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

GreeBo

mysterious wrote: »

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.

Surely if they were able to secretly plan all this for years in the building (what with being the shadow government 'n all) they would be equally able to remove any incriminating evidence in a slightly less noticeable fashion than blowing up said building?

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.

mysterious

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

A plane didnt hit the building. Most buiding's are designed to withstand plane crashes. Nothing hit the building. Little structural damage was caused due to falling rubble.

Btw WT7 was not severely structurally damaged. Again that is the deception the government want you to believe. But it is not in the block of the WTC towers. There is also another building and a road between the North tower and WT7. The left adjacent building is slighty closer to the North tower but yet still standing.

It has been proven time and time again, that no building was ever knocked due to fire damage. The structural damage was ruled out to be the cause yonks ago. If that was the case the two adjacent buildings deserved the same faith.

It's all in plain view.

mysterious

GreeBo wrote: »

Surely if they were able to secretly plan all this for years in the building (what with being the shadow government 'n all) they would be equally able to remove any incriminating evidence in a slightly less noticeable fashion than blowing up said building?

They did, by taking all the rubble and steel before they could do anything.

It's not a crime scene anymore.

Anyway I don't think anyone is willing to believe in the obvious. I'm in the position to say, the government don't need top secret planning. We are the sheeple. Easily fool the sheeple.

I mean it worked didnt it.

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.

This is not the topic, lay it off.

Sofa_King Good

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

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.

.

No bother. I'm a sensitive soul really.


seems like another pointless ego-trip

GreeBo wrote: »

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.

mysterious

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

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.

Calling a post ignorant, was proven due to what you accused me of. Etc. and your lame insults such as the loose change comment. You said alot of off topic posts to me.

The thing is, you haven't prooved anything about the structural damage tbqh. That I willl admit to accusing you of.

Penn

mysterious wrote: »

A plane didnt hit the building. Most buiding's are designed to withstand plane crashes. Nothing hit the building. Little structural damage was caused due to falling rubble.

Btw WT7 was not severely structurally damaged. Again that is the deception the government want you to believe. But it is not in the block of the WTC towers. There is also another building and a road between the North tower and WT7. The left adjacent building is slighty closer to the North tower but yet still standing.

It has been proven time and time again, that no building was ever knocked due to fire damage. The structural damage was ruled out to be the cause yonks ago. If that was the case the two adjacent buildings deserved the same faith.

It's all in plain view.

Yet again, I must point out that the building did not collapse due to fire. And the building did not collapse due to the falling rubble. It collapsed due to a combination of factors.

No building was ever knocked due to fire damage, becuase the structural steel in buildings is protected and designed to withstand fire. But when the rubble hit it, although it wasnt enough to cause major structural damage, damage was caused to the steel and it became exposed to fire, something it is not designed for.

Its like a tooth. You have the enamel, and the nerves on the inside. The enamel gets damaged, you have a cavity. The nerve is exposed and susceptible to damage.

And no one is saying WTC7 is in the same block, but the debris spread a considerable distance Which was in plain view, of the thousands of people whose homes and workplaces were damaged by it.

mysterious

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

Yet again, I must point out that the building did not collapse due to fire. And the building did not collapse due to the falling rubble. It collapsed due to a combination of factors.

No building was ever knocked due to fire damage, becuase the structural steel in buildings is protected and designed to withstand fire. But when the rubble hit it, although it wasnt enough to cause major structural damage, damage was caused to the steel and it became exposed to fire, something it is not designed for.

Yeah you like to choose your factors (ignoring demolition as a factor why)
The building collapsed like a demolition job, it just would not have fallen so fast in a short space of time. Due to exaggerated factors, that I keep allowing myself such bull**** enter my brain.

There has been taller buildings with fire going on for twice as long still standing. I posted many examples.

The rubble that hit the building was like hailstones, that is all. That factor is completely flawed. all buildings in the WT7 block survived and had not much damage.

Penn

mysterious wrote: »

Anyway I don't think anyone is willing to believe in the obvious. I'm in the position to say, the government don't need top secret planning. We are the sheeple. Easily fool the sheeple.

