Still Think the World is Waking up to the Conspiracy?

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

for a collapsed building it sure seems to be standing

now who is refusing to accept reality?

a reply to: Another_Nut

And again, you see a photo showing that ten, steel framed floors of a building, collapsed due to fire alone, and you still cling to goofy theories about WTC 7. And, if you read the engineering report, you would see that the experts said that only the concrete transfer slab arrested the complete collapse. Are you getting that? A building, would have completely collapsed due to FIRE alone, save for the massive transfer slab, that NONE of the WTC buildings had.

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

So u went from collapsing to

Would have collapsed

Again very telling

eta
me

buildings collapsing due to structural steel failing due to fire :never

you

And yet, that has happened (collapse). You just refuse to accept reality

me

for a collapsed building it sure seems to be standing

you

A building, would have completely collapsed due to FIRE alone

a reply to: Another_Nut

No, I showed you an example of structural steel failing from fire alone. You come back with, well, the whole building did not fall down and I pointed out that the investigation said it would have completely collapsed had it not had the transfer slab....which NONE of the three WTC collapses had. Of course, the Madrid Windsor did not have a high speed airliner crash into it or had a towering building slam into it either..........

a reply to: cardinalfan0596
me 

buildings collapsing due to structural steel failing due to fire :never 

you 

And yet, that has happened (collapse). You just refuse to accept reality 

me 

for a collapsed building it sure seems to be standing

 you 

A building, would have completely collapsed due to FIRE alone 

a reply to: Another_Nut

Ah....quote mining. Typical.

Thats not quote mning thats a conversation we just had

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

a reply to: Another_Nut

I see...you got confused. See, I posted the picture of the Madrid Windsor to show that structural steel does fail from fire. I should have posted pictures of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 as examples of complete collapses due to fire/damage.

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

who got confused?

i made a claim

buildings collapsing due to structural steel failing due to fire :never

u denied that claim

And yet, that has happened (collapse). You just refuse to accept reality

using the madrid tower as evidence. to which i pointed out

for a collapsed building it sure seems to be standing

to which you changed your story to

would have completely collapsed due to FIRE alone

im not confused

you just realized you were wrong

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

OMG!

I cannot believe you are still repeating the official BS about WTC-7. Despite the witness testimonies and the video EVIDENCE of Demolition you are still repeating the same old official excuse that small office fires collapsed a 47 story building.

What will it take for you to open your eyes to what really happened? Why do you ignore the testimonies of the people that were there that day?

The Windsor building despite the whole thing being on fire did NOT collapse. WTC-7 had a couple of office fires and collapsed into it's own footprint! You don't question that? You do not see the obvious?

a reply to: Tedgoat

i raise you a double facepalm to an implied facepalm

originally posted by: Tedgoat
and the video EVIDENCE of Demolition

Except that there is zero evidence, either physical or video, of a demolition!

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: Tedgoat
and the video EVIDENCE of Demolition

Except that there is zero evidence, either physical or video, of a demolition!

you mean except for the way the building fell ..right ?

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
you mean except for the way the building fell ..right ?

No, as I said, there is no evidence at all for a demolition. You seem to have trouble following threads!

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
you mean except for the way the building fell ..right ?

No, as I said, there is no evidence at all for a demolition. You seem to have trouble following threads!

not at all i have trouble following what is your version of the truth

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

lol Here's one for hellobruce and cardinalfan

a reply to: Tedgoat

files.abovetopsecret.com...

that makes sense now at least i know where he is coming from

originally posted by: Korg Trinity
You see this is the problem discussing 911 has.

We should forget emotions and just stick to facts and evidence.

Only then can we really discuss the topic and perhaps get somewhere!

Korg.

Sadly that cannot be done. This event is hard linked to the government and to accept that they lie to us is giving away security. It's a thing many mind will refuse: it will overide your better jugement, like a self-preservation sytem. How many time have we seen people fallowing power over sense: again security. If a boss gets too hard on one of his employee, how many co-worker will stand and fight for what's right? How many girls who reported abuse from family members have been afterward rejected? Told a friend she's been cheated on by her boyfriend with a wore; hell I got half the anger

I guess we live in a world of magic bullet theory where ignorance is a bliss.

BTW great music, I'll listen more tomorrow

a reply to: Tedgoat

OMG! I am shocked you are still relying on internet rumor and quote mining to back up your ideas about WTC 7.

FDNY has said:

WTC 7 was heavily damaged
WTC 7 had widespread fires
WTC 7 had visible bulges, indicating that the building was failing internally.
WTC 7 had a surveyors transom set up that showed the building was gradually shifting to the South (WTC 1's direction)
WTC 7, was expected to fall all by itself.

What you do not have is ANY evidence of ANY kind of demolitions. Next time you have a building being imploded near you, go and watch it. You cannot BEGIN to miss the steroid enhanced string of firecrackers that go off to begin the implosion.....for which, there absolutely NO record of with WTC 1, 2 OR 7. Those, would have been heard up to a five to seven mile radius....of which, there is not a single, solitary video in existance that recorded that. Then, there is absolutely no evidence of the rigging needed for an implosion. Again, watch the clean up of an imploded building.....there is thousands of feet of wiring in the mess, and it is easily identfiable from the wiring you would find IN a building. And not a single, solitary person from the military, FDNY, NYPD, PAPD, ATF, FBI, USSS, Red Cross, OEM.....ANYONE that reported seeing any of the wiring.

And you still cling to theories based on a video and a mistake made by the BBC..

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

Links please for what the FDNY said!

I have a video of the Barry Jennings interview for you. This is the guy that was rescued from the 8th floor of WTC-7 by the FDNY because the lower floors had been taken out with explosives.



Both he an Michael Hess were rescued by the FDNY.

Barry Jennings

Don't know where you get your info from. Probably the BBC or the NIST report.

Consider the facts:
The fires in WTC 7 were not evenly distributed, so a perfect collapse was impossible.
A major explosion occurred on the eighth floor of WTC 7.
Silverstein spoke to his insurance carrier about demolishing the building.
Silverstein said to the fire department commander "the smartest thing to do is pull it."
Firefighters withdrawing from the area stated the building was going to "blow up".
News media outlets had foreknowledge of the collapse.
An explosion can be heard prior to the building's penthouse collapse.
Cutter charges can be heard immediately before the collapse.
The building collapsed perfectly into its footprint at freefall speed.

When and why was the building rigged for demolition? Moreover, why does the heat signature of the twin towers' wreckage match that of WTC 7?

Controlled Demolition!!!

Larry Silverstein, WTC-7 Controlled Demolition

FDNY warning:

"We heard reports all day long of 7 World Trade possibly coming down. ...We heard that all day long, all the warnings." –Firefighter Christopher Patrick Murray

Basically they were ordered to stay away from building 7 as it was going to be 'pulled'. Pulled? Doesn't that mean demolished? Hmmm

Boom Boom!

The BBC are just part of the charade. NBC News said exactly the same as the BBC. Both media sources were reading from the same script.

You cannot BEGIN to miss the steroid enhanced string of firecrackers that go off to begin the implosion.....for which, there absolutely NO record of with WTC 1, 2 OR 7. Those, would have been heard up to a five to seven mile radius....of which, there is not a single, solitary video in existance that recorded that.

Wanna bet? I posted a heap on this thread and others did too. Or did you just want to ignore them?

Oh and here's an interview with a FDNY guy