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

Diogenes

mysterious wrote: »

Unless you can clarify this with facts.


No steel building was ever brought down by fire. So that argument is again moot.

Oh Rly?

Firstly there are two points. One ifvSteel is immune to the properties of fire how the devil do we make and mould it? Secondly, if steel buildings never collapse due to fire, why on earth do we bother going to the trouble of fire proofing Steel?

As to you astonishing claim about no steel building ever being brought down due to fire, ahem,

Three multi-storey buildings collapsed due to fire after burning less than two hours
http://www.ilo.org/encyclopedia/?doc...8&nh=0&ssect=1

A toilet paper factory collapsed during a fire, “Intense heat buckled the steel girders holding the roof.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e...cs/6105942.stm

See also the Kaeder Toy Factory Fire





Taken from a fire at English toilet Paper factory

And a news story about a fire in a steel framed building in NJ.

What do all these fires have in common all occured in steel framed building, all concluded in either partial or total collapse of the structure.

Quoted.

You keep doing that, why?

Sofa_King Good

Diogenes wrote: »

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

He would have been funded thorugh his involvement with CIA/Taleban heroin trafficking though.

He lost access to his inherited wealth in 94 when he was apparently disowned.

Diogenes wrote: »

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

surely you are arguing for arguments sake here. Firmly established that the Mujhadeen? /Al Qaeda were CIA run.

Diogenes wrote: »

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.

According to this http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/atta.html
Atta Jnr called him 2 days after the attacks.

-
"Asked where Muhammad was now, he said, "Ask Mossad."

wasn't there also flight trainers that highly doubted some of the hijackers abilty.

Re flight records. http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0212/S00058.htm

"Whatever secrets Dekkers may possess about the terrorists, records from his flight school were deemed sensitive enough to have merited being escorted back to Washington by Florida Governor Jeb Bush aboard a C-130 cargo plane, which left Sarasota less than 24 hours after the September 11 attack."

CCTV footage could be anyone, anywhere. Bit cheeky of you to try and use circumstancial evidence.

Especially when the evidence is passports found in rubble of living people. Flight manuals in their car??? And good ol' Obama bin Laden praising hijackers in a CIA retrieved video praising hijackers by name that were living

Diogenes wrote: »

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

Now, now, now Diogenes I'd hate to bring up one of your favourite words, contemptable but that is how you described alluding guilt through kinship...Remember Rahm Emanuel ??

Thats all the energy I got but there are a huge list of inconsistiencies.


Y

Penn

mysterious wrote: »

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.

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.

Mysterious, for the last time, Steel members in buildings have to be protected by fireproofing, in order to ensure they dont collapse. But WTC7s fireproofing was damaged because it was hit by rubble from the other towers. That is a fact, and I have already posted a video explaining this in detail, from a non-government source.

I really don't know how many times I've posted this FACT now. You say it didnt receive much structural damage by being hit by the rubble. You say the fire alone couldnt bring down this building. You are right on both counts. But COMBINING these two WOULD bring a building like that down. Not to mention the design flaws in the building which I already posted another non-government link to from an engineering magazine.

I'll explain it again, as simply as I can:

Controlled explosives:
- Would require months of planning
- Would require months of preparing the building
- Preparation of the building would not have gone unnoticed in this public building
- The sound of explosives throughout the building would be obvious
- The building would collapse in its own footprint

Fire:
- Fire protection of steel damaged by rubble
- Steel weakened and exposed to fire
- Fire caused by diesel which was used to heat the building. This did not happen in the other buildings.
- Emergency services told to let the fires burn out as it had already been evacuated and to focus water and energy on the people trapped by the Twin Towers
- Fire weakens exposed steel after several hours due to DAMAGED FIRE PROTECTION
- Small sections of WTC7 begin to collapse
- Emergency services evacuate area as they believe WTC7 will collapse soon
- Building collapses. Large noises heard are not similar to a controlled explosion, and are most likely the building collapsing internally before dragging the whole building down, giving it an indeterminable collapse time.
- Building does not collapse in own footprint. Contiguous buildings damaged by collapse.

GreeBo

mysterious wrote: »

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:)

so you were ignoring me, yet you replied to my post and missed 100% of its contents.

mysterious wrote: »

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

Im done here. Your posts are impossible to read. Im not sure if English is your first language but either way, Id advise you to just stick to basic sentences.
FYI: You dont need to type every sound that you make or thought that you have.

The irony is that you are the one with your head in the sand refute any and all of the facts that we put to you with childish replies containing no facts other than the ones you have made up previously.

You sir, are a baboon.

bonkey

GreeBo wrote: »

You sir, are a baboon.

