It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Entire Building on Fire Does Not Collapse-Beijing

page: 12
59
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
I can't believe how much time and effort you spend supporting the official 9/11 story and denying the truth. Don't you understand the meaning and significance of your signature?

"Those who would relinquish liberty to gain security, deserve neither and will soon lose both."

Indeed -- thanks to ignorance, gullibility and legislation like the Patriot Act and Military Commissions Act.

Yes I do.

Actually post some real evidence to suggest it was an inside job, and I'll be more then happy to look at it.


But isn't it true there's no amount of evidence that would persuade you?

Seriously, how could anyone ignore the veritable mountain of highly incriminating evidence that's been uncovered in the last 7 years? Do you really think people like me who've investigated 9/11 and arrived at this disturbing conclusion are misguided or delusional? Why would anyone make such horrible accusations against their own government, even after a new administration is in office? I don't care how much I hate Dubya and the neocons, I would never accuse them of mass murder if I didn't strongly believe it.

And neither would someone like Stanley Hilton or the 160+ senior military, intelligence service, law enforcement, and government officials who also believe that 9/11 was an inside job.


Originally posted by tide88
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 

My question is, with all this evidence why isnt something being done? This has been going on for 7 years and has gone nowhere. With all those people you think you would have enough money to really bring a case against the US or whomever you believe is behind this.


Have you ever heard of Bob Dole's former Chief of Staff Stanley Hilton or the "Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity?"


Stanley Hilton's 9/11 Suit Dismissed
SueTheTerrorist.net | January 18 2005

The $7 billion federal class action lawsuit against top Bush Administration officials for, among other things, their roles in engineering and orchestrating the 911 attacks has been dismissed by Judge Illston. As soon as webmaster Abel Ashes (Hull Simmons) receives the document outlining the judge's ruling, it will be online for all to read and understand the judge's given reasons for dismissing the suit.

Mr. Ashes spoke with Stanley Hilton earlier today and Mr. Hilton informed him that the judge's ruling was based on the "Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity". In other words, the suit was not dismissed because of lack of evidence, but rather because the judge reasoned that U.S. Citizens do not have the right to hold a sitting President accountable for anything, even if the charges include premeditated mass murder and premeditated acts of high treason.




posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by EvilAxis

Originally posted by jfj123
I'm not gullable enough to believe the bush administration was able to pull off the most diabolical, largest conspiracy in our history yet they're stupid enough to to out of office with an approval rating in the 20's. They can't be smart and stupid at the same time.


I don't think anyone here has suggested Bush was smart enough to do anything on 9/11, except keep well out of the way, hide in a schoolroom pretending to read "My Pet Goat" and then tell some obvious porkies about how he saw the first plane hit the building.


Then who did it according to the "truthers" ?

If nobody in the bush administration did it and al queda didn't do it, who did?



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


Who did it? The invisible hand of the economy did it. The spiritual descendents of the venezian black nobility, the dark sides of the main religions, the old moneybags who hate anyone burgeoise and lower, the zionists, the guys that killed kennedy, among others. The elitist sociopaths did it. Those who would be kings did it. Well, pulled the strings on some very evil people so they would proxy for them.

Tagging who done it regarding 911 is not hard, as it's pretty common sense after all these years. Associating this tag to physical human beings is substancially harder, and may never actually happen.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

I can't believe how much time and effort you spend supporting the official 9/11 story and denying the truth. Don't you understand the meaning and significance of your signature?

"Those who would relinquish liberty to gain security, deserve neither and will soon lose both."

Indeed -- thanks to ignorance, gullibility and legislation like the Patriot Act and Military Commissions Act.

Yes I do.

Actually post some real evidence to suggest it was an inside job, and I'll be more then happy to look at it.


But isn't it true there's no amount of evidence that would persuade you?

Actually no it's not true.


Seriously, how could anyone ignore the veritable mountain of highly incriminating evidence that's been uncovered in the last 7 years?

What evidence?
I've seen people write about, "in their opinion"......
and I've seen people misquote what was written.
I've seen people make up imaginary situations and pretend they were real.
etc...
But I haven't actually seen any evidence. Please post some. I'd love to see it.


