?

Penn · 07-09-2011 02:09PM

Allow me to pour some water on this office fire and tell everyone to calm it down.

Di0genes · 07-09-2011 02:12PM

weisses wrote: »

Okay just say it again OOOHHHH THAATT DANGEROUS OFFICE FURNITURE in the context of levelling a 47 story skyscraper in seconds

But you just wrote "ooooh dangerous office furniture",

You need to read things first ... then maybe you can understand the crap you post yourself ...

Where exactly have I posted crap?

And the only one in here getting corrected is you with warnings and a ban ...

Telling people not to be pathetic, or a drama queen is a surefire way to earn yourself a ban.

weisses · 07-09-2011 02:36PM

I just put him on the ignore list .... Just not worth getting banned

07-09-2011 04:01PM

Weisses any chance you'll address my question about the blatant dishonest editing of the footage?

Okay just say it again OOOHHHH THAATT DANGEROUS OFFICE FURNITURE in the context of levelling a 47 story skyscraper in seconds

But it didn't level it in seconds, the building was burning uncontrolled for hours. Why do you keep saying is was seconds?
Why couldn't office furniture cause long lasting, hot fires?

Any comment on the video detailing the actual way the building collapsed?

weisses · 07-09-2011 04:48PM

King Mob wrote: »

Weisses any chance you'll address my question about the blatant dishonest editing of the footage?

But it didn't level it in seconds, the building was burning uncontrolled for hours. Why do you keep saying is was seconds?
Why couldn't office furniture cause long lasting, hot fires?

Any comment on the video detailing the actual way the building collapsed?

if you mean the penthouse videos i agree its left out in a lot of videos not the one op posted though

I hope you didn't think that i meant from the moment the fires started untill the building collapsed was seconds ??

Even with the penthouse going down first i still cant believe al 43 collums collapsed exactly at the same time .... Due to office fires...... The moments i highligted in op video explains my point as well

About the video explaining the collapse ?? Dont know tbh i will check if i can find other experts talking about that.

Is it true that what was said in the video about withholding parts of the report for the public ?

07-09-2011 04:57PM

weisses wrote: »

if you mean the penthouse videos i agree its left out in a lot of videos not the one op posted though

It's only shown once in the video in the op.
It's not shown at all in the video you posted.
Now why is this section of the collapse being left out?

Why have I had to ask this question so many times for it to be even acknowledged let alone answered.

weisses wrote: »

I hope you didn't think that i meant from the moment the fires started untill the building collapsed was seconds ??

Yes, if you don't mean that you should stop saying that.

weisses wrote: »

Even with the penthouse going down first i still cant believe al 43 collums collapsed exactly at the same time .... Due to office fires...... The moments i highligted in op video explains my point as well

They didn't. No one says they did and if you watch the unedit footage conspiracy theorists are trying to hide, you can see this isn't the case.
Some columns failed which causes the east penthouse to fall and puts more weigh on other columns which in turn fail.
Then as the internal structure is collapsing the outer shell falls around it.

weisses wrote: »

About the video explaining the collapse ?? Dont know tbh i will check if i can find other experts talking about that.

Why do you need experts to form your own opinion now all of a sudden?

I'm specifically asking you about the simulation of the collapse.
Is that a reasonable explanation or not?
Is the explanation the same as the strawman you are trying to pretend is the official explanation?

weisses wrote: »

Is it true that what was said in the video about withholding parts of the report for the public ?

