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

mysterious

Diogenes wrote: »

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

Like I said before thats your own doing. You expect me to answer all your questions and constantly you then concede into bickering and voice your opinion over mine and demand me to answer all your questions, even agressivley, to a point you wished a curse on me lol. I try, and I do accordingly. I'm pretty calm considering.

Yet for three pages you have not answered one single question I asked you. You deflect and go onto another topic.

That is ignorance. Not my doing.:)

I'm doing pretty ok. You should try and watch some of the links I posted. It might open your mind.

bonkey

mysterious wrote: »

Where is your evidence.

You've quoted several figures for the collapse time, provided no supporting evidence for any of them, and now you want evidence that one of them is wrong?

I think you may have a grave misunderstanding regarding the concept of "burden of proof". Until you establish that it took 6.8 seconds, I don't need any evidence at all to suggest that your figure may be wrong, when all you've offered is your insistence that it (along with the other two figures you produced previously) is correct.

Once you try establishing it, the burden then shifts to me to show why the evidence leading to your figure is inaccurate if I wish to continue to maintain that its wrong.

A structural engineer, from my youtube video described it down to a tee. the amount of time.

Which youtube video? You've posted links to buckets of stuff, and provided no commentary to let me know what each one is supposed to be arguing..

From this point whee the roof fell in on itself to the ground fell in 6.8 seconds.

There is no camera view of the ground. Also, as I've pointed out to you previously, any suggestion of a sub-10-second timeframe ignores the collapse of the East Penthouse immediately prior to the collapse of the outer walls. Indeed, suggestions that an explosion occurred after that collapse make it even harder to explain why the East Penthouse collapsed, given that the basic argument is that fire couldn't cause collapse.

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.

I couldn't care less what "some people say". Show me the evidence. Show me where you started the clock, and where you stop it. I guarantee that you are starting your clock after the collapse of hte East Penthouse, and stopping it as soon as the building disappears from view (despite no more than 32 floors of the 47 storey building being visible).

Note...I'm making those guarantees without even knowing what video you're going to use.

The building fell fast, very fast like a demoltion job.

No-one has questioned that it looks like a demolition job (when viewed superficially). Its when you get into the details that you start finding out that there's a hell of a lot of difference there.

Remember that post of mine about drilling into the details? You dodged the issue then, kicking for touch with your "bigger picture" then. You can do the same again.Keep showing that you have to avoid the details...I don't mind one whit.

every floor vertically down.

Goodness....gravity pulls vertically down.
Also in Conspiracy Theories this week: liquid H2O is wet.

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

Well gosh. We've already gone from 6.8 seconds to 6.8 seconds, plus up to maybe an additional 50%. Very accurate there. And you know what...I'm still betting that whatever video you want me to do that with will require me to start after the collapse of the East Penthouse.

Remember...you claim that fire doesn't make steel-supported stuff collapse...so if you want to start your clock after the East Penthouse collapses, you need to explain why it collapsed.

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

Given the construction of the building, and the nature of the design flaw...no...14 seconds would be in-and-around acceptable.

Isolated fires, bring a tall building down in 20 seconds even, still amazing.

No-one has suggested it was a normal event or a regular occurrence. So yes...amazing is a fair assessment.

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

<mod hat on>

You'd want to tread very carefully here. I've given you a lot of leeway with your profanity and aggression. Now you're starting to suggest that the people offering opposing views to you are ignorant....and its not the first time you've done this either.

Continuing this behaviour will lead to a banning. Consider yourself warned.

<mod hat off>

mysterious

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

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

Demolition a more lilkely factor no, or just your ignorance getting in the way again;) push it aside and block ears.

Isolated fires, is the new black. Heck don't break the window's but baby this factor will down this big moma down in a few seconds.

Ignorance is a bliss.

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.

Point one it was not beside it, another building and a street was beside WTC. Paddy lets be clear ok.

Second point.
Swearing isn't going to convince the reality

Point Three.
Your capslock shouting on this and tahta on seismic activity would have caused the two adjacent buildings the same faith. So again your wrong. The left hand side building was closer to WTC 6 and it was directly in front of. Yet WTC7 was pancaked by silly notions, and not anything else.

IGNORANCE.

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.

But isolated fires on certain floors of the building is.

NIST is not reliable in the the actual pictures and the damage side of things. Their pictures are not compatible with independant sources

Someone is lying so I don't trust it. I'd stick with logic on this.

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.



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

Give me my steel and rubble back and we can talk about that.
But if you want we could dicuss the deceptive behaviour in the reasoning they would not let any investigation done when the rubble and steel was there

Also explain how they found molten steel? just a randomer. Did you watch the video?

Isn't it bizzarre the government didnt want a proper investigation into it at the time of the scene. Wouldn't that of been logical. Has there been any other investigation by independant sources?

Let's get to basics NOW.

bonkey

mysterious wrote: »

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.