Do you really think people like me who've investigated 9/11 and arrived at this disturbing conclusion are misguided or delusional?

Some of them YES. Some are just well intentioned individuals that think they have an understanding of construction, physics, etc.. but really don't.


Why would anyone make such horrible accusations against their own government, even after a new administration is in office?

Why do innocent people get accused of horrific crimes? Everyone has their own agenda so I can't give you a blanket statement for everyone.


I don't care how much I hate Dubya and the neocons, I would never accuse them of mass murder if I didn't strongly believe it.

Nazi's strongly believed that Hitler was a good man. It doesn't mean they were right.
"Convictions are more dangerous foes of truth then lies" -Nietzsche-

Bush and his cronies should be on trial for violating the US Constitution, misc. war crimes, mass murder and high treason. However, I've never seen any evidence to suggest anyone in he Bush administration was a conspirator and planner of 9/11.


[edit on 10-2-2009 by jfj123]



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zepherian
reply to post by jfj123
 


Who did it? The invisible hand of the economy did it. The spiritual descendents of the venezian black nobility, the dark sides of the main religions, the old moneybags who hate anyone burgeoise and lower, the zionists, the guys that killed kennedy, among others. The elitist sociopaths did it. Those who would be kings did it. Well, pulled the strings on some very evil people so they would proxy for them.

Tagging who done it regarding 911 is not hard, as it's pretty common sense after all these years. Associating this tag to physical human beings is substancially harder, and may never actually happen.


Specifically, who ? Do you have names and evidence showing that they were involved?



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by mpriebe81
wow, talk about a raging inferno!!!

of course there are those who will mention the fact that an airplane didn't crash into this building


That argument can be dealt with when we consider that Building 7 wasn't hit by an airplane either.




Or we could point out the fact that it was 34 stories tall and was not complete. Or that it wasn't built the same way. Or a whole bunch of other details when the only real similarity is that it was a building on fire.


Actually, that strengthens the 911 Truth argument. So, it's weaker than Building 7 but it STILL stood despite having worse fires.




Make it clear once again, this building wasnt as tall, as old, as poorly constructed, and didnt have a jetliner with a full gas tank crash into it out how many MPH than exploded at impact thus burning and destroyed the already crappy made support beams.

Case closed!


#1: It was only a few stories shorter than Building 7.

#2: Building 7 and the Towers were not 'poorly constructed'. They were extremely overdesigned. The Towers were 16 times stiffer than a conventional structure.

#3: Building 7 didn't have a jetliner hit it, either.

#4: Fully loaded gas tank? Most of the fuel exploded on the outside of the Towers. There were only a few areas. All of the steel supports above and below the 'impact zone' were perfectly fine.

#5: Building 7 did not have 'crappily made support beams', nor did the Twin Towers.

Case re-opened!





You act like planes crashing into a building is no big deal. Or that huge chucks of a building collapsing onto wtc7 wouldnt have a huge effect on the building structure. People need to stop trying to find similarities in burning buildings that dont have two 757's crashing into them. And as another poster mentioned, although sarcastically, I doubt those buildings were structurally built the same way. Whether or not it was finished I guarentee that this building was built more soundly then the WTC.


#1: No airplane hit Building 7. In it's case, the "Airplane Factor" was no big deal. In my opinion, no planes hit the Towers either -- but let's not get into that.

#2: Huge chunks of building? Only one large chunk hit Building 7, and NIST admits in it's own graphics that most of the building was undamaged after this.

#3: No one claims that the planes used at the WTC were "757s". The official version says that they're 767s. Building 7 did not take one, let alone two, 767s.

#4: They weren't structurally built the same way. They were smaller and unfinished. The WTC, however, was built very tough.




Well I am pretty sure that this building didnt have a 110 story building collapse into it, ripping huge holes into the side of the building and doing unknown damage to the inside.