Where does it say that exactly?

weisses · 07-09-2011 05:24PM

I said before that i was more interested in the lack of damage on the north side ... you are obsessed with that whole penthouse conspiracy thing

The building came down in 14 seconds ... inc penthouse the fires are not relevant to me in context with wtc 7 collapsing thats why i said an will keep saying it came down in seconds:rolleyes:

Okay nice simulation looks good

Im just not agreeing with the official office fire implosion thats all don't portrait me as yet another ct nut please

Were discussing similair topics in different threads ... Typing on my android half the time do maybe points get overlooked etc

Just keep breathing man

07-09-2011 10:31PM

weisses wrote: »

I said before that i was more interested in the lack of damage on the north side ... you are obsessed with that whole penthouse conspiracy thing

I'm not obessed with it, I'm just trying to get someone who "doubts the official story" to actually address this fact. No one seems to want to for some reason.
So again, because you still haven't answered the question: why does the video you posted not show the total collapse?

weisses wrote: »

The building came down in 14 seconds ... inc penthouse the fires are not relevant to me in context with wtc 7 collapsing thats why i said an will keep saying it came down in seconds:rolleyes:

Great but you understand saying "It caught fire and after several hours collapsed in seconds" looks the same as saying it caught fire and collapsed in seconds.

So then you disagree with the "experts" in the op's video who say that the building fell in 7 seconds.
Why do they claim this?

weisses wrote: »

Okay nice simulation looks good

So then you understand that the offical story has nothing in common with the straw man you originally presented, that all of the supports suddenly collapsed at the same time?
Can you point out what is impossible about the simulation?
Can you show were it's in conflict with the facts?

weisses wrote: »

Im just not agreeing with the official office fire implosion thats all don't portrait me as yet another ct nut please

But your disagreement comes from you only seeing what conspiracy theorists are showing you.
When you first started posting on this thread you hadn't seen the actual start of the collapse because that footage is rarely shown by conspiracy theorists.
And the reason for you doubt, that there should have been a section that collapses before the rest of the building, is shown in this section conspiracy theorists are trying to keep from you.

So now that you've been shown what you claimed to expect in an uncontrolled collapse, what reason do you have to actually doubt the official story?

enfant terrible · 07-09-2011 11:56PM

weisses wrote: »

Building was damaged? yes

Parts of building collapsing? could easly happen

Total building collapsing the way it did no way

It was badly damaged it had just been hit by a falling 110 story sky scraper.

It had a hole in it which firefighters described as about a third the size of the building.

Other firefighters described the whole corner of the building being missing.

weisses · 08-09-2011 12:48AM

King Mob wrote: »

I'm not obessed with it, I'm just trying to get someone who "doubts the official story" to actually address this fact. No one seems to want to for some reason.
So again, because you still haven't answered the question: why does the video you posted not show the total collapse?

Great but you understand saying "It caught fire and after several hours collapsed in seconds" looks the same as saying it caught fire and collapsed in seconds.

So then you disagree with the "experts" in the op's video who say that the building fell in 7 seconds.
Why do they claim this?

So then you understand that the offical story has nothing in common with the straw man you originally presented, that all of the supports suddenly collapsed at the same time?
Can you point out what is impossible about the simulation?
Can you show were it's in conflict with the facts?

But your disagreement comes from you only seeing what conspiracy theorists are showing you.
When you first started posting on this thread you hadn't seen the actual start of the collapse because that footage is rarely shown by conspiracy theorists.
And the reason for you doubt, that there should have been a section that collapses before the rest of the building, is shown in this section conspiracy theorists are trying to keep from you.

So now that you've been shown what you claimed to expect in an uncontrolled collapse, what reason do you have to actually doubt the official story?

I would ask that question to the one who made that video if i were you

For that collapse thing ask the experts in the video why they say this ..they make that claim not me

tbh simulations are simulations .... they probably had simulations somewhere before they build the towers and look wat happend

08-09-2011 12:58AM

Funny how no one seems to want to speculate on this....

weisses wrote: »

I would ask that question to the one who made that video if i were you

So why did you post a video that was so blatantly editing out important bits of the collapse?

weisses wrote: »

For that collapse thing ask the experts in the video why they say this ..they make that claim not me

So then you do believe that they are wrong when they claim that the building collapsed in 7 seconds?

weisses wrote: »

tbh simulations are simulations .... they probably had simulations somewhere before they build the towers and look wat happend

That's not the question I asked you.
Do you see that the official explanation does not say that all the supports in the building gave out all at once?
Do you see how the building could collapse as in the official report?
Can you point out anything in the simulation that is impossible or conflicts with the evidence?