The damage to the Verizon building took 3 years and 1.4 billion dollars to repair. You claim it was cosmetic.

I'm twisting nothing.

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.

No...its the cost for the repair of one building alone. The Verizon building...the one you seem to only know as the one "one the left" of WTC 7.

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.

I haven't forgotten anything.

I know the distance between WTC 1 and WTC 7. I know the heights of WTC 1, 7 and 6. I know the radius of the rubble pile of the collapse of each of the towers.

I know, in short, that the argument you're making is not based on any proper understanding of the facts. I don't care whether you call it intuition or something else. Its wrong.

Right opposite this buitling WT6 I think. is the building adjacent to WTC7, got simalar if not more damage than WTC7.

Yes...the Verizon building...the one that cost 1.4 billion dollars to repair. The one that has a completely different construction to WTC 7.

Is ignorant bonkey. ffs.

Look...here's a link with the heights and distances more-or-less to scale.

http://www.belmarbeachcam.com/wtcdata.htm

So maybe you're right...when I said the dog came up to your knees, it was a bit ignorant. I should have said that it reached slightly above your ankles.

bonkey

mysterious wrote: »

Second point.
Swearing isn't going to convince the reality

Point Three.
Your capslock shouting on this and tahta on seismic activity would have caused the two adjacent buildings the same faith.

...

IGNORANCE.

Mysterious has picked up an infraction for this behaviour.

All psoters...consider yourselves warned.

Penn

This is my last post in this thread. This is getting ridiculous.

Point 1: I know how far WTC7 was from the others. When I said it was beside it, I meant it was close enough to have been subjected to vibrations from the collapse of the other 2 towers.

Point 2: You clearly have no idea about the actual science behind this topic. You've posted nothing but videos of Rosie O Donnell, propaganda, broken links and one Dutch engineer. And you have dodged every question I have put to you.

Point 3: If you do nothing but research the unanswered questions, you'll never find the answers.

Point 4: It is impossible to attempt to discuss this with you due to the fact you are a hypocrite. You post in caps lock, and complain when I do likewise instead of properly discussing the point. You end every sentence with 'ffs', and complain when I swear. You can dress it up whatever way you want to, its still swearing. After I have made the same point several times, each time you respond with the same comments which proves you did not even analyse what has been said.

Don't bother quoting anything in this post or asking me for a comment. I won't respond. In fact, if a mod could ban me for 1 week from this board I would greatly appreciate it. I could just tell you what I really think of you, but I fear I'd get a permanant ban

mysterious

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

Point 1: I know how far WTC7 was from the others. When I said it was beside it, I meant it was close enough to have been subjected to vibrations from the collapse of the other 2 towers.

OK. but the left and right were close and didn't. These are facts you should point out,

When stating the effects caused.

Point 2: You clearly have no idea about the actual science behind this topic. You've posted nothing but videos of Rosie O Donnell, propaganda, broken links and one Dutch engineer. And you have dodged every question I have put to you.

I could post more.

BTW propaganda, is a dangerous accusation. Proof where I have been spewing propaganda. There is two sides to this argument. And your in dissagreement with other factor's of how WTC7 fell. Please point out the propaganda if your going to make a bold claim like that.

Point 3: If you do nothing but research the unanswered questions, you'll never find the answers.

I don't dissagree.

Point 4: It is impossible to attempt to discuss this with you due to the fact you are a hypocrite. You post in caps lock, and complain when I do likewise instead of properly discussing the point.

I'm a hypocrite because I don't agree with your opinion.

OK.

GerardKeating

mysterious wrote: »

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

Yes, but as scotty says "ye cannot change the law of physics" Explosions made a lot of noise and do flash.

mysterious wrote: »

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.

If you can find a reference to any silent explosives, please share

mysterious wrote: »

The ignorance is getting more hilarious.:D

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

But can your camera bring down a 47 story building..

GerardKeating

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.

Steel is steel...

mysterious

GerardKeating wrote: »

Yes, but as scotty says "ye cannot change the law of physics" Explosions made a lot of noise and do flash.

Who said there wasn't alot of noise? Who knows what the government came up with. It's an question we will never know. The crime scene was removed prior to any investigation.

If you can find a reference to any silent explosives, please share

Who said it was silient?

But can your camera bring down a 47 story building..

No but we live in a crazy world these times. You can get away with anything now if your in government.

mysterious

GerardKeating wrote: »

Steel is steel...

Thank you for sharing that.

But a steel biro is different to a steel skyscraper.

GerardKeating

mysterious wrote: »

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

No, not an explosion of that size.

mysterious wrote: »

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

Penn

mysterious wrote: »

OK. but the left and right were close and didn't. These are facts you should point out,

I am not talking about those buildings. I am discussing WTC7. I understand the comparison you are trying to make, but you must understand that their construction and design is incomparable. You cannot compare them due to the previously identified flaws in the structural design of WTC7 which were not present in these other builings. The point is, how you say, moot.