But this is the problem mysterious, what you say isn't 'the obvious'. Its the unsubstantiated rumours and hearsay with absolutely no basis in the modern world. I'm basing what I say on simple logic and an understanding of engineering and structural steel design. While I haven't provided proof to back up what I say, it would be far easier to prove what I'm saying than what you're saying.

You said how we don't know anything about Bin Laden, then when you were asked what you know about him, you said we wouldnt believe you.

And the Loose Change comment wasn't an insult, as Diogenes (I think it was him) said, I was merely referencing the fact that a lot of what you said was similar to that of the Loose Change films. If you took it as an insult, I don't apologise for it.

Penn

mysterious wrote: »

Yeah you like to choose your factors (ignoring demolition as a factor why)
The building collapsed like a demolition job, it just would not have fallen so fast in a short space of time. Due to exaggerated factors, that I keep allowing myself such bull**** enter my brain.

There has been taller buildings with fire going on for twice as long still standing. I posted many examples.

The rubble that hit the building was like hailstones, that is all. That factor is completely flawed. all buildings in the WT7 block survived and had not much damage.

I don't ignore demolition as a reason. I've already stated why I believe it was not a demolition job. The amount of set-up that building would have had to endure to be a controlled demoliton instantly rules it out as a factor. It would take more than a bomb in the lobby to make it collapse like that. The amount of work and preparation necessary would simply not have gone unnoticed unless it was factored into the design of the building when it was being built.

mysterious

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

I don't ignore demolition as a reason. I've already stated why I believe it was not a demolition job. The amount of set-up that building would have had to endure to be a controlled demoliton instantly rules it out as a factor. It would take more than a bomb in the lobby to make it collapse like that. The amount of work and preparation necessary would simply not have gone unnoticed unless it was factored into the design of the building when it was being built.

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

The amount of set-up that building would have had to endure to be a controlled demoliton instantly rules it out as a factor

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:

Penn

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

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

Read post below.

mysterious

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

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

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

mysterious

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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"&gt;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/"&gt;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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Penn

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

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

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

Diogenes

mysterious wrote: »

Funny you never said CIA. hhhmm.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Irony much?

Oh yes the 19 penciled drawn pictures:D

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm drinking water now.

Good for you.

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

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

Bascially you're just running around displaying your ignorance.

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

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

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

If I told you, would you beleive it.

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

Diogenes

mysterious wrote: »

Building 7

The September 11th Attack

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

No it was a commercial building open to the public.

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

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

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

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

Evacuation

Building 7 was supposedly evacuated around 9 AM.

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

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

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

You mean a photograph taken days after the attack.

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

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

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

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

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

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

mysterious

Diogenes wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do you see any illogic in your posts.

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

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

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

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

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

But I wasn't abusive. ffs.

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

Can you provide links. (non government based)

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

Do you know anything about sponsored terrrorism.

Do you have any history on these hijackers?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now its pakistan that's where they are now.

Give me a break.....

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

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

So someone is lying here.

Bascially you're just running around displaying your ignorance.

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

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

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

Explain that, or you still ignorant of these facts.

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

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

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

Falls over laughing....Not.

Diogenes

Can you provide links. (non government based)

Well can I use wikipedia.

Do you know anything about sponsored terrrorism.

Do you know anything about non sponsored terrorism?

Do you have any history on these hijackers?

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

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

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

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

Do you?

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

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

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

Now its pakistan that's where they are now.

What? Seriously? What?

Give me a break.....

Have a kit kat.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Falls over laughing....Not.

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

mysterious

Diogenes wrote: »

Well can I use wikipedia.




Do you know anything about non sponsored terrorism?



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




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



Do you?



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





What? Seriously? What?




Have a kit kat.




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



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



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




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





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

I quoted everything.

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

I guess I can't help you any further.

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

Gordon

mysterious wrote: »

I quoted everything.

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

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

GreeBo

mysterious wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

/me shakes head

mysterious

GreeBo wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unless you can clarify this with facts.

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

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

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

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

Conspriacy crap, who and what is, evidence please?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

/me shakes head

Quoted.

mysterious

Gordon wrote: »

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

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