Why exactly do you doubt the official report now that we've shown you what you said you would have expected to see?

weisses · 08-09-2011 10:05AM

King Mob wrote: »

Funny how no one seems to want to speculate on this....

So why did you post a video that was so blatantly editing out important bits of the collapse?

So then you do believe that they are wrong when they claim that the building collapsed in 7 seconds?

That's not the question I asked you.
Do you see that the official explanation does not say that all the supports in the building gave out all at once?
Do you see how the building could collapse as in the official report?
Can you point out anything in the simulation that is impossible or conflicts with the evidence?

Why exactly do you doubt the official report now that we've shown you what you said you would have expected to see?

I already said a couple of times what was important to me in relation to that video ... Why are you not e-mailing the maker of that compilation and ask him how he got it into his mind to edit that penthouse thing out

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/wtc7.html

Damn conspiracy people not showing all the footage .... rigghtt

No it al depends if you include the penthouse into it ... some argue you have to some say it got nothing to do with it

wtc7 had 58 perimeter columns and 25 core columns and yes they all crumbled at the same time i dont know how far the penthouse came down

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

Look ... for you its evidence fine by me

there are so many scientists and engineers who are baffled by this collapse. and are not convinced by the nist report

Don't ask me for their home address and copy of their diploma's or CV please

Who is we ? as in we've shown you ... are you teaming up now?

Penn · 08-09-2011 10:30AM

weisses wrote: »

wtc7 had 58 perimeter columns and 25 core columns and yes they all crumbled at the same time

Just to point out from a structural point of view:

Let's say a Column needs to carry 100kN Dead Load (weight of the building) and 100kN Imposed Load (weight of stuff in the building), and is fixed at the top in 4 directions (eg. a beam is fixed to all 4 sides of the column).

In the design of the column (by todays standards anyway), it will be designed to carry 140kN Dead Load and 160kN Imposed Load (Factors of Safety). Now, if one column fails/collapses, the load it is designed to take is then transferred to other nearby steel members. Not only that, but the beams and columns nearby are then being pulled in another direction which they weren't designed to be (eg a beam fixed on all 4 sides to a column. If one is removed or being pulled away, the column is then being pushed in one direction, thereby losing some of its strength)

Once one column goes, its loading is passed to nearby members. If they fail, their load is transferred to nearby members etc. Eventually, they just can't carry that loading or resist those directional forces, which means they'll fail almost instantly.

So it isn't a case of all the columns failing at the same time. Some internal ones failed (not visible from outside) and as their loading was passed on and on, by the time it reached the outer columns and structure, they couldn't carry the loading/forces and so would have failed instantly.

weisses · 08-09-2011 10:40AM

Barrington wrote: »

Just to point out from a structural point of view:

Let's say a Column needs to carry 100kN Dead Load (weight of the building) and 100kN Imposed Load (weight of stuff in the building), and is fixed at the top in 4 directions (eg. a beam is fixed to all 4 sides of the column).

In the design of the column (by todays standards anyway), it will be designed to carry 140kN Dead Load and 160kN Imposed Load (Factors of Safety). Now, if one column fails/collapses, the load it is designed to take is then transferred to other nearby steel members. Not only that, but the beams and columns nearby are then being pulled in another direction which they weren't designed to be (eg a beam fixed on all 4 sides to a column. If one is removed or being pulled away, the column is then being pushed in one direction, thereby losing some of its strength)

Once one column goes, its loading is passed to nearby members. If they fail, their load is transferred to nearby members etc. Eventually, they just can't carry that loading or resist those directional forces, which means they'll fail almost instantly.

So it isn't a case of all the columns failing at the same time. Some internal ones failed (not visible from outside) and as their loading was passed on and on, by the time it reached the outer columns and structure, they couldn't carry the loading/forces and so would have failed instantly.