BTW propaganda, is a dangerous accusation. Proof where I have been spewing propaganda. There is two sides to this argument. And your in dissagreement with other factor's of how WTC7 fell. Please point out the propaganda if your going to make a bold claim like that.

Fair point. Propaganda was a harsh word to use. However, the last youtube video you posted (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNaNVEDdLow) was a very biased video which provided absolutely no insight into the possible cause and was not from a reputable source. For the purposes of this discussion I have tried to provide unbiased, informative and factual links to back up my claims. You have provided Rosie O Donnell.

I'm a hypocrite because I don't agree with your opinion.

OK.

No you are a hypocrite because, like I said, you posted in caps lock, then complained when I did. Irregardless of the content which was in caps lock, the fact you complained about this when you yourself were guilty of it makes you a hypocrite. As is the case with the swearing, and the fact you complain that no one is listening to what you are saying, yet you clearly dont listen to us. As can be proved by the fact you had to question this point.


And I swear to God if I'm not banned by tomorrow I'm going out in a blaze of glory

Diogenes

mysterious wrote: »

Who said there wasn't alot of noise? Who knows what the government came up with. It's an question we will never know. The crime scene was removed prior to any investigation.



Who said it was silient?

You've linked to video, there aren't the tell tale flashes and audible series of booms that accompany a standard controlled demolition.

Your essential argument is "The collapse of the WTC7 perfectly mimics a regular controlled demolition, except for the mannerisms in which it doesn't in which case the government can fix it. It's sort of a "if it looks like a pig, sounds like pig, and runs like a greyhound, than it's obviously a genetically engineered government super pig", kind of argument.

No but we live in a crazy world these times. You can get away with anything now if your in government.

Yeah cause they got away with Abu Garib, oh no wait, that was exposed. And they got away with Gitmo, oh no wait thats been exposed and closed.

Essentially you're saying the government are supersmart, and super organised, except when they are not.

Mahatma coat

re Gitmo, Abu Gharib, Iraq, Israel etc, they dont need to get away with it forever, they generally count in the fact that it will be exposed, they factor how long they can do it before they get exposed so as to push their agenda and establish certain activities as standard practice. so that when the story breaks the Sheeple are desensitised, then whenever anyone mentions it as a conspiracy they are told, but its all out in the open and they dont do it anymore.

Focus on the bit where there is PROOF that the government activley conspired to hide the truth from the people, but no ye wont, you get so tied up in the small details that most people miss the bigger picture

uncleoswald

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Focus on the bit where there is PROOF that the government activley conspired to hide the truth from the people, but no ye wont, you get so tied up in the small details that most people miss the bigger picture

Government in lie shocker!

Why don't you focus on the fact that they were quite unable to keep these things secret and were exposed in ways that show that they are far too incompetent to keep even relatively small things secret. And the more people involved, particularly at the lower levels, the more dirt that is exposed. So how could they keep something as humongous as this under wraps?

To tell you the truth it kind of seems like its the truthers who seem to get bogged down with the "small details" (i.e. coincidences) but fail in any way to fit them into a "bigger picture"

Mahatma coat

Government in lie shocker!

there was a time when this statement would have been all that was requireed to topple a government.

they get away with it now a days because of the apathy of people like yerself who make sweeping statements and are bolstered into believing that they are being clever and Ironic wheras the truth is that you have been conditioned to accept a lower standard from those supposed to lead.

as I said before they dont have to keep it a secret for ever just long enough to achieve their objectives, whether its justifying a phoney invasion because it wont matter if they get found out after the soldiers are on the ground, or running somewhere like Abu Ghraib to generate hatred towards the americans and increase the suport for the insurgents so that in return the Hawks can justify more soldiers.

meglome

It's not that it's okay that governments lie, it's just not unexpected. But given how poor governments are at lying or at the very least covering up their lies you've got to really really wonder how they have managed to keep a huge secret like 911. It seems very obvious to me that after more than seven years it not very likely it was a big conspiracy. Do we know the full truth? well maybe not but given the level of supposed conspiracy it's just so unlikely that's it's almost impossible. No matter what some peoples 'intuition' says.

Mahatma coat

the root of the point Meglome is why has it come to that, why are we not surprised to discover that the people we entrusted to run things on our behalf havent, instead they have been furthering their own agendas (often at odds with the people) Lining their pockets and treating the public they are elected to represent with contempt, safe in the knowlerdge that they will most likely be reelected?

thats the conspiracy of Apathy and self obsession that has swept through our culture in the last generations.

mysterious

Mahatma coat wrote: »

thats the conspiracy of Apathy and self obsession that has swept through our culture in the last generations.

That is why I don't bother with this thread anymore, the so called logic to everything behind everything about other stuff and that about 9/11 is so logic eh. If it were so logic, then there would be closure and proof.

