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

Run_to_da_hills

A fierce fire consumed all 44 floors of a skyscraper in Beijing today, shooting 30 foot flames into the air, but unlike the similarly-sized 47-story WTC 7, which suffered limited fires across just eight floors, the building in China did not collapse.

http://www.infowars.com/fire-consumes-wtc-7-size-skyscraper-building-does-not-collapse/

Gaspode

So what's the conspiracy theory on that then?

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

Sofa_King Good

deswalsh wrote: »

How many jets hit the one in Beijing?
.

How many hit WT7??

Gaspode

'pologies, didnt see the 7 there when I read that!!

0 planes afaik!

mysterious

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

A fierce fire consumed all 44 floors of a skyscraper in Beijing today, shooting 30 foot flames into the air, but unlike the similarly-sized 47-story WTC 7, which suffered limited fires across just eight floors, the building in China did not collapse.

http://www.infowars.com/fire-consumes-wtc-7-size-skyscraper-building-does-not-collapse/

Oh I would love to hear bonky's logic on this:D

But urmm urmm.

bonkey

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

A fierce fire consumed all 44 floors of a skyscraper in Beijing today, shooting 30 foot flames into the air, but unlike the similarly-sized 47-story WTC 7, which suffered limited fires across just eight floors, the building in China did not collapse.

Did it have the same, identified, structural weakness that WTC 7 had?

mysterious

deswalsh wrote: »

So what's the conspiracy theory on that then?

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

Fire was supposedly (falls over my words) brought down WT7. oh and fire melted steel and BAM brought WT7 down 9 seconds. No planes..

They can't blame islamic terrorists:p:p Thats the conspiracy with that.

But..... Yet a building of simalar size in beijing didn't fall was raged by fire and all that jazz.. God deception seems to really stick out in America. People should start thinking now.

Penn

You're right, no planes hit WTC7. But you seem to be forgetting the fact that Twin towers (which were hit by planes) collapsed right beside it, not to mention the fact part of WTC7 was smashed by falling debris from the nearest tower to it. This would have exposed the structural steel, or simply broke them, enough for the fire to finish the job.

It didnt just collapse because of the fire. As with the Twin Towers, there were other factors at work

mysterious

bonkey wrote: »

Did it have the same, identified, structural weakness that WTC 7 had?

Well bonky I respect that you like to have logic and facts to every argument but.

If logic, was to prevail here. Then WT7 was reinforced with butter and not steel.

9seconds, a fast baby to fall.

bonkey

mysterious wrote: »

Oh I would love to hear bonky's logic on this:D

Its very simple really....unless the building had the same, identified structural weakness, its comparing apples to oranges.

No-one has claimed (that I'm aware of) that WTC7 collapsed because it was a 47-storey building nor, to my knowledge, has there been claims that any 40-something storied building must collapse from fire.

Such claims would be ludicrous, but so far its about the only connection I can see in the initial claim. If what should have been said is that the structure did have the same design-flaw, then I'm most interested in finding out why the buildings behaved differently.

mysterious

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

You're right, no planes hit WTC7. But you seem to be forgetting the fact that Twin towers (which were hit by planes) collapsed right beside it, not to mention the fact part of WTC7 was smashed by falling debris from the nearest tower to it. This would have exposed the structural steel, or simply broke them, enough for the fire to finish the job.

It didnt just collapse because of the fire. As with the Twin Towers, there were other factors at work

Wrong wrong wrong WRONG.:mad::mad:

WT7 is not right beside it's actually on the corner of the next block. It's freestanding on it's own in the block. It did not get hit by rubble from the WTC. WTC towers that got hit had buildings accross the road that got hit and never fell. They were closer. WT7 is also protected by a wide boulevard.

I was in New York, I know the structural damage to the adjacent building's

WT7 is actually on the other side of the plot.