And you, sir, are banned for a week for that comment.

KateF

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.

+1

Diogenes

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

He would have been funded thorugh his involvement with CIA/Taleban heroin trafficking though.

The Taliban, didn't make money from Opium trafficking. They actively discouraged.

He lost access to his inherited wealth in 94 when he was apparently disowned.

I would suggest you read Rory Mc Carthy's excellent book "Al Qaeda" to see how very wrong you are.

surely you are arguing for arguments sake here. Firmly established that the Mujhadeen? /Al Qaeda were CIA run.

Really? By whom? Mujhadeen were mainly supported by independently wealthy Saudi's the CIA and US state deparment provided training and logistical support through Pakistine's ISI.

Oh you didn't think Rambo III was a documentary did you?

According to this http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/atta.html
Atta Jnr called him 2 days after the attacks.

-
"Asked where Muhammad was now, he said, "Ask Mossad."

Oh FFS Atta's dad now? The man who claimed his son wasn't involved, then claimed he was involved, and then went on to praise the July 7th tube bombers, and demanded 5,000 dollars from CNN for an interview, money he claimed he would use to stage a Jihad in American.

TOTALLY CREDIBLY SOURCE THERE.

wasn't there also flight trainers that highly doubted some of the hijackers abilty.

THIS BULLL**** AGAIN?

Heres a full list of quotes from flight school trainers that demolishs this bull****.

Especially when the evidence is passports found in rubble of living people.

The Passports were not the only personal effects found from flights in the rubble you missed that bit.

Flight manuals in their car??? And good ol' Obama bin Laden praising hijackers in a CIA retrieved video praising hijackers by name that were living

Which still living hijackers. This should be entertaining.

Now, now, now Diogenes I'd hate to bring up one of your favourite words, contemptable but that is how you described alluding guilt through kinship...Remember Rahm Emanuel ??

OH for f**Ks sake. KSM masterminded the 93 bombing, his nephew was the bomber, to compare that to your snide accusations about any and every Jew in american politic is phenomenally pathetic.

Thats all the energy I got but there are a huge list of inconsistiencies.


Y

Lets see, you've quoted a raving nutter, pronounced skeptism about passports, claimed definitively that some of the hijackers are alive. Wow, christ the internet's gain is the legal professions loss. :rolleyes:

Sofa_King Good

Diogenes wrote: »

:rolleyes:

"Mr Al-Hamzi is 26 and had
just returned to work at a petrochemical complex in the
industrial eastern city of Yanbou after a holiday in Saudi
Arabia when the hijackers struck. He was accused of
hijacking the American Airlines Flight 77 that hit the
Pentagon.
He said: "I have never been to the United States and have
not been out of Saudi Arabia in the past two years." The
FBI described him as 21 and said that his possible
residences were Fort Lee or Wayne, both in New Jersey."

"The real Salem Al-Hazmi, however, is alive and indignant in Saudi Arabia, and not one of the people who perished in the American Airlines flight that crashed on the Pentagon. He works at a government-owned petroleum and chemical plant in the city of Yanbu."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/sep/21/afghanistan.september112
http://physics911.ca/pdf/2001/harrison_stolen_identities.pdf

Waleed Al Shehri..."Alive and well".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm

OK and here from CBS

"(CBS) Osama bin Laden names some of the Sept. 11 hijackers and commends them to Allah, according to a more thorough translation by one of the experts hired by the government to review a videotape of the suspected terrorist.

A more leisurely review of the tape released by the government last week came up with "a whole bunch of names," translator George Michael said Thursday in an interview with The Associated Press. He would identify only three: Nawaq Alhamzi, Salem Alhamzi and Wail Alshehri."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/12/20/attack/main322092.shtml

now i am really late for work.

Sofa_King Good

KateF wrote: »

+1

a similar amount of planes hit both buildings - 0.

bonkey

SKG...do you think there's anything to be noted by the fact that all of your "alive and well" articles are dated from 2001?

Could it, for example, indicate that there was some confusion at the initial list of names, leading to mistaken identity?

Note that even in the information you supply, some of the names are spelled differently. Is it not possible that some of these people found to be alive and well were not actually the people mentioned, but people with the same (or a similar) name?

Penn

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

a similar amount of planes hit both buildings - 0.

I agree. No plane hit both buildings. Each plane only hit one tower.

Can we get this back on topic? We're talking about why WTC7 collapsed, and aside from Mysterious not grasping the concept of what I've been saying, no one has provided proof from a reputable source disproving that logical, scientific reasoning behind events.