There isn't.

But you see, the government are smarter, cus they are sitting at home laughing at all of us watching us fight over what they created. Even still, they are planning their next spin. How do I know, because I'm able to dicern yes use logic and intution in gaining knowledge and looking at events played out, and what might happen in future. This how we evolved years ago, intution as well as logic . Many people have just forgotten and just wallow in apathy as they are unable to question the very thing they never do.

Government....

People today just dont want to accept that, the government played the whole 9/11 act.

Ask them, and you wont get answer. They will be like we need "proof". Like do people ever look at awareness, hindisght, history, behaviour patterns of these people we are talking about?

How many people on this forum think WTC7 miracloulsy was demolished by fire? I would love to know.

espinolman

mysterious wrote: »

How many people on this forum think WTC7 miracloulsy was demolished by fire? I would love to know.

I know WTC7 was a professional demolition .

K-9

espinolman wrote: »

I know WTC7 was a professional demolition .

Indeed, you and mysterious know, despite a whole thread showing on this board, showing it is impossible to know.

It's a gut feeling, nothing more.

mysterious

K-9 wrote: »

It's a gut feeling, nothing more.

In a few years we will be robots. We will have no guts feelings then if none of us wake up soon!

Va va boom another building goes down, oh it was seismic activiity, jeesh.

meglome

mysterious wrote: »

In a few years we will be robots. We will have no guts feelings then if none of us wake up soon!

Va va boom another building goes down, oh it was seismic activiity, jeesh.

I went to site which showed controlled demolitions, loads of them, video after video. I can't remember the address but I got it through google at the time so shouldn't be too difficult to find. I watched dozens of controlled demolitions, just randomly selected them. There was one common thing through all of them, no matter the size of the building, you could very clearly hear the staged explosives going off. So even if we ignore the fact it can take months to prepare a large building for demolition, and there are are explosives and cables all over the building that a blind person couldn't miss. There are no sounds of explosives going off at the WTC. So then the CT's say it must have been a silent explosive (I don't even want to go into how ridiculous that is), or termite, or some other way that has never been seen before. Well I'm sorry guys but when you need to invent new ways for something to happen that have never been shown to work or exist nor can you show any evidence that they work or exist you'll forgive me for thinking it's bull****.

And mysterious you remind me so much of Alex Jones, an aggressive muck spreader who lashes out at anyone who disagrees with him and is very hard to pin down on the finer details. Although he makes plenty of money from his little empire, I have no idea what your excuse is.

mysterious

meglome wrote: »

I went to site which showed controlled demolitions, loads of them, video after video. I can't remember the address but I got it through google at the time so shouldn't be too difficult to find. I watched dozens of controlled demolitions, just randomly selected them. There was one common thing through all of them, no matter the size of the building, you could very clearly hear the staged explosives going off. So even if we ignore the fact it can take months to prepare a large building for demolition, and there are are explosives and cables all over the building that a blind person couldn't miss. There are no sounds of explosives going off at the WTC. So then the CT's say it must have been a silent explosive (I don't even want to go into how ridiculous that is), or termite, or some other way that has never been seen before. Well I'm sorry guys but when you need to invent new ways for something to happen that have never been shown to work or exist nor can you show any evidence that they work or exist you'll forgive me for thinking it's bull****.

And mysterious you remind me so much of Alex Jones, an aggressive muck spreader who lashes out at anyone who disagrees with him and is very hard to pin down on the finer details. Although he makes plenty of money from his little empire, I have no idea what your excuse is.

But if we had a crime scene we would of been able to get more answers. But most will agree there is no logic to WTC7 falling the way it did, due to isolated fires that didnt even break windows.

I think its something that people should be asking why was everything shipped away before investisgation especially at WTC7.


WTC7 was where Donalds Rumsfield hung out, sure he was glad to see it gone;)

espinolman

meglome wrote: »

There are no sounds of explosives going off at the WTC.

Are you joking ! One of the reasons i believe it was a controlled demolition is because of witnesses who say they heard explosions , in the Twin Towers and WTC7 ,

Here are some links :

http://www.mediumrecords.com/wtc/audio01.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_A9X_8flGeM

Diogenes

espinolman wrote: »

Are you joking ! One of the reasons i believe it was a controlled demolition is because of witnesses who say they heard explosions , in the Twin Towers and WTC7 ,

Here are some links :

http://www.mediumrecords.com/wtc/audio01.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_A9X_8flGeM

Explosions does not equal explosives. Other things can blow up.

meglome

mysterious wrote: »

But if we had a crime scene we would of been able to get more answers.

It was the biggest forensic investigation in history by far. Simple fact.

mysterious wrote: »

But most will agree there is no logic to WTC7 falling the way it did, due to isolated fires that didnt even break windows.