That's my whole point (dilemma)

when you look at the footage it would (for me) be logical that the building would collapse from the penthouse to the right cascading if you know what i mean so the left of the building would be down with the rest following due to lack of support ... with even some of the building left standing maybe

gonna be an engineer when im done here

Penn · 08-09-2011 11:04AM

weisses wrote: »

That's my whole point (dilemma)

when you look at the footage it would (for me) be logical that the building would collapse from the penthouse to the right cascading if you know what i mean so the left of the building would be down with the rest following due to lack of support ... with even some of the building left standing maybe

gonna be an engineer when im done here

The trouble is, how long is a piece of string?

Some columns or beams may not have failed as quickly as others. Some connections between columns and beams may have snapped off without pulling the surrounding members down with it. I mean, people can post all the visual representations they want, whether they be pro-CT or anti-CT. The trouble is, it's next to impossible (well, from my viewpoint anyway) to know exactly what happened to what steel member in what order. People talk about the column which pretty much brought everything down with it when it failed, but it may not have been the first one to fail. It may have failed due to other ones failing and overloading it.

But once some of the members have failed, the rest offer little to no resistance and support. Once it fails to a certain extent, it doesn't matter if the left falls before the right or vice versa, it's just all going to collapse because every steel member is connected to at least two others.

So, if a collapse happened internally first, let's say for arguments sake on the 10th floor, by the time it has reached the roof, it has also reached the outer walls at the 10th floor, so the walls throughout are already being affected through overloading and directional forces by the time the collapse becomes visible at the roof.

*puts away 'Structures for Dummies' and tries to look smart*

weisses · 08-09-2011 12:18PM

Barrington wrote: »

The trouble is, how long is a piece of string?

Some columns or beams may not have failed as quickly as others. Some connections between columns and beams may have snapped off without pulling the surrounding members down with it. I mean, people can post all the visual representations they want, whether they be pro-CT or anti-CT. The trouble is, it's next to impossible (well, from my viewpoint anyway) to know exactly what happened to what steel member in what order. People talk about the column which pretty much brought everything down with it when it failed, but it may not have been the first one to fail. It may have failed due to other ones failing and overloading it.

But once some of the members have failed, the rest offer little to no resistance and support. Once it fails to a certain extent, it doesn't matter if the left falls before the right or vice versa, it's just all going to collapse because every steel member is connected to at least two others.

So, if a collapse happened internally first, let's say for arguments sake on the 10th floor, by the time it has reached the roof, it has also reached the outer walls at the 10th floor, so the walls throughout are already being affected through overloading and directional forces by the time the collapse becomes visible at the roof.

*puts away 'Structures for Dummies' and tries to look smart*

But with all the interior support gone would it not be normal for the building to fall into itself being pulled in by at least some the interior horizontal support beams ... the footage is the only reference we have imo ... and the simulation of course

weisses · 08-09-2011 12:51PM

weisses wrote: »

Is it true that what was said in the video about withholding parts of the report for the public ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZEvA8BCoBw

@ King Mob

You asked were it was mentioned

look from 11:00 onwards ....if you have the stomach for it :rolleyes:

Penn · 08-09-2011 02:08PM

weisses wrote: »

But with all the interior support gone would it not be normal for the building to fall into itself being pulled in by at least some the interior horizontal support beams ... the footage is the only reference we have imo ... and the simulation of course

Again, how long is a piece of string? We (or certainly I) don't have enough information to properly answer that. There are a huge number of variables.

But basically, if the collapse began at the lower levels, it would have spread to the external walls at the lower level before the external walls at the upper levels. When those lower walls fail, everything else is irrelevant because then the entire building is essentially collapsing together. The frame of the building would be one of the strongest parts, and the strongest part remaining if the central structure had already collapsed. It wouldn't necessarily fall into itself. Some parts would, others wouldn't due to the impact or being pushed in another direction.

weisses · 08-09-2011 02:37PM

Barrington wrote: »

Again, how long is a piece of string? We (or certainly I) don't have enough information to properly answer that. There are a huge number of variables.