Diogenes

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

"Mr Al-Hamzi is 26 and had
just returned to work at a petrochemical complex in the
industrial eastern city of Yanbou after a holiday in Saudi
Arabia when the hijackers struck. He was accused of
hijacking the American Airlines Flight 77 that hit the
Pentagon.
He said: "I have never been to the United States and have
not been out of Saudi Arabia in the past two years." The
FBI described him as 21 and said that his possible
residences were Fort Lee or Wayne, both in New Jersey."

"The real Salem Al-Hazmi, however, is alive and indignant in Saudi Arabia, and not one of the people who perished in the American Airlines flight that crashed on the Pentagon. He works at a government-owned petroleum and chemical plant in the city of Yanbu."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/sep/21/afghanistan.september112
http://physics911.ca/pdf/2001/harrison_stolen_identities.pdf

Yeah, All taken care of Here.

Waleed Al Shehri..."Alive and well".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm

OK and here from CBS

And here. You're using reports from the weeks in the aftermath of Sept 11th, confusion over muslim names, it's really pathetic, often debunked already on this forum, nonsense.

"(CBS) Osama bin Laden names some of the Sept. 11 hijackers and commends them to Allah, according to a more thorough translation by one of the experts hired by the government to review a videotape of the suspected terrorist.

A more leisurely review of the tape released by the government last week came up with "a whole bunch of names," translator George Michael said Thursday in an interview with The Associated Press. He would identify only three: Nawaq Alhamzi, Salem Alhamzi and Wail Alshehri."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/12/20/attack/main322092.shtml

Oh for f's sake you realise that the tape was released to Al Jazeera, and hundreds thousands of native Arab speakers also heard the tape, IS THE ENTIRE ARABIC SPEAKING WORLD IN ON THIS CONSPIRACY?

"The translators missed a lot of things on the tape," said Ali
Al-Ahmed, director of the Saudi Institute, an organization that
promotes human rights in Saudi Arabia.

Al-Ahmed said bin Laden identifies nine of the suspected hijackers --
not just Mohamed Atta as had the original translation.

Al-Ahmed and the independent translator -- who did not want to be
identified -- said bin Laden named two additional hijackers on the
tape: the brothers Nawaf al Hazmi and Salam al Hazmi.

Later, he said four other hijackers were from the Al Ghamdi tribe. He
also mentioned two others, both named al Shehri.

Also left out of the translation, they said, were the names of three
Saudi clerics who publicly backed the attacks, according to the man
speaking with bin Laden on the tape. At least one of those three
Saudi clerics was possibly a government official.

One more striking example of detail left out of the government
translation, according to Al-Ahmed and the independent translator:
Bin Laden's description of exactly what he said to others just before
the radio announcement that the first of the attacks had succeeded.

They quoted him as saying he told followers, "When you hear a
breaking news announcement on the radio, kneel immediately, and that
means they have hit the World Trade Center."

From here

There's also stuff like Atta's martyrdom video

Diogenes

bonkey wrote: »

SKG...do you think there's anything to be noted by the fact that all of your "alive and well" articles are dated from 2001?

Sorry I overlooked this excellent point, Atta all the truth movement needs to do to convince the world that the government is lying is to go find and interview any one of the supposedly alive hijackers. And yet in 8 years we've have zip denad zero, bubkiss.

Sofa_King Good

From the FBI website



Salem Alhazmi


Wail M Alshehri

These are the photographs that match the living men.

I'm open to correction on this or anything else, I welcome it, to be honest whatever common sense I have would tell me I am wrong.

But Diogenes you can't be critical of using Atta's dad as a source when you did yourself initially a few posts prior and please don't bring up any other matters to hide any double-standards.

Penn

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

From the FBI website



Salem Alhazmi


Wail M Alshehri

These are the photographs that match the living men.

I'm open to correction on this or anything else, I welcome it, to be honest whatever common sense I have would tell me I am wrong.

But Diogenes you can't be critical of using Atta's dad as a source when you did yourself initially a few posts prior and please don't bring up any other matters to hide any double-standards.

Post the pictures of the living men then, so we can compare them

Diogenes

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

From the FBI website



Salem Alhazmi

It's Salem Al-Hazmi, and I've already pointed out you're wrong. Ditto on Waleed al-Shehri.


And CTers have been able to interview and track down these supposedly alive men?

I'm open to correction on this or anything else, I welcome it, to be honest whatever common sense I have would tell me I am wrong.

That doesn't even come together as a sentence, what is the point you are trying to make?

But Diogenes you can't be critical of using Atta's dad as a source when you did yourself initially a few posts prior and please don't bring up any other matters to hide any double-standards.

I'm sorry what are you gibbering about?