The picture in this very thread shows lots of broken windows, there's plenty of fire-fighter testimony that says window were broken. The entire side of the building was engulfed in smoke, smoke that was coming from inside the building... through, let me guess, broken windows. It's in the picture, you got selective vision?

mysterious wrote: »

I think its something that people should be asking why was everything shipped away before investisgation especially at WTC7.

How much material is normally kept from a building collapse? Until you can prove they kept less than would be normal or prudent your point is irrelevant. It's easy to keep all the material from a plane crash, for example, but two 100 story buildings and a 40 storey building would be a very different matter altogether.

mysterious wrote: »

WTC7 was where Donalds Rumsfield hung out, sure he was glad to see it gone;)

The WTC complex was mostly filled with companies, with some state and government agencies but very much the minority of space was filled by the government. And with all those many thousands of ordinary working people no one saw anything untoward.

meglome

Diogenes wrote: »

Explosions does not equal explosives. Other things can blow up.

Exactly, three very big buildings filled with all sorts. From photocopiers to diesel generators, and who knows what. The explosions in the videos I watched are very distinctive and very similar across the different controlled demolitions. But do not match what I've seen from WTC.

mysterious

meglome wrote: »

It was the biggest forensic investigation in history by far. Simple fact.

It's not a fact, just you state it's fact at the end of the line.

The rubble, steel and everything was GONE before investigation.

Why?

The picture in this very thread show lots of broken windows, there's plenty of fire-fighter testimony that says window were broken. The entire side of the building was engulfed in smoke, smoke that was coming from inside the building... through, let me guess, broken windows. It's in the picture, you got selective vision?

Yes in places but the fire was throughout and proves that it wasn't that significant.

How much material is normally kept from a building collapse? Until you can prove they kept less than would be normal or prudent your point is irrelevant.

In forensics, any evidence small or large is signifcant, again don't just state your opinion as fact. It would of been vital.
They would of been able to test the quality, strenght, faults, temputure of the fire, the state of the steel frames and on and on.

All GONE. shipped away, and your telling me all this evidence that could be used, is irrelevant. My head hurts like it did yesterday.

It's easy to keep all the material from a plane crash, for example, but two 100 story buildings and a 40 storey building would be a very different matter altogether.

But it was shipped away

I don't like the smell of that do you?

The WTC complex was mostly filled with companies, with some state and government agencies but very much the minority of space was filled by the government. And with all those may thousands of ordinary working people no one saw anything untoward.

I suggest you do some research on WTC7 and what was housed in it, otherwise don't make up ramble.

meglome

mysterious wrote: »

It's not a fact, just you state it's fact at the end of the line.

The rubble, steel and everything was GONE before investigation.

Why?

Yes in places but the fire was throughout and proves that it wasn't that significant.

In forensics, any evidence small or large is signifcant, again don't just state your opinion as fact. It would of been vital.
They would of been able to test the quality, strenght, faults, temputure of the fire, the state of the steel frames and on and on.

All GONE. shipped away, and your telling me all this evidence that could be used, is irrelevant. My head hurts like it did yesterday.

But it was shipped away

I don't like the smell of that do you?

I suggest you do some research on WTC7 and what was housed in it, otherwise don't make up ramble.

You didn't actually answer my question. It doesn't matter what I think or you think. How much material is normally kept when three big buildings collapse? Two of them which have been obviously hit by planes being flown into them and the third which has been left to burn. Until we prove that they didn't keep a prudent amount, or the 'normal' amount, or enough for the investigators to satisfied then your whole question means nothing.

So that picture in which an entire one side of the building is covered in smoke proves nothing? Right okay.

What percentage of the WTC office space was used by government agencies? I'm not sure but my understanding is it's a small percentage. You seem to know so tell me? (you won't mind showing me the evidence too, I'm sure)

meglome

Mysterious?

mysterious

meglome wrote: »

Mysterious?

Yes?

meglome

meglome wrote: »

You didn't actually answer my question. It doesn't matter what I think or you think. How much material is normally kept when three big buildings collapse? Two of them which have been obviously hit by planes being flown into them and the third which has been left to burn. Until we prove that they didn't keep a prudent amount, or the 'normal' amount, or enough for the investigators to satisfied then your whole question means nothing.

So that picture in which an entire one side of the building is covered in smoke proves nothing? Right okay.

What percentage of the WTC office space was used by government agencies? I'm not sure but my understanding is it's a small percentage. You seem to know so tell me? (you won't mind showing me the evidence too, I'm sure)

So leaving aside that incredible intuition of yours for a moment, you want to answer these?

mysterious

meglome wrote: »

So leaving aside that incredible intuition of yours for a moment, you want to answer these?

Sorry Meglome, I'm not contributing to this thread any longer.