God that post was incredibly ignorant. The building collapsed in 9 seconds, rubble from a further way building will not make it collapse in 9 seconds. Oh my head hurts now.

mysterious

bonkey wrote: »

Its very simple really....unless the building had the same, identified structural weakness, its comparing apples to oranges.

No-one has claimed (that I'm aware of) that WTC7 collapsed because it was a 47-storey building nor, to my knowledge, has there been claims that any 40-something storied building must collapse from fire.

Such claims would be ludicrous, but so far its about the only connection I can see in the initial claim. If what should have been said is that the structure did have the same design-flaw, then I'm most interested in finding out why the buildings behaved differently.

So you still don't believe in the inside job?

Penn

mysterious wrote: »

Wrong wrong wrong WRONG.:mad::mad:

WT7 is not right beside it's actually on the corner of the next block. It's freestanding on it's own in the block. It did not get hit by rubble from the WTC. WTC towers that got hit had buildings accross the road that got hit and never fell. They were closer. WT7 is also protected by a wide boulevard.

I was in New York, I know the structural damage to the adjacent building's

WT7 is actually on the other side of the plot.


God that post was incredibly ignorant. The building collapsed in 9 seconds, rubble from a further way building will not make it collapse in 9 seconds. Oh my head hurts now.

From Wikipedia - A section which links to the official report:

As the North Tower collapsed on September 11, 2001, debris hit 7 World Trade Center, causing heavy damage to the south face of the buildings. The bottom portion of the building's south face was heavily damaged by debris, including damage to the southwest corner from the 8th to 18th floors, a large vertical gash on the center-bottom extending at least ten floors, and other damage as high as the 18th floor.

And I didnt say rubble from a further way building would cause a building to collapse in 9 seconds. But if that rubble damaged the structural integrity of the steel frame of the building, coupled with the fires, then yes, the building could collapse in 9 seconds. Like I said, it was a combination of factors.

And were you actually in New York on 9/11, in that particular region, looking at the structural integrity of WTC7 before it collapsed? And you call me ignorant

Oh my toe hurts now

mysterious

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

From Wikipedia - A section which links to the official report:

As the North Tower collapsed on September 11, 2001, debris hit 7 World Trade Center, causing heavy damage to the south face of the buildings. The bottom portion of the building's south face was heavily damaged by debris, including damage to the southwest corner from the 8th to 18th floors, a large vertical gash on the center-bottom extending at least ten floors, and other damage as high as the 18th floor.

And I didnt say rubble from a further way building would cause a building to collapse in 9 seconds. But if that rubble damaged the structural integrity of the steel frame of the building, coupled with the fires, then yes, the building could collapse in 9 seconds. Like I said, it was a combination of factors.

And were you actually in New York on 9/11, in that particular region, looking at the structural integrity of WTC7 before it collapsed? And you call me ignorant

Oh my toe hurts now

Then how come the closer, older and more damaged building's than WT7 that were beside WTC did not fall. Some building's actually were carved down due to the falling rubble from WTC.

WTC7 did not have this structural damage. It is further away, as there is a wide road and parkland around WTC onside sheilding WT7

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

WT7 was not damaged to a great degree, and to have fallen in 9 seconds, and fire melt steel in that short space of time. Is beyond ignorant.

mysterious

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

From Wikipedia - A section which links to the official report:

As the North Tower collapsed on September 11, 2001, debris hit 7 World Trade Center, causing heavy damage to the south face of the buildings. The bottom portion of the building's south face was heavily damaged by debris, including damage to the southwest corner from the 8th to 18th floors, a large vertical gash on the center-bottom extending at least ten floors, and other damage as high as the 18th floor.

Wikipeadia is not a reliable source for info as sensitive as this. WTC 7 was a demolition job just even looking by videos. On the videos. it DOES NOT show much structural damage. It might have got a shower of debris.

But I should be coughing up my tea right now, reading such idiocy on the "factors" that left a 40/50 story building to collaspe from debris and fire.