I've NEVER used Atta's father as source, YOU DID. I pointed out that the only thing consistent in Atta's father's story is his constant inconsistencies. I mean is he saying? Mossad kidnapped his son, used him as a patsy, and then let him phone his Dad two days after the attack? How retarded is that? Atta's father has at times, said his son is alive, that his son is dead, that his son was murdered, and that his son carried out the attacks.

Sofa_King Good

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

Post the pictures of the living men then, so we can compare them

ok.





Salem Alhazmi


Wail M Alshehri



Looks the same to me.

Diogenes

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

ok.





Salem Alhazmi


Wail M Alshehri



Looks the same to me.

Wait this is getting ridiculous Are you saying Salem Al Hazmis and Wail M Al shehri are the same person?

Penn

haha, I thought they were two of the terrorists, I didnt know they were one terrorist and his supposed living counterpart

Sorry man, maybe you can see something I cant, but to me they don't look alike

It looks like Salems large nose crooks a little to the right, while Wails thinner nose crooks to the left. And Salems eyebrows have a much larger arch. Sorry, but I'd never figure them to be the same person

Sofa_King Good

Diogenes wrote: »

I've NEVER used Atta's father as source, YOU DID. I pointed out that the only thing consistent in Atta's father's story is his constant inconsistencies. I mean is he saying? Mossad kidnapped his son, used him as a patsy, and then let him phone his Dad two days after the attack? How retarded is that? Atta's father has at times, said his son is alive, that his son is dead, that his son was murdered, and that his son carried out the attacks.

Sure Ya did

Diogenes wrote: »

he fact that Atta's father admitted his son commited the acts

Don't want to get dragged into anything even more off topic

Penn

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

Sure Ya did

I'm sorry, but thats the weakest argument ever. If he did do as you claimed, quote his post.

Sofa_King Good

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

I'm sorry, but thats the weakest argument ever. If he did do as you claimed, quote his post.

Feb 10th, this thread post 93 at 21:02.

Sofa_King Good

Diogenes wrote: »

Wait this is getting ridiculous Are you saying Salem Al Hazmis and Wail M Al shehri are the same person?

No. I am saying the FBI shots are the photos of living people.

Penn

The post in question:

Diogenes wrote: »

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.

Ok, fair point.

Although Diogenes has since stated himself that Atta's fathers testimonies are not reliable.

Now can we please get back to the topic at hand? WTC7s collapse

Sofa_King Good

Agreed on both points. The double standard and moving on.Apologies to OP and all.

bonkey

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

We're talking about why WTC7 collapsed, and aside from Mysterious not grasping the concept of what I've been saying, no one has provided proof from a reputable source disproving that logical, scientific reasoning behind events.

I've a question.

From what I can see, your explanation of events differs to that of NIST.

You've stressed time and time again the structural damage caused by falling debris.
Unless I'm mis-remembering, NIST's final position was that other than starting the fires the falling debris and the damage it caused played no significant role whatsoever in the collapse. Structural weakening, possible damage to fireproofing etc. was all irrelevant to their model, but you've stressed these very points.

Do you disagree with NIST?

I should note in passing that your position is consistent with the direction NIST originally took. Indeed, it is consistent with the content in the various interim reports on the WTC7 collapse. It is not, however, consistent with the final report which concluded that what really doomed WTC7 was a design-flaw.

On the back of this result (again, from memory) they recommended changes to building codes, and that any building with potentially the same flaw be reviewed.

Do you think they got it wrong?

Diogenes

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

Sure Ya did

Atta's father originally denied his son was involved, then admitted he was and demanded 5,000 dollars from CNN for an interview, money he claimed he intended to use to launch a Jihad.

The mastermind and pilot in the 9/11 attacks, Mohammed Atta, also grew up in relatively middle class surroundings. Today CNN spoke with Atta's father, a lawyer, and found he's not at all upset by what his son and other terrorists have done. In fact, he praised the London attacks. He says those bombings and 9/11 were just the beginning and that he's hoping for more. He wouldn't speak to us on camera, though, unless we shelled out 5,000 bucks, enough, he says, to pay for another London attack. Needless to say we didn't give him any money.

CNN transcript from 2005 Your original claim about Atta's father, and the misidentification of hijackers all come in the confused first few days after the attacks, however clarification and subsequent investigation has shown That Atta's father now claims his son carried out 911 and he himself wants to continue to support terrorism.

The only person working to a double standard here is you SKG.

No. I am saying the FBI shots are the photos of living people.

WHERE'S YOUR PROOF? AND WHY HAVEN'T CONSPIRACY THEORISTS BEEN ABLE TO FIND THESE MEN SINCE 911 OVER 8 YEARS AGO.

Firstly you say that they are photos are men who are alive, and then you post up two photos of clearly different men and say

Looks the same to me.