It's obvious to me, why and what has caused the WTC7 t fall, this is only a stone is a bath, in comparison to what's is the real agenda behind all these works since 9/11

It started with the Euro, The American powers of be, panicked in 2001 when OPEC and especially Iraq started trading in Euros rather than dollar's, they needed to put their country in panick. So lets bring down a few of our own buildings, and get us into a war, and trick the people into thinking they did it. the muslims, and get our dolar back in the circulation again, then lets totally put the wool over our eyes with 9/11 This is the big picture, I'm not going to continue into this banter when I'm aware of the reasons behind all this chaos intially.

Now this is just me saying this. but blaaaaaaaaaaah. Believe what you all want people.

I know the mallacy on this planet, and there are game players, and they are playing you all around like fools. IMO.

Second point to your question. What was housed in it was already discusssed, there are a few videos showing what was housed in this building. It's is widely known that the ministry of defence was housed in it. I could tell you more, But information is fast now in this world. If you google WTC7 even, I'm sure you will have all the glorious info at your tips.

I'm not getting into this topic anymore:)
It's absurd, for anyone to put this much time arguing and wasting so much energy and still split down the middle to right or left field only. Especially when you have the game players sitting and watching everyone fighting over who and what caused it to fall.

I'm just going to finally say, I will pay more attention to my own awarness, logic and intuition than having to waste my energy and giving my time and recources in trying to prove to people what happened that day when none of you are going to open your own minds, or open to all possiblities.

4 pages later, I just couldn't be bothered, and I'm happy not having to share what I know any longer.

Mysterious.

meglome

mysterious wrote: »

Sorry Meglome, I'm not contributing to this thread any longer.

It's obvious to me, why and what has caused the WTC7 t fall, this is only a stone is a bath, in comparison to what's is the real agenda behind all these works since 9/11

Hmm, you see the questions I asked are very important. I'm not a structural engineer, nor an investigator of any kind, nor a fireman etc. When I saw WTC7 collapse I was surprised to say the least, was I suspicious too... perhaps. But my knowledge of these things was pretty much non-existent so I couldn't make an informed judgement, that I knew as a fact. I took the time to read everything I could read about it, even the conspiracies. At the end of that process I'm still not any of the things I mentioned above but I used simple logic and evidence to decide that the building collapsed due mostly to a fire. I've found the people who push the conspiracy are often dishonest and refuse to answer questions that don't suit their agenda, but still take the moral high ground. It seems to me you saw the collapse and decided that it was dodgy, even though you had no frame of reference to base that on. I kept an open mind. Funny that I get branded a sheeple.

mysterious wrote: »

It started with the Euro, The American powers of be, panicked in 2001 when OPEC and especially Iraq started trading in Euros rather than dollar's, they needed to put their country in panick. So lets bring down a few of our own buildings, and get us into a war, and trick the people into thinking they did it. the muslims, and get our dolar back in the circulation again, then lets totally put the wool over our eyes with 9/11 This is the big picture, I'm not going to continue into this banter when I'm aware of the reasons behind all this chaos intially.

Now this is just me saying this. but blaaaaaaaaaaah. Believe what you all want people.

I know the mallacy on this planet, and there are game players, and they are playing you all around like fools. IMO.

I'm not trying to insult you but I don't think you've any idea how paranoid this comes across as. Do people think you're paranoid?

mysterious wrote: »

Second point to your question. What was housed in it was already discusssed, there are a few videos showing what was housed in this building. It's is widely known that the ministry of defence was housed in it. I could tell you more, But information is fast now in this world. If you google WTC7 even, I'm sure you will have all the glorious info at your tips.

wikipedia wrote:

At the time of the September 11, 2001 attacks, Salomon Smith Barney was by far the largest tenant in 7 World Trade Center, occupying 1,202,900 sq ft (111,750 m²) (64 percent of the building) which included floors 28–45.[24][6] Other major tenants included ITT Hartford Insurance Group (122,590 sq ft/11,400 m²), American Express Bank International (106,117 sq ft/9,900 m²), Standard Chartered Bank (111,398 sq ft/10,350 m²), and the Securities and Exchange Commission (106,117 sq ft/9,850 m²).[24] Smaller tenants included the Internal Revenue Service Regional Council (90,430 sq ft/8,400 m²) and the United States Secret Service (85,343 sq ft/7,900 m²).[24] The smallest tenants included the New York City Office of Emergency Management,[25] National Association of Insurance Commissioners, Federal Home Loan Bank, First State Management Group Inc., Provident Financial Management, and the Immigration and Naturalization Service.[24] The Department of Defense (DOD) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) shared the 25th floor with the IRS.[6] Floors 46–47 were mechanical floors, as were the bottom six floors and part of the seventh floor.[6][26]

Have to be out shortly so i'm not going to work out all the percentages but seems like the non commercial element of the building was tiny.

mysterious wrote: »

I'm just going to finally say, I will pay more attention to my own awarness, logic and intuition than having to waste my energy and giving my time and recources in trying to prove to people what happened that day when none of you are going to open your own minds, or open to all possiblities.

4 pages later, I just couldn't be bothered, and I'm happy not having to share what I know any longer.