When most of the building surrounding WTC (and closer) didnt collapse.

mysterious

Even if despite claims, watchin videos of WTC 7 it clearly is a demolition job. You don't need to delve into rocket science when you can see the facts in plain view.

It's gone to the point. If it were proven to be the government.

People would still say ah but no it cant be :rolleyes:
Sheep..

Penn

mysterious wrote: »

Then how come the closer, older and more damaged building's than WT7 that were beside WTC did not fall. Some building's actually were carved down due to the falling rubble from WTC.

WTC7 did not have this structural damage. It is further away, as there is a wide road and parkland around WTC onside sheilding WT7

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

WT7 was not damaged to a great degree, and to have fallen in 9 seconds, and fire melt steel in that short space of time. Is beyond ignorant.

I dont know why the older, closer buildings didnt fall. But in the experience I've had in the engineering business, I would deduce that the way each of the buildings was designed, the rubble hit WTC7 at the side. The rubble hit the other buildings on the top. The steel frame could more easily withstand a lateral force, as it would be landing on top of the frame. Whereas in WTC7s case, the rubble hitting the side of the building would cause more damage structurally because it would knock out more weaker members of the frame. But as I said, I dont know for sure.

But WTC7 did have significant damage because of the Twin Towers collapse. Its not a secret. Its fact.

And as said many times before, the fire in any of the WTC buildings did not melt steel. But it weakened it. The jet fuel fires in the Twin Towers were a factor in their collapse. They collapsed less than an hour after being hit IIRC. But the fire in WTC7 wasn't as hot, as there was no jet fuel. But if you take the time the Towers were hit, and collapsed, and compare it to the time WTC7 was hit by the rubble and collapsed, it took a lot longer for WTC7 to collapse by comparison.

Anyway. I'm off to bed.

GhostInTheRuins

mysterious wrote: »

On the videos. it DOES NOT show much structural damage. It might have got a shower of debris.

Most of the photos you see of wtc7 are from one angle showing smoke coming from a couple of floors. CTers like to ignore the photos that show that one whole side of the building was engulfed in fire/smoke

Penn

also, the videos do not show that it is clearly a demolition job. Have you any idea about demolitions for a building like that? It would take months of planning and months of running wires through pretty much the whole building. Thousands of explosives would have to be installed in very precise locations, with wires pretty much connection them all.

And the 'government' supposedly did this while the building was still occupied without anyone noticing? They must have been planning it for years! Even though they had only been the government for little over 9 months at point.

mysterious

But it's the first steel frame building in history to have fallen due to fire damage. Most dissagree that it fell from structural damage. Most building surroundng survived this. It was also on the southface corner. And it would not have caused a building to collapse vertically down in 9 seconds without some explosives been used.

Another building in cacaras. a medium sized tower had fire in the building for 17 hours, all within burned completely. Yet the buildng withstood. another example. In Madrid A 32-story building burns for more than 24 hours and does not collapse. It does not collapse because buildings made of steel and concrete...... http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html
Some other major worse fires, that lasted far longer than the WTC7 fire damage to it's building.

Also another fact. WT7 was the only building outside the WTC block to have fallen. Everything within the WTC block collapsed. The WTC7 building is not in the block but fell.

Quote's
1.There was no structural damage to WTC post twin tower collapse; only some exterior cosmetic damage to one corner.

2.But according to the FEMA and NIST reports, it was fire (and not structural damage due to the twin tower collapse.....

3.Both of the landmark buildings on either side of WT7 received relatively little structural damage and both continue in use today.

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

5. all rubble and remains was removed before any investigation could be made into WTC7

Well that's enough for now.

mysterious

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

also, the videos do not show that it is clearly a demolition job. Have you any idea about demolitions for a building like that? It would take months of planning and months of running wires through pretty much the whole building. Thousands of explosives would have to be installed in very precise locations, with wires pretty much connection them all.

And the 'government' supposedly did this while the building was still occupied without anyone noticing? They must have been planning it for years! Even though they had only been the government for little over 9 months at point.