Seriously you're just gibbering now.

Penn

bonkey wrote: »

I've a question.

From what I can see, your explanation of events differs to that of NIST.

You've stressed time and time again the structural damage caused by falling debris.
Unless I'm mis-remembering, NIST's final position was that other than starting the fires the falling debris and the damage it caused played no significant role whatsoever in the collapse. Structural weakening, possible damage to fireproofing etc. was all irrelevant to their model, but you've stressed these very points.

Do you disagree with NIST?

I should note in passing that your position is consistent with the direction NIST originally took. Indeed, it is consistent with the content in the various interim reports on the WTC7 collapse. It is not, however, consistent with the final report which concluded that what really doomed WTC7 was a design-flaw.

On the back of this result (again, from memory) they recommended changes to building codes, and that any building with potentially the same flaw be reviewed.

Do you think they got it wrong?

Fair point. I can't say whether or not I disagree with NIST, as I haven't read their reports. I know the gist of what they are saying, but I havent studied the reports in any detail other than a quick look over a few overviews.

As I said before, I know a good bit about structural design as I peform this task as part of my job (I'm a building surveyor working for an engineering company. Part of my college education was Structural Mechanics, Structural detailing and design, and Building design and performance: Structures, and each of those were my favourite subjects in those years), but trust me, I don't know everything. The argument I have been putting forward is basically what I would perceive to be the most logical and reasonable deductions about what happened. My constant mentioning of the fireproofing damage by debris was merely an explanation as to how the fire could have weakened the steel and caused the collapse, which is in essence the topic of the thread with the fire of the hotel in Beijing.

If what you say is correct, this is the explanation originally deduced by NIST, so there would have to be some basis in what I'm saying. As for their final conclusion about the design flaw, I would have to read the reports etc to be able to give an opinion on that. Although even taking a quick look over it, it seems fairly accurate. The steel column in question would roughly be where the kink in the roof was as it fell. But again, I wouldn't know for sure.

Sofa_King Good

to clarify the reason I reposted the photos of the alleged hijackers was in response to this

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

Post the pictures of the living men then, so we can compare them

The photo's of the allegedely "alive and well" hijackers according to the FBI are the same photos of those wrongly accused. I do not think they are the same person or even they lookalike.Can we please drop it now?

bonkey

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

The photo's of the allegedely "alive and well" hijackers according to the FBI are the same photos of those wrongly accused.

They're the photo's the FBI released.

There were some cases of incorrect photo's being used by the media, before the FBI released their list.

There were some cases after the photo's were released of family saying (as in the case of the Al-Hamzis) that they doubted their sons were involved and were sure they'd turn up.

I do not believe, however, that there are any reliable reports from after they were released, where someone has gone on teh record saying "thats me" or "thats my son". I'm open to correction on that though.

FWIW, 911myths.com has links to individual cases for the 9 names most typically linked to "still alive" stories, as well as decent coverage of the typically-linked-to articles.

GerardKeating

toiletduck wrote: »

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




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

Actually i have seen (with my untrained eye) a lot of controlled demolision jobs on TV and WTC7 had major differences, the most obvious was the lack of very loud explosions, unless of course they used some super secret silent explosive which also had no real flash.

GerardKeating

mysterious wrote: »

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.

But damage to corners of building can be the most dangerous. The Ronan point colapse in 1968 showed that.

See also here.

Run_to_da_hills

Still Standing: The Building That Proves WTC 7 Was Imploded

http://www.infowars.com/still-standing-the-building-that-proves-wtc-7-was-imploded/

China has come up with the theme tune for the Mandarin Oriental Hotel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXM-VUjnFKg&feature=related

Penn

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Still Standing: The Building That Proves WTC 7 Was Imploded

http://www.infowars.com/still-standing-the-building-that-proves-wtc-7-was-imploded/

Sorry, but that link proves nothing. It compares 2 different buildings with different fires in very different situations. Yet more ill-informed and unsubstantiated nonsense.

mysterious

GerardKeating wrote: »

But damage to corners of building can be the most dangerous. The Ronan point colapse in 1968 showed that.

See also here.


Yes but the argument of WTC7 been damaged heavily or even partially is a load of balls.

The Building on it's left is more in line with the north tower, was also cosmetically damaged. I.e showing of hail stone rubble. There was a street and another high rise in blocking most of the heavy debris from WT7 and the two non exploded buildings. As WTC7 is pretty well protected fromt the heavy debris. Still doesnt argue the fact that falling rubble that damaged WTC7 would make it fall ffs. Glass even still was intact during it's whole course before imploding.