So to sum up you decided it was dodgy and don't want to listen to clear logic and evidence that shows you to be wrong?

bluesguitar

well if its ne consolation mysterious I agree with you!

mysterious

meglome wrote: »

.



I'm not trying to insult you but I don't think you've any idea how paranoid this comes across as. Do people think you're paranoid?

this is the reason i will not answer any of your questions, you always direct anything I've said at a personal level.

In relation to that quote of mine, it was accurate. Unless you can prove to everyone that I'm paranoid now ffs...........

otherwise don't make silly judgments.

So to sum up you decided it was dodgy and don't want to listen to clear logic and evidence that shows you to be wrong?

No i'm just not a fan of wasting time on details, that I already know, and I've gone ahead of you in more important aspects of what the elite are doing in the present tense.

9/11 is past tense, I've worked it out already.


You however never will....:rolleyes:

uncleoswald

mysterious wrote: »

this is the reason i will not answer any of your questions, you always direct anything I've said at a personal level.

Which is of course much worse then calling everyone who questions your well thought out and rational arguments "sheeple."

meglome

mysterious wrote: »

this is the reason i will not answer any of your questions, you always direct anything I've said at a personal level.

He he he, coming from the man who repeatedly called people names and was aggressive it's quite funny.

So you don't want to answer the simple points I put to you. When I can show that the vast majority of WTC7 was used by commercial companies and not the government as you stated. It doesn't matter now what you think or I think we have fact.

mysterious wrote: »

In relation to that quote of mine, it was accurate. Unless you can prove to everyone that I'm paranoid now ffs...........

Was it relevant to the WTC7 collapsing?

mysterious wrote: »

No i'm just not a fan of wasting time on details, that I already know, and I've gone ahead of you in more important aspects of what the elite are doing in the present tense.

9/11 is past tense, I've worked it out already.

I know what you mean. I'm living in huge house by the beach, with servants catering to my every whim. I just know it's true and I don't need to care about the silly details, like having to prove to anyone else I'm not living in fantasy land.

You reached conclusions without any evidence or a frame of reference for those conclusions. I have no problem with intuition but when you then ignore cold hard facts when they don't fit your intuition you really are living in fantasy land.

Sofa_King Good

Building 7 if it was taken down by demolotion ultimately would not prove the bigger conspiracy as there were seperate motives for its destruction.

If it was felled by "natural causes" due to damage sustained in the fall of the twin towers likewise this would not be proof that it was not an "inside-job" merely a consequence of the greater conspiracy.

mysterious

meglome wrote: »

He he he, coming from the man who repeatedly called people names and was aggressive it's quite funny.

I never called people names, I used sheeple as, a term of behaviour.

Don't twist it meglome, it's you that seems to want this into slinging match.

I'm not going there:)

So you don't want to answer the simple points I put to you. When I can show that the vast majority of WTC7 was used by commercial companies and not the government as you stated. It doesn't matter now what you think or I think we have fact.

Go ahead.

Was it relevant to the WTC7 collapsing?

You asked me to point it out.:)

I know what you mean. I'm living in huge house by the beach, with servants catering to my every whim. I just know it's true and I don't need to care about the silly details, like having to prove to anyone else I'm not living in fantasy land.

You reached conclusions without any evidence or a frame of reference for those conclusions. I have no problem with intuition but when you then ignore cold hard facts when they don't fit your intuition you really are living in fantasy land.

Right....
Do you think anyone would bother to speak with you, and you behave like this?

I won't. I think I'm going to be smart and put this on ignore. It's a slnging match.

Penn

mysterious wrote: »

No i'm just not a fan of wasting time on details, that I already know, and I've gone ahead of you in more important aspects of what the elite are doing in the present tense.

But details are important mysterious. Details can make the difference between making assumptions and actually proving something. Thats why they say 'The proof is in the details'.

The point is, you haven't provided sufficient details to back up your claims. And I don't mean about 'why the elite did this' or who was in wtc7'. I mean 'Why did WTC7 collapse'. We have provided details which help prove our theories as to what may have caused wtc7 to collapse. You have provided nothing but hearsay and conjecture as to who may have been responsible.

I agree with you about the childish remarks directed towards you however, they are uncalled for and add nothing to the thread.

lostexpectation

so hows the chinese building?

meglome

mysterious wrote: »

I never called people names, I used sheeple as, a term of behaviour.

Don't twist it meglome, it's you that seems to want this into slinging match.

Sorry but you called people who disagreed several names. I'm not saying it makes it all right for me to do similar but then I'm not denying I did it.

mysterious wrote: »

Go ahead.