Why not?
It was planned years ago.

Just like the Iraq war. Just because you see them on T.V doing their waffling. Doesn't mean they don't have plans outside of your perception. 9/11 was planned years ago. The 92 test was the first test to see how the sheeple would react.

Gulf war happened 20 years ago, but they still had all the plans drawn up for an Iraq war before 9/11. Didnt expose the information till post 9/11.
it doesn't matter who is in government. Your only seeing the public figures doing their public work. It doesn't matter whos in democrats or Republican. The shadow government controls both of them.


They needed to plan it, as Opec was threatnening to dump the dollar. They needed a fearful nation in order to control and manipulate the nation into all the wars they put their sheep into.

bonkey

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

From Wikipedia - A section which links to the official report:

As the North Tower collapsed on September 11, 2001, debris hit 7 World Trade Center, causing heavy damage to the south face of the buildings. The bottom portion of the building's south face was heavily damaged by debris, including damage to the southwest corner from the 8th to 18th floors, a large vertical gash on the center-bottom extending at least ten floors, and other damage as high as the 18th floor.

For the record, NISTs findings concluded that this damage was incidental. The building would have collapsed from a specific design flaw, as a result of fire alone.

the building could collapse in 9 seconds.

The building didn't collapse in 9 seconds, so it doesn't matter.

Seriously...mysterious wants us to believe that the official explanation for the collapse of the building is wrong. To that end, there's no need to discuss any points which are not part of the official findings.

NIST do not claim the building fell in 9 seconds, nor do they claim that the structural damage inflicted from the falling towers played a key role. Therefore, neither of these points are truly relevant.

bonkey

mysterious wrote: »

Well bonky I respect that you like to have logic and facts to every argument but.

If logic, was to prevail here. Then WT7 was reinforced with butter and not steel.

NISTs findings were that WTC 7 suffered from a specific, identified physical design weakness which made it susceptible to fire.

Logic tells me that in the presence of such a weakness, that no, it doesn't need to be reinforced with butter.

9seconds, a fast baby to fall.

Had it fallen in 9 seconds, I'd agree with you.

It didn't, though, nor does the official account of the collapse claim it does.

Penn

mysterious wrote: »

But it's the first steel frame building in history to have fallen due to fire damage. Most dissagree that it fell from structural damage. Most building surroundng survived this. It was also on the southface corner. And it would not have caused a building to collapse vertically down in 9 seconds without some explosives been used.

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

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

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

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

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

Penn

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

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

Government: 9/11 was not planned by us.

Theorists: YOU'RE LYING!

Nick_oliveri

Dammit, i predicted this thread, am i Psycho.....Ps..Psy...Psychic?

Big ass burning skyscraper comparison thread becomes carousel Wtc7 thread, I could have predicted that too....

Penn

mysterious wrote: »

Quote's
1.There was no structural damage to WTC post twin tower collapse; only some exterior cosmetic damage to one corner.

Some exterior cosmetic damage? The steel frame is the exterior of the building and the external members are some of the most important parts of a steel frame. Hence the term 'frame'.

2.But according to the FEMA and NIST reports, it was fire (and not structural damage due to the twin tower collapse.....

As I said before, the damage caused by the rubble exposed the steel to fire. Something which didnt happen to other buildings which have had large fires.

3.Both of the landmark buildings on either side of WT7 received relatively little structural damage and both continue in use today.

Again, as I said before, you can't compare those buildings as they were built and designed differently, and the rubble hit in different places. And if what Bonkey said is true, WTC7 had a design flaw which was a major factor in its collapse.

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

That is just ridiculous. Why bother posting something like that and not giving a source.

5. all rubble and remains was removed before any investigation could be made into WTC7

No investigation necessary. Its plainly obvious what happened.

Well that's enough for now.

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

Sofa_King Good

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

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

TO be fair a false-flag attack on US soil was predicted in some quarters pre-9/11.

Penn

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

TO be fair a false-flag attack on US soil was predicted in some quarters pre-9/11.