God this is getting so childish and ignorant at this stage.
Do any of you have any idea what kind of information they had in this building. Guess not.It was the base of the ministry of defence. A bit ironic eh.

It's beyond ignorant that people say that it was damaged heavily it wasn't. The steel frames were not hindered in any way. The fire were only in isolated section's of the building. It's retarded to think that this fire

burning and dust and rubble from a further away building would bring a 47 storey tower VERTICALLY DOWN IN 6.8 SECONDS, IT'S PHYISCALLY IMPORSSIBLE WITHOUT THE USE OF SOME EXPLOSIVES OR MEDDELING WITH THE STEEL FRAME OF THE BUILDING.

end of f***** story. Enough of this bull**** please.


NIST picture's have also been shown to be different to other reports and public pictures of the cosmetic damage that was down to the south corner of it's building. So someone is lying here.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNaNVEDdLow
You should watch this.

The fire argument, moot
The cosmetic argument also idiotic

mysterious

GerardKeating wrote: »

Actually i have seen (with my untrained eye) a lot of controlled demolision jobs on TV and WTC7 had major differences, the most obvious was the lack of very loud explosions, unless of course they used some super secret silent explosive which also had no real flash.

Flash you dont need to see a flash. For the love of god

Shakes head.

The explosives are not meant to be seen ffs. Do you want them to give it away and put up a poster saying hey we have a bomb in WTC7 and it doesn't flash.

The ignorance is getting more hilarious.:D

Everyone smile, my camera doesnt flash, but hey my camera still works.

Diogenes

mysterious wrote: »

The fire argument, moot

Ahem

You said

mysterious wrote:

No steel building was ever brought down by fire. So that argument is again moot.

I pointed out

Oh Rly?

Firstly there are two points. One ifvSteel is immune to the properties of fire how the devil do we make and mould it? Secondly, if steel buildings never collapse due to fire, why on earth do we bother going to the trouble of fire proofing Steel?

As to you astonishing claim about no steel building ever being brought down due to fire, ahem,






See also the Kaeder Toy Factory Fire





Taken from a fire at English toilet Paper factory

And a news story about a fire in a steel framed building in NJ.

What do all these fires have in common all occured in steel framed building, all concluded in either partial or total collapse of the structure.

Care to answer the above?

mysterious

Diogenes wrote: »

Ahem

You said



I pointed out


Care to answer the above?

Steel factory and a reinforced steel concrete skyscraper are totally different type of buildings. Geomtry, shape, materials, dates built would be far different, foundations different.

WTC7 is a high rise building.

It is reported that buildings numbers 1-4 were four story buildings constructed with an unprotected steel structure. (Unprotected means that the steel was not insulated against heat and looses its strength at high temperatures such as those generated in a structural fire.) The floor of the four buildings were prefabricated concrete. The fire completely destroyed three of the four large buildings.

How old was it btw, 82 years old? Did it crumble to the grownd in 2 seconds? Since its only four storeys it should of fell much quicker than WTC7

How long was the fall? did it appear like the demolition job of WTC7, like vertically like in 6.8 seconds.

WTC7 had pocket fires. Many of the windows were still intact.

Diogenes

mysterious wrote: »

Flash you dont need to see a flash. For the love of god

Shakes head.

The explosives are not meant to be seen ffs. Do you want them to give it away and put up a poster saying hey we have a bomb in WTC7 and it doesn't flash.

The ignorance is getting more hilarious.:D

Everyone smile, my camera doesnt flash, but hey my camera still works.

Okay you understand there is a difference between your camera and a controlled demolition right? The flash isn't optional in the latter. In a chain reaction demolition they don't have the option to have demo charges to flash, no flash. You're really just exposing your ignorance here.

You're saying that the WTC7 looks like a controlled demolition yet you're also saying that if a CD demo team decided to, they could demolish a building without the tell tale flashes from CD charges. Perhaps you could provide some visual examples to support your claim?

If you don't understand the difference between the optional flash of a camera light amplifier and the necessary result of a demolition charge, you are just exposing your own ignorance.

Diogenes

mysterious wrote: »

Steel factory and a reinforced steel concrete skyscraper are totally different type of buildings. Geomtry, shape, materials, dates built would be far different, foundations different.

WTC7 is a high rise building.

Firstly may I remind you you claimed that no steel framed building ever collapsed due to fire, you're now moving the goalposts.

WTC wasn't a steel reinforced building for a start.


Okay this is your cake, would you like your cake or would you like to eat your cake. You're basically saying that the Bejing fire proves that WTC7 was a CD, but all other

How old was it btw, 82 years old? Did it crumble to the grownd in 2 seconds? Since its only four storeys it should of fell much quicker than WTC7

And your point is caller? How many of these buildings were built over ConEd power substations? NY underground stations? With a single major supporting beam.

