WTC lease holder admits WTC7 was intentionally demolished !

Originally posted by Antimyth
Give me just ONE example of a steel building collapsing due to fire.

www.mutualbox.com... (1)
www.haifire.com... (6)

It's out there.
They're not common, but they do happen.

Originally posted by Istvan
An interesting question: Why did both planes (with different speed) stop exactly inside the buildings? It is quite interesting, that none of them was sticking out or flew through the buildings....

you didn't see the explosion come out the other side of the building when the plane hit ?

it's called a Building, a plane runs into it and goes (i'm guessing) about 1/2 way through it, all the jet fuel... explodes = the big fireball that was seen coming out the other side of the building.

Oh yeah, someone stated Kerosene could be used to bring down a building.. how did we go from jet fuel to kerosene ?

Maybe jet fuel and kerosene are close relatives, I don't know.

Originally posted by Banshee

Originally posted by Antimyth
Give me just ONE example of a steel building collapsing due to fire.

www.mutualbox.com... (1)
www.haifire.com... (6)

It's out there.
They're not common, but they do happen.

ahhhh once again Ignorance Denied.... way to go banshee, I was just searching for some examples...

you're awesome !!

Originally posted by Banshee

Originally posted by Antimyth
Give me just ONE example of a steel building collapsing due to fire.

www.mutualbox.com... (1)

What does this say right here in your article???
"This article will discuss the structural failure, signs to look for that may indicate structural failure, why lightweight steel fails and what happens when lightweight steel fails. We will not discuss fire suppression efforts specific to this incident."

www.haifire.com... (6)

It's out there.
They're not common, but they do happen.

Yeah your right, they're not common, in fact they are very rare to almost none existant EXCEPT on 911, when THREE steel buildings colapsed due to fire.
Your second link provides data about WTC, which if you will take a look at my question I ask for examples OTHER than WTC.
Do you see the fallacy there? How can you use examples of WTC and say that it supports the claim that fire brought down the buildings?
I sure wish i could cut and paste some quotes off the second link you gave cause it basicly strengthens my arguement.


[edit on 20-7-2004 by Antimyth]

Originally posted by Antimyth
What does this say right here in your article???
"This article will discuss the structural failure, signs to look for that may indicate structural failure, why lightweight steel fails and what happens when lightweight steel fails. We will not discuss fire suppression efforts specific to this incident."

Hey honey, you wanted an example of steel structures failing due to fire.
There was one of 7 that I found in a few minutes of looking.
Why is it bad that they're not discussing the fire supression techniques in that particular article? That's not even relevant to your request.

I am not talking about the explosion, I was asking, why didn't neither of those planes come at least partially out those buildings? Good example: Pentagon crash destroyed 4 rings of the building, in hard reinforced concrete. Thet is just longer distance that plane took at 600 km/h, than the width of the WTC. The second plane hitting the WTC crashed into lightweight steel building, but it stopped inside.

I saw a video of the first plane crashing on 911 2001, the plane didn't get damaged, did not fall apart. Even the engines remained in their places.

Originally posted by roxdog

It clearly shows some, not all, of the hijackers that are sopposedly still alive

Not the pictures you are referring to. Those only show Atta and his roommate.

The site that you or someone else had linked on this thread said Atta was still alive. If you are agreeing that he is in one of the security cam stills, how can the rest of that site be taken seriously?

Originally posted by Istvan
I saw a video of the first plane crashing on 911 2001, the plane didn't get damaged, did not fall apart. Even the engines remained in their places.

WHAT !!! didn't get damaged, engines in place..

yeah, I remember seeing them dig that plane out of the rubble, I think it was back in service the next day !!!

Come on now, you really want us to beleive that you saw a video of that plane hitting a building and not being damaged ?

Originally posted by Banshee

Originally posted by Antimyth
What does this say right here in your article???
""""""""""""""""This article will discuss the structural failure, signs to look for that may indicate structural failure, why lightweight steel fails and what happens when lightweight steel fails. We will not discuss fire suppression efforts specific to this incident.""""""""""""""

Hey honey, you wanted an example of steel structures failing due to fire.
There was one of 7 that I found in a few minutes of looking.
Why is it bad that they're not discussing the fire supression techniques in that particular article? That's not even relevant to your request.

(Notice the """"Quotation marks""""""""?) I pulled that LIGHTWEIGHT STEEL sentence from the link that YOU provided in your feeble attempt at 'debunking'.
Im still waiting for an example..........