But basically, if the collapse began at the lower levels, it would have spread to the external walls at the lower level before the external walls at the upper levels. When those lower walls fail, everything else is irrelevant because then the entire building is essentially collapsing together. The frame of the building would be one of the strongest parts, and the strongest part remaining if the central structure had already collapsed. It wouldn't necessarily fall into itself. Some parts would, others wouldn't due to the impact or being pushed in another direction.

I am not trying to keep this going just for the sake of argument

But how much knowledge was available during the nist report ... Its always tricky that a report raises more questions then it anwsers ... plenty of knowledgeable people in OP movie

weisses · 08-09-2011 02:44PM

I also find it dissapointing the lack of participation from the OP in his own thread

Could be a valid reason for it ... But still

Penn · 08-09-2011 02:52PM

weisses wrote: »

I am not trying to keep this going just for the sake of argument

But how much knowledge was available during the nist report ... Its always tricky that a report raises more questions then it anwsers ... plenty of knowledgeable people in OP movie

I honestly don't know. But really, what questions does it really raise? The vast majority of professionals have no problem with the official report. From my own perspective, and having not fully read the NIST report, I'm guessing some assumptions would have had to have been made, because you can't know exactly what happened inside the building, which steel failed first or exactly when. But I don't think the report raises more questions than it answers, I think its more a case of some people disagreeing with the answers it gives.

Here's a post I made on the 9/11 thread on After Hours a few days ago:

People often talk about "Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth", an organisation of professionals from around the world who believe the conspiracy. About 1,500 worldwide.

But consider how many professionals like that there are. (approx figures)
Architects in America Alone: 233000 (source: http://www.numberof.net/number-of-architects-in-the-us/)
Engineers in America Alone: 278400 (source: http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos027.htm)

So in just America, not even Worldwide, there are over half a million such professionals, 511400.

1,500 out of 511400 is about 0.3%. You take into account all other professionals worldwide, you're talking about 0.05% max of Architects and Engineers worldwide who think it may have been a controlled demolition.

I work for two Engineers, with the same education and qualifications (they met in college). I could ask them both the same question and get two different answers. Engineers and architects will always have slight differences of opinion, but for only 0.05% maximum to think there was something wrong, I'd rather trust the 99.95%.

weisses · 08-09-2011 03:58PM

Barrington wrote: »

I honestly don't know. But really, what questions does it really raise? The vast majority of professionals have no problem with the official report. From my own perspective, and having not fully read the NIST report, I'm guessing some assumptions would have had to have been made, because you can't know exactly what happened inside the building, which steel failed first or exactly when. But I don't think the report raises more questions than it answers, I think its more a case of some people disagreeing with the answers it gives.

Here's a post I made on the 9/11 thread on After Hours a few days ago:

I work for two Engineers, with the same education and qualifications (they met in college). I could ask them both the same question and get two different answers. Engineers and architects will always have slight differences of opinion, but for only 0.05% maximum to think there was something wrong, I'd rather trust the 99.95%.

We don't know if all the engineers an architects were asked so your figures are wrong imo

And not many people will have the courage to speak out about something they see wrong ... with a good chance of being ridiculed by all kinds of people

Why not take them (In op video) serious and listen what they have to say

king mob refuses the video without even looking into it yeah he has issues with the peresenter i think he said ....

I will look into the people (experts) giving evidence and check if they could be frauds or whatever

08-09-2011 04:21PM

weisses wrote: »

I already said a couple of times what was important to me in relation to that video ... Why are you not e-mailing the maker of that compilation and ask him how he got it into his mind to edit that penthouse thing out

But your reasoning doesn't really hold up and kinda shows that you've no issue using sources that aren't being fully honest.
The reason I'm asking you is I'm asking for your opinion.
Why do you think he left out the footage from a "compilation of collapse footage?"
Do you think that it was honest to do so?

weisses wrote: »

No it al depends if you include the penthouse into it ... some argue you have to some say it got nothing to do with it

So the penthouse folding into the building has nothing to do with the collapse?
Do you really buy that nonsense for a second?

weisses wrote: »

wtc7 had 58 perimeter columns and 25 core columns and yes they all crumbled at the same time i dont know how far the penthouse came down

But they clearly did not.
You can see from the complete unedited video that the collapse starts under the east penthouse and propagates westward as the rest of the building falls inward.
This cannot be happening if all the columns failed at the same time.
Even in the edited version conspiracy theorists show you can see the westward propagation, so even then you assertion doesn't match what happened.