Seriously mysterious you're backpeddling badly here.

mysterious

Diogenes wrote: »

Okay you understand there is a difference between your camera and a controlled demolition right?

I was just making a point.


A demolition job can still happen without a bloody flash like a camera take a bloody picture without a flash.




Get the logic... His flash excuses is just so stupid its embarressing and quite disturbing as evidence to say it wasn't a demolition job. What is next, it can't be a bomb, cus demolitions don't amplify sound waves from a certain point. Jesus christ I've never head such nonsense in all my life.


As usual you go off on a rant and off topic, something I'd rather not go into. Do you understand the irony of my post

bonkey

mysterious wrote: »

burning and dust and rubble from a further away building would bring a 47 storey tower VERTICALLY DOWN IN 6.8 SECONDS, IT'S PHYISCALLY IMPORSSIBLE WITHOUT THE USE OF SOME EXPLOSIVES OR MEDDELING WITH THE STEEL FRAME OF THE BUILDING.

end of f***** story. Enough of this bull**** please.

Unwanted profanity aside, you seem to be ignoring several possibilities, teh most obvious of which is that it didn't take 6.8 seconds.

The explosives are not meant to be seen ffs. Do you want them to give it away and put up a poster saying hey we have a bomb in WTC7 and it doesn't flash.

So when people say it looks just like controlled demolition, what they really mean is that it looks just like controlled demolition would look like, if the people doing it were trying to make it not look like controlled demolition?

Gordon

Maybe this is all true and the government did plan the destruction and left all the vital clues on purpose for the truly enlightened, after all, they are geniuses to have fooled so many, they should be able to be clever enough to fool the rest of the people too.

The purpose in them releasing enough evidence for the select few CTers out there to see the conspiracy is so that they can then find them via websites such as this, which is easy for them, no matter how many proxies are used and then use them for their next undercover black op, which is shrouded in an elaborate conspiracy that actually looks like a plan to uncover a conspiracy but is actually something rather sinister.

I will say no more, I will copyright the idea and turn it into a book/film.

mysterious

bonkey wrote: »

Unwanted profanity aside, you seem to be ignoring several possibilities, teh most obvious of which is that it didn't take 6.8 seconds.

Where is your evidence.
A structural engineer, from my youtube video described it down to a tee. the amount of time. When the explosion happened. From this point whee the roof fell in on itself to the ground fell in 6.8 seconds. Some people say 9 seconds, many reports say 9seconds. Including the media and it was said on the ABC the View by Rosie O Donnell. The building fell fast, very fast like a demoltion job. every floor vertically down.

Watch the video and count it, I'm sure it's between 6.8 seconds and 10 thereabouts.

If it were 14 seconds still an amazing feat don't you think.

Isolated fires, bring a tall building down in 20 seconds even, still amazing. But you know I'm dealing with ignorance, so no matter how amazing or how surreal people wont accept the inane reality due to ignorance

So when people say it looks just like controlled demolition, what they really mean is that it looks just like controlled demolition would look like, if the people doing it were trying to make it not look like controlled demolition?

So what are you saying
It wasn't............................ because???????????????????

bonkey

mysterious wrote: »

The Building on it's left is more in line with the north tower, was also cosmetically damaged. I.e showing of hail stone rubble.

It took 3 years and 1.4 billion dollars to repair. If that's cosmetic in your book, I'd hate to see what "significant" is.

There was a street and another high rise in blocking most of the heavy debris from WT7 and the two non exploded buildings. As WTC7 is pretty well protected fromt the heavy debris.

There was nothing close to being a high-rise between WTC7 and the towers. The only building between WTC 7 and WTC 1 was WTC 6....a staggering 9 stories tall.

To suggest it meant WTC 7 was "pretty well protected" is like suggesting that snow couldn't fall of a roof and hit you on the head, because a dog was standing between you and the building, coming up to your knees.

mysterious

Gordon wrote: »

Maybe this is all true and the government did plan the destruction and left all the vital clues on purpose for the truly enlightened, after all, they are geniuses to have fooled so many, they should be able to be clever enough to fool the rest of the people too.

The purpose in them releasing enough evidence for the select few CTers out there to see the conspiracy is so that they can then find them via websites such as this, which is easy for them, no matter how many proxies are used and then use them for their next undercover black op, which is shrouded in an elaborate conspiracy that actually looks like a plan to uncover a conspiracy but is actually something rather sinister.

I will say no more, I will copyright the idea and turn it into a book/film.

I just have to applauded that post. Just refreshing to see the reality outside of this nonsense.