What are you talking about? It's not like the North Tower fell right on Building 7. If it did, WTC7 wouldn't have waited until 5:20. Only ONE CHUNK hit Building 7. NIST admits in it's own graphics that even after this, the vast majority of the building was undamaged. Why didn't the Murrah building fall? It had a bigger hole and most of the building was gone.




I know how you collapse guys love to compare Apples with say cats but riddle me this: 1) Was the building of the same construction as WTC I and II? 2) Was the structure of the building subject to a high mass object contaning volitile fuel on board travling at a high rate of speed prior to the fire ? Hmmmmmm, I realize that I migh be throwing water on the fire here but really Edit to add: Even WTC 7. Was this building subject to stresses of two huge structural collapses nearby?


#1: No one is comparing apples to cats here. The discussion is about Building 7.

#2: No one is discussing WTC1 and WTC2. It was WEAKER than both and had larger fires, though, yet it stood strong.

#3: No plane hit this building, but no plane hit Building 7 either, and the Towers were designed for hi-speed airplane impacts.

#3: Two buildings did not hit WTC7. One chunk did, and most of the building remained in-tact.




Of course I can. Why else would I mention it. What, you think I work for loosechange or someone. Stateing false info and not backing it up.


#1: Demolitions expert Danny Jowenko said that the building would have stood from a hole like that.

#2: 25%? See? Most of the building was still in-tact.




Yes, as I am sure you already know. However those building were 1/4 of the height and constructed differently. All you have to have is damage or weakening at the right place for a building to collapse. It happend at WTC7 not at the others. I realize this isnt a very good analogy, but you ever play jenga. Remove the wrong piece and it falls. According to the NIST these pieces were damaged in WTC, hence the collapse.


#1: 1/4 height of the Twin Towers, but not of Building 7... and that means they were WEAKER, dude. They should have been more likely to collapse.

#2: In Jenga, collapses are messy, of course. WTC7 was a demolition implosion.




OF course. I am sorry. The hundreds if not thousands of people in the NIST are in on it too. Silly me. So now we have the president, VP, staff, cia, firemen, policemen, fbi, NSA,journalists, BBC, Israel, AA, demolition experts, contractors, plus tens of thousands of other people in all different government and civilian positions in on a huge conspiracy and yet they have been able to keep it all quiet. Not one leak. Hell and it was all planned in the first 9 months Bush was in office.


Get over yourself.

#1: NIST has connections to the US Military. Further, it's report has been debunked.

#2: What do you find wrong about the President and VP and Staff? They're known to lie?

#3: Who claimed that the FDNY/NYPD were in on it?

#4: FBI/CIA/NSA? You find it hard to believe that they would be involved in a covert operation? That's their thing, dude.

#5: Some journalists were in on it, not all. You do know the structure of the MSM, right? You have to get your stories by certain people if your a journalist.

#6: Some elements of Israel.

#7: BBC is corporate media. No surprise here.

#8: American Airlines? Sure, some elements of it.

#9: Demolition experts? Some, I'm sure, but not all.

And what's this "First 9 months" garbage? Who says it was all planned then? This goes back to the early 1990s at least.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


What is your question even meant to accomplish? It is not intelectually necessary to have proof of planning to be able to at least get a general outline of the people behind it. What are you expecting? A paper trail? It's not that easy so your question is totally out of place.

That said, there is plenty of indicators there, plenty of loose ends that at least ties up the authorship of the 911 psy op to oficial instituitions and organisations as well as some private citizens, like Silverstein and Cheney. Cheney for a stand down order, Silverstein for a "pull it" order.

So no, the big picture I don't have. Some details, after all these years, are well known to anyone who has more than a passing interest in the subject. Be them a truther or, as others are, ad hoc debunkers.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by tide88
 


It does make me wonder why you are bothering to deny the undeniable
but then again some people do get employed to do that.

The terrorists were aided and abetted by rogue elements that just happened to be in power at the time.

Idoubt whether the terros new this at the time but thats neither here nor there.

The evidence is clear for all to see.
Yes I have read both sides and there is something definately rotten in the deniers thinking. There really is enough evidence for guilt on behalf of mossad , elements of Fbi and Cia but hell who's gunna go and charge the dogs.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by talisman

I am only questioning WTC-7 in relation to this.