The simulation from the NIST shows how the internal structure probably collapsed, showing this propagation and showing that the columns did not all fail at the same time.
So again, I have to repeat very simple questions:
What is impossible about the NIST simulation?
Where is it in conflict with the evidence?

weisses wrote: »

Look ... for you its evidence fine by me

there are so many scientists and engineers who are baffled by this collapse. and are not convinced by the nist report

Don't ask me for their home address and copy of their diploma's or CV please

Who is we ? as in we've shown you ... are you teaming up now?

Well you see that's what we call an argument from authority.
There are much much more engineers who agree with the NIST report, but you'd agree that simply stating "they are experts therefore cannot be wrong" is not convincing.
So we're forced to look at the evidence presented by those engineers.
Which turns out to be very flimsy and very dishonest.

weisses wrote: »

@ King Mob

You asked were it was mentioned

look from 11:00 onwards ....if you have the stomach for it

Apparently so, but the video seems to not mention which files these were and when the request was made.
Maybe you can fill in those details?

weisses wrote: »

king mob refuses the video without even looking into it yeah he has issues with the peresenter i think he said ....

But I have looked at the film and pointed out several lies, mistruths distortions and deceptions.
The only issue I had with the presenter was my disappointment that the voice actor for J. Jonah Jameson and Uncle Ben from the Spider-man cartoons would be involved in such a dishonest turd of a propaganda movie.

Penn · 08-09-2011 04:23PM

weisses wrote: »

We don't know if all the engineers an architects were asked so your figures are wrong imo

And not many people will have the courage to speak out about something they see wrong ... with a good chance of being ridiculed by all kinds of people

Why not take them (In op video) serious and listen what they have to say

king mob refuses the video without even looking into it yeah he has issues with the peresenter i think he said ....

I will look into the people (experts) giving evidence and check if they could be frauds or whatever

Oh it wasn't that everyone was asked their opinion, I mean 1,500 is the number (well, about 1,550) that joined "Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth". I agree that there may be more who think the same thing, but do you think it would be enough to even get up to 0.2% of all such professionals? Not only that, but of the 1,550 signed up, there are many who call themselves an Engineer, but are actually Electronics/Electrical/Chemical Engineers. There was even one guy who was a 'Drilling Fluids Engineer'. (http://www2.ae911truth.org/signpetition.php).

I mean, as you and several others have said before, perhaps they're afraid to come forward, whether due to fear of ridicule or damage to their reputation. Thing is, apart from Richard Gage who is the main guy for that organisation, I honestly couldn't name anyone else, and I work in this industry. You have to go looking for the names, which most people wouldn't care about.

weisses · 08-09-2011 04:54PM

King Mob wrote: »

Apparently so, but the video seems to not mention which files these were and when the request was made.
Maybe you can fill in those details?

Ahhh thats just the way you try to work your way out of every difficult question that is asked

Just ask a more tougher question without anwsering one ... that is something for the Politics section KM

Just try to anwser my question or admit that is strange and try to find out why so many pages are withheld and we debate it here

08-09-2011 05:05PM

weisses wrote: »

Ahhh thats just the way you try to work your way out of every difficult question that is asked

Just ask a more tougher question without anwsering one ... that is something for the Politics section KM

Just try to anwser my question or admit that is strange and try to find out why so many pages are withheld and we debate it here

But I did answer the question, quite directly.
Then pointed out the issue I still have with the point.

But then on the other hand you've just totally ignored a whole post of questions...

So how about you actually address the points I've been trying to get you to address for the last 3 pages before I go digging up stuff on a totally different topic?

Architects & Engineers - Solving the Mystery of WTC 7 - AE911Truth.org

Comments