Still not proof though. Its like Science Vs Religion. Some people accept what is proven and logical, some people choose to believe and have faith in something. But until I see some proof and evidence that 9/11 was an inside job, I choose Science

Diogenes

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

TO be fair a false-flag attack on US soil was predicted in some quarters pre-9/11.

Not to be fair, but the same sources have been claiming since 9/11 that there were for example, a nuclear false flag terror attack would occur since 911, that Osama Bin Laden would be found just before the 2004 elections, and a false flag terrorist attack would be used as justification for the declaration of martial law and preventing Obama being sworn into office.

It kind of diminishes your credibility if you keep claiming every six month that there will be a "false flag" terrorist attack, just so, liked a stopped clock you are right and a terrorist attack does occur, you can say "ha ha See I said they'd stage something like this"

Mysterious wrote:

Wikipeadia is not a reliable source for info as sensitive as this. WTC 7 was a demolition job just even looking by videos.

HA HA HA HA. Wikiepedia isn't a credible source but a video lets you an untrained lay man see the truth. Tell me where are the sounds of the shaped charges going off that you get in a regular demolition?

Sofa_King Good

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

Still not proof though. Its like Science Vs Religion. Some people accept what is proven and logical, some people choose to believe and have faith in something. But until I see some proof and evidence that 9/11 was an inside job, I choose Science

To be honest I'd agree with you, but with reservations.

Sofa_King Good

Diogenes wrote: »

Not to be fair,

I would expext no less

Diogenes wrote: »

but the same sources

which sources?

Diogenes wrote: »

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

Sound tro me like you need new sources.

Diogenes

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

I would expext no less which sources?

Alex Jones for a start.

Sound tro me like you need new sources.

I'm not the one swallowing this guff.

Penn

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

Sounds to me like you need new sources

Sofa_King Good

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

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

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

Government: 9/11 was not planned by us.

Theorists: YOU'RE LYING!

Or,

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

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

Sofa_King Good

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

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

Sounds to me like you need new sources

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


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

Sofa_King Good

Diogenes wrote: »

Alex Jones for a start.






I'm not the one swallowing this guff.

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

mysterious

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

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

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

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


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

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

It collapsed in 9 seconds....

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

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

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

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

Don't give me this crap please.

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

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

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

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

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

Penn

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

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


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

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

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

"Something will happen somewhere at some time" - paddyirishman85

Penn

mysterious wrote: »

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

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


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

It collapsed in 9 seconds....

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

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

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

Don't give me this crap please.


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



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

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

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

mysterious

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

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

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

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

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


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

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

Diogenes

mysterious wrote: »

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

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

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

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

It collapsed in 9 seconds....

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

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

Gosh you are an angry man.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What the name paddy Irish Man confused you?

mysterious

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

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

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

"Something will happen somewhere at some time" - paddyirishman85

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Penn

mysterious wrote: »

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Penn

mysterious wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Diogenes

mysterious wrote: »

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

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

How's that for a start.

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

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

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

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

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

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

mysterious

Diogenes wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

So fire made it come down how many seconds.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Lay off the personal insult.

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

No I'm not.:)

I'm showing and repeating reality.

Sofa_King Good

Diogenes wrote: »

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

I'd disagree.

Personally I found these comments pointless and patronising.

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

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

Something will happen somewhere at some time; - paddyirishman85

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

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

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

Government: 9/11 was not planned by us.

Theorists: YOU'RE LYING!

mysterious

Diogenes wrote: »

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

Funny you never said CIA. hhhmm.

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

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

How's that for a start.

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

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

Oh yes the 19 penciled drawn pictures:D

Give me a break.

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

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

I'm drinking water now.

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

If I told you, would you beleive it.

toiletduck

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

"Something will happen somewhere at some time" - paddyirishman85

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

mysterious wrote:

Well WT7, demolition from a naked eye.

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

Penn

mysterious wrote: »

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

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

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