Many buildings that day were damaged from the WTC-Towers, NOT JUST WTC-7 and were on Fire Yet did Not Collapse.


You had buildings on 9/11 damaged far worse than WTC-7, yet they did not do a 6.5 second global collapse. They were damaged from the falling debris and fires, yet did Not Collapse.


Now we have a building in Beijing that is damaged beyond belief, and it did not have a global collapse.




[edit on 10-2-2009 by talisman]


Well as far as Building 7 is concerned, I obviously am not privy to a hands on inspection of such, or an overly detailed, uncorrupted analysis. However, I simply provide my observations and knowledge of certain possible scenarios, so as to give you a perspective from which you might consider alternate possibilities.

I do urge you to consider the fact however, that the building fire in Beijing is much different from that of the ensuing fires at the WTC Complex. The flammable source at the WTC Complex was Jet Fuel, and it burns MUCH, MUCH hotter than any other type of fire (Aside from the possibility of some chemicals/reactions). I cannot even begin to describe to you the differences between a Jet Fuel fire, and a Typical Building Fire. If you do not believe me, just visit the Fire Department at any nearby Airport, and go ahead and discuss it with them. They have to use special Trucks, with a Customized Blend of Retardant, and Extra-Protective Suits as well. I simply cannot stress these differences enough.

Also, as I stated, you need to take into DEEP consideration the vast differences in Building Architecture, Structural Materials, Underlying Ground Composition, and Surrounding Circumstances. No two buildings, aside from WTC Towers 1 & 2 (and maybe a few other exceptions), have any of these factors completely in common.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 07:44 PM
link   
Well a building of the same architecture as the twin towers burned for several days in Madrid and never collapses. By the photos, I'd say this is a much hotter fire than on 9/11.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by EvilAxis

Originally posted by jfj123
I'm not gullable enough to believe the bush administration was able to pull off the most diabolical, largest conspiracy in our history yet they're stupid enough to to out of office with an approval rating in the 20's. They can't be smart and stupid at the same time.


I don't think anyone here has suggested Bush was smart enough to do anything on 9/11, except keep well out of the way, hide in a schoolroom pretending to read "My Pet Goat" and then tell some obvious porkies about how he saw the first plane hit the building.


Then who did it according to the "truthers" ?

If nobody in the bush administration did it and al queda didn't do it, who did?


A small group of people in the bush admin..some at pentagon, FAA, NORAD, key posts, in the right places, with a nice assist from the mossad..I won't repost all the stuff on that.. it's all over this site. It's a fallacy that the whole US gov was in on it. just a few key people.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by dragonseeker

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by EvilAxis

Originally posted by jfj123
I'm not gullable enough to believe the bush administration was able to pull off the most diabolical, largest conspiracy in our history yet they're stupid enough to to out of office with an approval rating in the 20's. They can't be smart and stupid at the same time.


I don't think anyone here has suggested Bush was smart enough to do anything on 9/11, except keep well out of the way, hide in a schoolroom pretending to read "My Pet Goat" and then tell some obvious porkies about how he saw the first plane hit the building.


Then who did it according to the "truthers" ?

If nobody in the bush administration did it and al queda didn't do it, who did?


A small group of people in the bush admin..some at pentagon, FAA, NORAD, key posts, in the right places, with a nice assist from the mossad..I won't repost all the stuff on that.. it's all over this site. It's a fallacy that the whole US gov was in on it. just a few key people.


Name 1 person. Surely someone will have talked by now.

I think the 'truthers' have watched a little too much 24...



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
But isn't it true there's no amount of evidence that would persuade you?

Actually no it's not true.


Seriously, how could anyone ignore the veritable mountain of highly incriminating evidence that's been uncovered in the last 7 years?

What evidence?
I've seen people write about, "in their opinion"......
and I've seen people misquote what was written.
I've seen people make up imaginary situations and pretend they were real.
etc...

But I haven't actually seen any evidence. Please post some. I'd love to see it.