The governments create conspiracies. and create conspiracy websites. It's again all about distracting and misguiding the masses.

The govrnment don't have to do anything, when they plot the scene, the sheeple fight each other. The government don't have to be a genious when you see retarded threads here with people fighting over who did it.

The game player sits with his cigar and laughs.

Diogenes

mysterious wrote: »

I was just making a point.


A demolition job can still happen without a bloody flash like a camera take a bloody picture without a flash.




Get the logic... His flash excuses is just so stupid its embarressing and quite disturbing as evidence to say it wasn't a demolition job. What is next, it can't be a bomb, cus demolitions don't amplify sound waves from a certain point. Jesus christ I've never head such nonsense in all my life.


As usual you go off on a rant and off topic, something I'd rather not go into. Do you understand the irony of my post

Okay I need to use small sentences, You are claiming that the collapse of WTC 7 looks like a classic controlled demolition, because it looks like a controlled demolition despite the fact it doesn't have the fact that a controlled demoltion includes a bottom down collapse, a serious of detonation charges that are can be spotted by the visible able to be spotted on the richer scale.

Diogenes

mysterious wrote: »

I was just making a point.


A demolition job can still happen without a bloody flash like a camera take a bloody picture without a flash.

You claim that the collapse of WTC 7 mimics the collapse of a Controlled Demolition. However a ordinary Controlled Demolition will have those flashes.

This is your cake, you want your cake, you cant have your cake and eat it.

As usual you go off on a rant and off topic, something I'd rather not go into. Do you understand the irony of my post

No but I understand the ignorance of your posts, does that help?

mysterious

bonkey wrote: »

It took 3 years and 1.4 billion dollars to repair. If that's cosmetic in your book, I'd hate to see what "significant" is.

NOW NOW don't twist it. It didnt take three years, for WTC towers to do that cosmetic damage that hit the south corner. Now now.

Your quoted figure was to remove the demolition job, rubble, steel, the transportation cost of it all, the coverop, the clearing and the man hours over the 3 years etc.

Bonkey that twisting **** annoys the poo out of me.
Dont do that, I thought you'd have more respect and cop on than that.

Cosmetic damage, is the rubble from the demolished twintowers. Don't twist it please. Are we clear?

There was nothing close to being a high-rise between WTC7 and the towers. The only building between WTC 7 and WTC 1 was WTC 6....a staggering 9 stories tall.[/quote it was still a very expansive large building and plue a street was also there

Funny how you just oh suddenly to forget that.
Right opposite this buitling WT6 I think. is the building adjacent to WTC7, got simalar if not more damage than WTC7.

I'm sure they had much office hours and lot's of coffee in this building today. Funny eh.

To suggest it meant WTC 7 was "pretty well protected" is like suggesting that snow couldn't fall of a roof and hit you on the head, because a dog was standing between you and the building, coming up to your knees.

Considering it's between two standing buildings I would say so, and the fact that WT7 fell like a pancake in a few seconds, yet the others have little effect

Is ignorant bonkey. ffs.

Pancake, do you realise that a 47 story bulding became a pancake, yet the two buildings beside it didnt fall.

Have you any idea, what was in WTC7 that may well have give reasons for the government to blow it up. Do you know what departments was in that building.

Penn

mysterious wrote: »

Still doesnt argue the fact that falling rubble that damaged WTC7 would make it fall ffs.

We're not saying rubble made it fall. It was one factor of many

It's beyond ignorant that people say that it was damaged heavily it wasn't. The steel frames were not hindered in any way. The fire were only in isolated section's of the building. It's retarded to think that this fire burning and dust and rubble from a further away building would bring a 47 storey tower VERTICALLY DOWN IN 6.8 SECONDS, IT'S PHYISCALLY IMPORSSIBLE WITHOUT THE USE OF SOME EXPLOSIVES OR MEDDELING WITH THE STEEL FRAME OF THE BUILDING.

The steel frames were not hindered in any way? Really? Care to elaborate? It seems ignorant that someone would claim the steel frame was not hindered in any way while it had been subjected to FIRE, SEISMIC VIBRATIONS FROM 2 ****ING SKYSCRAPERS COLLAPSING BESIDE IT AND BEING HIT BY THE RUBBLE FROM IT. It is NOT physically impossible without the use of explosives. NIST ran computer generated simulations and found that the building could have fallen FASTER than it actually did with damage to certain key structural members.

And I'm still awaiting your theory on how they set up all the explosives without anyone noticing. There were many government departments in that building. There were also many public ones.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNaNVEDdLow
You should watch this.

That proved nothing and was the most biased piece of propaganda bull**** you've posted yet.