Originally posted by roxdog

Arab names are failry common

Are the same names with the same faces also as common?

Can you prove that these men are still alive besides someone saying they are? Why hasn't the media jumped all over this showing these men are still alive?

Originally posted by nyarlathotep

Can you prove that these men are still alive besides someone saying they are? Why hasn't the media jumped all over this showing these men are still alive?

I dont even know how to respond to that.

elevatedone:

You are either living on a different planet, or you were asleep on 911 2001.

That was the very first video being broadcasted all over the world. The nose of the plane came off, but the engines remained in their places on both wings. It was recorded by a TV station background, and posted to everywhere. The other videos caught later were not posted due to the extreme chaos on the Internet for days.

Maybe jet fuel and kerosene are close relatives, I don't know.

You guessed correctly.

The hijackers had false identities used by actually living people. There is no need to argue on them, it is why it was hard to identify those men.

Originally posted by Antimyth

I dont even know how to respond to that.

I figured you couldn't. You have brushed away facts from people who know what they are talking about. You obviously have no idea what you are talking about.

Banshee provided proof that buildings have come down due to fire. Did you read the whole link? You have shown yourself time and time again that you don't read everything, just what you feel is pertinent.

You made a comment that I have not seen the Silverstein interview when I clearly stated in a post before that, that I did. You sir, NEED TO READ EVERYTHING, not just bits and pieces and then blindly throw them together in a post. Kinda reminds me how Michael Moore throws together his "documentaries" by leaving out key parts.

Originally posted by Istvan
An interesting question: Why did both planes (with different speed) stop exactly inside the buildings? It is quite interesting, that none of them was sticking out or flew through the buildings

Originally posted by Istvan
The nose of the plane came off, but the engines remained in their places on both wings.

Wow two more sig line worthy quotes.
Too bad I already have one from you.


I have no idea what you are taking about with the nose of the plane bit, but it is interesting none the less. Does anyone else remember seeing a video where the plane hit the building and the nose pops off?

Originally posted by nyarlathotep

Originally posted by roxdog

Arab names are failry common

Are the same names with the same faces also as common?

Can you prove that these men are still alive besides someone saying they are? Why hasn't the media jumped all over this showing these men are still alive?

Ok, I shall do my best to refrain from personall attacks here.
Perhaps the problem is that you are young and your thought process hasnt yet developed.
You should read the articles in the media that state the fact that the names, pictures, and birthdates presented by the FBI as terrorists which died on 911 are actually men who are alive and contesting their innocence.
Do I need to provide you a link at this point or are you smart enough to go back a few pages and find it? Its a BBC article. Is that 'media' enough for you or does it have to be CNN before its 'media'?

Come on... ask yourself the question... how many videos have you seen so far about the first plane hitting the WTC? after that , we can move along like in the kindergarten, okay?

Antimyth, you have already done enough personal attacks, so I know it is hard for you to refrain. You have displayed your ignorance so profoundly, it is quite humorous. I won't use my ignore button, but I am done replying to your nonsense. Buh-bye

Let�s look at the claims so far, shall we?

Claim: The owner of the building supposedly admitted that WTC7 was deliberateley demolished.

Status: Debunked. The term �pull� as used meant to pull the firefighters out of the building.

Claim: Jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel. Therefore the buildings could not have possibly collapsed due to fire.

Status: Debunked. Al fires can reach temperatures in excess of 1000 degrees F, hot enough to cause steel to loose almost 50% of its strength. Furthermore, no one has discussed the effect of these temperatures on the light weight concrete floors themselves. Remember that the floor slabs were an integral part of the building structure.

Claim: Seismic recordings show evidence of an underground explosion before the buildings collapsed.

Status: Debunked. The Seismic charts show no such thing.

Claim: There is video evidence of bombs going off as the towers fell.

Status: Debunked. No there isn�t. A grainy video shot through with digital noise is evidence of a poor quality digital camera system only.

Claim: The building should not have pancaked

Status: Debunked. I honestly don�t know what those who make this claim think should have happened. Did they expect the buildings to tip over like a giant tree? TIMMMMMBER!

Claim: The building was prewired for demolition when it was built.

Status: Debunked. (do I even need to go into how silly this is)

Claim: The buildings were designed to withstand the impact of an airplane.

Status: Debunked. Wrong, the buildings were designed to withstand what the designers thought would be the effects of an impact of an airplane. Smaller planes that what actually struck, BTW. Since there was only limited data on the effects of an airplane sticking a high-rise building, they made a number of assumptions.



And so on, and so on.