Wow. If you haven't seen any evidence by now, especially with all the time you spend on ATS, then I can only say, "there are none so blind as those who refuse to look."



So tell me, is this video of 9/11 news clips just "my opinion?"

Was anyone or anything in the video misrepresented or misquoted?

Were these "secondary explosions" heard by FDNY firefighters and the "secondary devices" discovered by the bomb squad just imaginary objects or situations? Were the firefighters, witnesses and WTC building workers who heard explosions in the basement sub-levels before, during and after the planes impacted the towers simply imagining this? Do you really believe Larry Silverstein's "pull it" remark could've meant anything but demolish WTC 7? Is there ANYONE who seriously believes that Larry Friggin' Silverstein had any authority at all over FDNY firefighting efforts while he was at home watching TV?

When every network news anchor and reporter personally witnesses and reports numerous "secondary explosions" throughout the day on 9/11, but nothing is ever mentioned again, how does your mind justify this? How can it?



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Nazi's strongly believed that Hitler was a good man. It doesn't mean they were right.

"Convictions are more dangerous foes of truth then lies" -Nietzsche-


Just like some Americans strongly believe that a rogue cabal within their own government couldn't murder several thousand citizens due to an insane grab for oil, empire-building and obscene war profits.

Just like some Americans still don't believe that FDR knew every detail of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor weeks in advance.

But "Operation Northwoods" was an identical 1960's false flag terrorism plan that was designed by the Pentagon and approved by every member of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff:


Among the actions recommended was "a series of well coordinated incidents to take place in and around" the U.S. Navy base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. This included dressing "friendly" Cubans in Cuban military uniforms and then have them "start riots near the main gate of the base. Others would pretend to be saboteurs inside the base. Ammunition would be blown up, fires started, aircraft sabotaged, mortars fired at the base with damage to installations."

The suggested operations grew progressively more outrageous. Another called for an action similar to the infamous incident in February 1898 when an explosion aboard the battleship Maine in Havana harbor killed 266 U.S. sailors. Although the exact cause of the explosion remained undetermined, it sparked the Spanish-American War with Cuba. Incited by the deadly blast, more than one million men volunteered for duty. Lemnitzer and his generals came up with a similar plan. "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," they proposed; "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation."

There seemed no limit to their fanaticism: "We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington," they wrote. "The terror campaign could be pointed at Cuban refugees seeking haven in the United States.

We could sink a boatload of Cubans en route to Florida (real or simulated). . . . We could foster attempts on lives of Cuban refugees in the United States even to the extent of wounding in instances to be widely publicized."

Bombings were proposed, false arrests, hijackings:

"Exploding a few plastic bombs in carefully chosen spots, the arrest of Cuban agents and the release of prepared documents substantiating Cuban involvement also would be helpful in projecting the idea of an irresponsible government."



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
...they could not verify it in writing as they were not able to locate the documentation.



Such a convenience, a bit like the photos of the 1/3rd damage caused to WTC7 that the nypd have owner ship of the photos of and will only allow NIST to view, how very convenient sir, hmm suits you sir.

See mine and a good few hundred thousand or ten fold more peoples points of view (sos slightly enebriated)




posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheAgentNineteen
Well as far as Building 7 is concerned, I obviously am not privy to a hands on inspection of such, or an overly detailed, uncorrupted analysis. However, I simply provide my observations and knowledge of certain possible scenarios, so as to give you a perspective from which you might consider alternate possibilities.

I do urge you to consider the fact however, that the building fire in Beijing is much different from that of the ensuing fires at the WTC Complex. The flammable source at the WTC Complex was Jet Fuel, and it burns MUCH, MUCH hotter than...



I thought you were on for a good one there, introducing some new theory or possibly a non "conspiratol" way of looking at things, but then, oh, no, thats it, jet fuel, yet again.