Okay I'll try once again, you don't seem to have seen the previous time I posted this.

wikipedia wrote:

At the time of the September 11, 2001 attacks, Salomon Smith Barney was by far the largest tenant in 7 World Trade Center, occupying 1,202,900 sq ft (111,750 m²) (64 percent of the building) which included floors 28–45.[24][6] Other major tenants included ITT Hartford Insurance Group (122,590 sq ft/11,400 m²), American Express Bank International (106,117 sq ft/9,900 m²), Standard Chartered Bank (111,398 sq ft/10,350 m²), and the Securities and Exchange Commission (106,117 sq ft/9,850 m²).[24] Smaller tenants included the Internal Revenue Service Regional Council (90,430 sq ft/8,400 m²) and the United States Secret Service (85,343 sq ft/7,900 m²).[24] The smallest tenants included the New York City Office of Emergency Management,[25] National Association of Insurance Commissioners, Federal Home Loan Bank, First State Management Group Inc., Provident Financial Management, and the Immigration and Naturalization Service.[24] The Department of Defense (DOD) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) shared the 25th floor with the IRS.[6] Floors 46–47 were mechanical floors, as were the bottom six floors and part of the seventh floor.[6][26]

mysterious wrote: »

You asked me to point it out.:)

Why would I ask you to point out something that has nothing to do with what were talking about.

mysterious wrote: »

Right....
Do you think anyone would bother to speak with you, and you behave like this?

I won't. I think I'm going to be smart and put this on ignore. It's a slnging match.

I really don't want a slanging match but I would like for you to see how you talk to people. Then I'd really like you to stop playing the martyr and answer the points since it seems the facts don't match your intuition.

mysterious

meglome wrote: »

Sorry but you called people who disagreed several names. I'm not saying it makes it all right for me to do similar but then I'm not denying I did it.

No I didn't sorry:) I used the word sheeple, as people are behaving as sheeple in certain aspects, I didnt call anyone a name in a personal attack, nor did i say things like labeling poeple, nutters, paranoia, fool and wat not. Nor did I call you anything.

I will leave this to mods, cus this is not the topic, or actually accurate.

I can dissagree without having to go at your level.
It seems you had to attack me on the previous page. Therefore, I will not give you the time of day on anthing.:)

I really don't want a slanging match but I would like for you to see how you talk to people. Then I'd really like you to stop playing the martyr and answer the points since it seems the facts don't match your intuition.

As I said I'm finished here. I given, my views, my opinions, my evidence, my vidoes and given a fair few contructive arguments, and were very valid. I answered question's where I can

Now I had enough of the level of immaturity on this thread. People swinging far and right.

When I've already made it clear, there is no proof to either argument. It is just theory. I'm not here to convince anyone of either side. I gave my viewtake, you either accept it for what it is, or you ignore it.

This rant will go on for years. I know what happened. Do have evidence, yes, do I have defenate proof for my argument, no I don't. Will the proof be there in the future, maybe so.

Do I need to sit here and listen to this silly no where land arguement.

No I don't. Can you fight with someone else. I've already dicern the reality in front of me, and have agreements with many open minded people including many people on this thread.

This is my final post on this matter.

meglome

Well okay you've decided that you'll ignore most of what I said, I'll assume as it shows you to be at least mistaken. And it seems that your understanding of what constitutes proof and mine are very different. Good luck with that.

mysterious

meglome wrote: »

Well okay you've decided that you'll ignore most of what I said, I'll assume as it shows you to be at least mistaken. .

LMAO.
No Meglome, there are many people on this planet who just don't agree with you, doesn't mean they are wrong or I am mistaken:D:D

Sigh
You haven't shown any proof rofl....... you have only shown the waffle and some facts from the government. Yeah I said waffle. Governments lie alot. Therefore alot of it is not to be trusted. Your argument doesn't prove anything.

Please don't insult me, just because I dissagree with you, I repeat, just because I dissagree with your argument does not mean I'm mistaken. Thanks for the good laugh

Penn

mysterious wrote: »

Please don't insult me, just because I dissagree with you, I repeat, just because I dissagree with your argument does not mean I'm mistaken. Thanks for the good laugh

But it doesn't mean you're right either. And dismissing reports etc. from the government as waffle because "they lie a lot" is not proof that those reports are not accurate.

I know what happened. Do have evidence, yes, do I have defenate proof for my argument, no I don't.

Sorry mysterious, but could you clarify your point on this. You say you have evidence, but you don't have definite proof. Surely evidence is proof, and vice versa. Unless I'm mistaken.

I know you said you were not posting in this thread again, so I'll understand if you don't reply

mysterious

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

But it doesn't mean you're right either. And dismissing reports etc. from the government as waffle because "they lie a lot" is not proof that those reports are not accurate.

ROFL....
I mean, people who are aware and dicern reality know exactly why I'm laughing. Why you all try to figure the Government is this angelic lord.

In the meantime, they are now preparing for an Iran war. They haven't got public support yet.

So you can take it, they need a few more buildings to knock.:D
God some of you really do need to wake up......

Evidence is all around you people, its your choice not to look ffs.