Do i need to say anything else on the matter on that WTC7 = no jet fuel, please do read the OP again, twice before going off topic with the jet fuel business.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by phushion
reply to post by tide88
 


In the plethra of video footage available its quite clear to see that rather large steel beams are flying in all directions including upwards during the collapse of both the towers at quite frightening speeds, something *cough* thermite *cough* must have provided the energy for these beams to be propelled from the structure in this manner



phushion,
This should help you with your research: Thermite is not an explosive. The beams flying are the result of the kinetic energy of the building collapsing.
The explosion noises are the sounds of the collapse. There were no sharp spikes in the seisomographic records that would have occurred had there been actual explosives. The bent and twisted beams are the result of fire and collapse.
I hope you get over your *cough* soon.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by stevegmu

Originally posted by dragonseeker

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by EvilAxis

Originally posted by jfj123
I'm not gullable enough to believe the bush administration was able to pull off the most diabolical, largest conspiracy in our history yet they're stupid enough to to out of office with an approval rating in the 20's. They can't be smart and stupid at the same time.


I don't think anyone here has suggested Bush was smart enough to do anything on 9/11, except keep well out of the way, hide in a schoolroom pretending to read "My Pet Goat" and then tell some obvious porkies about how he saw the first plane hit the building.


Then who did it according to the "truthers" ?

If nobody in the bush administration did it and al queda didn't do it, who did?


A small group of people in the bush admin..some at pentagon, FAA, NORAD, key posts, in the right places, with a nice assist from the mossad..I won't repost all the stuff on that.. it's all over this site. It's a fallacy that the whole US gov was in on it. just a few key people.


Name 1 person. Surely someone will have talked by now.

I think the 'truthers' have watched a little too much 24...


Yeah I can imagine that conversation..
h, by the way, I was part of a secret group of traitors that helped pull off 9/11..I'm talking about it because I'm tired of being alive". Oh, and as far as who was in on it, I'd start with Rumsfeld, myself..



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 



Listen, dude.... you're being very ignorant... maybe you're just acting ignorant on purpose. I don't know why anyone would still continue to rabidly post on a 9/11 conspiracy forum just to disagree and constantly ask for evidence, like nobody is trying to please you and give you evidence.

Names and blueprints and pictures of the guys pushing the buttons and copies of documents that say "We did it! Here's documentation!" is just flat out the dumbest kind of incriminating thing to do. Of course there would be no satisfiable evidence for you. You're asking for highly overtly incriminating evidence, and obviously any group involved in this would have gone to great lengths to erase all incriminating connections.

So... where is the evidence? It is out there.... like the video of WTC7 collapsing. Evidence enough in that alone. The building was structurally sound, period. WTC1 and 2 did not fall directly on top of WTC 7. Debris was shot out and some damaged the side of the building moderately at most, but it is interesting to note that WTC 3,4, 6 (I dunno if thwere was a number 5 offhand) had the building LITERALLY fall right on top of it.... and yet they all survived with much of their frames intact, sans global collapse... and these were ALL engulfed in flames and melting pools of steel and all sorts of hellfire and brimstone.... yet they had to still be pulled down after the fact.

But then you'll pull out some other methods of either denial or just plain suversion of common sense, depending on your motives, and the argument will perpetually continue forever because of people such as yourselves who create a believeable wit about them enough fotr ignorant people to cling onto and create a blanket of plausible deniability. If it sounds good, sure I guess you could deny it because a new study comes out that finds that thousands of walruses gathering on the top floors weakened the support beams enough to where the relatively small fires would weaken them just enough to cause global collapse. That's ridiculous, but then so is your denial of self-evidence in favor of someone to hold your hand and show you why there is sufficient data to suggest something other than what you believe happened.

Or I dunno maybe everything is gravy and flag waving and semper fi and trumpeting to the tune of some faceless entity with mythos attached to it is logical.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by tide88
Well this building didnt collapse so 911 was obviously a conspiracy. Look at all the stars and flags. It is quite funny that people are comparing this building and WTC7 like they are the same thing yet no one even knows how the manderin hotel was constucted.


This thread is just trying to show people what usually happens when steel skyscrapers catch fire.


Except that the building in question was a reinforced concrete structure, not a steel-framed building like WTC7.



new topics

top topics



 
59
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join