Zingari Posted 21 December 2013 Author Posted 21 December 2013 I did read what he had posted. He has posted and amalgamated many 'theories', one of which is based around a false flag and a new Pearl Harbour. He had also claimed the US brought their own buildings down and that they didn't bring their own buildings down so it is somewhat difficult to discuss with someone whose position changes to suit their narrative. As I have said, are we supposed to believe the attacks and collapse were orchestrated by sinister forces in order to invade both Iraq and Afghanistan yet also supposed to believe that in spite of all the complex planning that would require in order to make it look like a terrorist attack they couldn't be bothered to make closer links between the attackers and the nations they actually wished to attack because it wasn't necessary? What you'll notice happens with all conspiracy theorist is that as soon as they are challenged on one point, rather than refute the point they'll change the question thus ensuring their conspiracy lives on. what are you banging on about now ? where have i said this ? i've always said that I believe the Solomon building (7) must have been brought down by some form of planned explosive demolition job. and not due to the plane crashes that happened 8 hours before. You can by all means believe it was fire that caused the total collapse , but i don't .I don't believe it is possible for fire to do that to a steel building . Are we clear ? this is all i am saying OK ? OK , So i've speculated on who would be capable of achieving this . It certainly couldn't have been Al Q . And even in that almost impossible scenario they must have gained access and planned the destruction well before 911, and if this happened , the US gov. must still be lying about it . So draw your own conclusions on who I believe to be capable and responsible I have to admit that i don't how they planned and achieved the controlled demolition or why and who were responsible (other than by links to possible alternative explanations) , but i've always maintained it wasn't the plane crashes . I'm not prepared to believe a cock and bull story about a building collapse just because i can't answer impossible questions and give a detailed account of everything . If you or anyone else do still believe steel buildings can just collapse by fire , that's fine but i'd love to see it proven.I really would , but I'm not expecting to.
fleckneymike Posted 21 December 2013 Posted 21 December 2013 So what did you mean when you said "I'm not saying that what happened was planned by the US, but that it was very very convenient for the hawks in government to get what they wanted after the attacks . I doubt if the masses would have been so easy to persuade and keep on board if 911 hadn't happened."
Zingari Posted 21 December 2013 Author Posted 21 December 2013 So what did you mean when you said "I'm not saying that what happened was planned by the US, but that it was very very convenient for the hawks in government to get what they wanted after the attacks . I doubt if the masses would have been so easy to persuade and keep on board if 911 hadn't happened." What on earth do you think that means ? Put very simply, I can't say for certain that it was an inside job , but much of the evidence suggests it is or could be . How can I be any clearer ? No one in my position can credibly say for definite what happened and who was responsible, but the collapse of 7 suggests very strongly that we are being lied to about this at the very least .
fleckneymike Posted 21 December 2013 Posted 21 December 2013 If you or anyone else do still believe steel buildings can just collapse by fire , that's fine but i'd love to see it proven.I really would , but I'm not expecting to. I believe most people assume the collapse was caused by the airplane impact and subsequent damage to the columns followed by the ensuing fire with loss of steel strength and distortion.
fleckneymike Posted 21 December 2013 Posted 21 December 2013 What on earth do you think that means ? Put very simply, I can't say for certain that it was an inside job , but much of the evidence suggests it is or could be . How can I be any clearer ? No one in my position can credibly say for definite what happened and who was responsible, but the collapse of 7 suggests very strongly that we are being lied to about this at the very least . I have no idea what you are saying as you seem to be simultaneously saying they did but they didn't plus even if they didn't they definitely did demolish another building.
Zingari Posted 21 December 2013 Author Posted 21 December 2013 I believe most people assume the collapse was caused by the airplane impact and subsequent damage to the columns followed by the ensuing fire with loss of steel strength and distortion. for goodness sake mike , how many more times ? WTC 7 WAS NOT HIT BY AN AEROPLANE !!! no aeroplane impact , no jet fuel right ? , has this sunk in this time ?
The God Emperor Posted 21 December 2013 Posted 21 December 2013 this is all really confusing, I'm going to take a page out of my dear old grandad's book and just blame the Jews :xmassmile:
Zingari Posted 21 December 2013 Author Posted 21 December 2013 I have no idea what you are saying as you seem to be simultaneously saying they did but they didn't plus even if they didn't they definitely did demolish another building. no i'm not , i'm saying i cant say "inside job" for definite , just that there is reason to suspect it . is this really so hard for you to understand . this is all really confusing, I'm going to take a page out of my dear old grandad's book and just blame the Jews :xmassmile: probably the best idea :xmasbiggrin:
Strokes Posted 21 December 2013 Posted 21 December 2013 I believe most people assume the collapse was caused by the airplane impact and subsequent damage to the columns followed by the ensuing fire with loss of steel strength and distortion.Seriously, anyone who has any doubts search the internet, there are plenty of facts out there that contradict the official story. I won't bother getting into a debate on it, as for me I know what didn't happen anyone that argues different hasn't sourced information outside of the obvious outlets.
MooseBreath Posted 21 December 2013 Posted 21 December 2013 Steel frame building collapses due to fire http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bizr86N-4nc
Strokes Posted 21 December 2013 Posted 21 December 2013 Steel frame building collapses due to fire Am I missing something, it doesn't appear to collapse, is their a part 2?
MooseBreath Posted 21 December 2013 Posted 21 December 2013 Am I missing something, it doesn't appear to collapse, is their a part 2? Yes you are missing the part where the part of the building affected by fire collapses into itself due to the fire.
shen Posted 21 December 2013 Posted 21 December 2013 I'm in the same boat as Zing. It's blatantly obvious that the official sources have spoon-fed the public half-truths or even lies. Personally, I find the worst part of all this that these liars get away with it and the greater public are all too happy to accept it and in some perversely distorted way actually defend it. Then again, I'd love to live my life in ignorant bliss. It would probably make me a happier person...
Strokes Posted 21 December 2013 Posted 21 December 2013 Yes you are missing the part where the part of the building affected by fire collapses into itself due to the fire.Haha, so the concrete falls in, how is this relevant. I respect you moose, surely you can see that's not the same as steels melting.
MooseBreath Posted 21 December 2013 Posted 21 December 2013 Haha, so the concrete falls in, how is this relevant. I respect you moose, surely you can see that's not the same as steels melting. It's a steel framed building which collapses in on itself due to fire...
shen Posted 21 December 2013 Posted 21 December 2013 Yes you are missing the part where the part of the building affected by fire collapses into itself due to the fire. Troll strikes again
marko Posted 21 December 2013 Posted 21 December 2013 To all the "WTC 7 was blown up" brigade, please, please, please tell me how they achieved it. To demolish a small tower structure it takes around one week to prepare the building and rig it with explosives. Things like stair wells need to be cut, lift cars removed, lift shafts structurally compromising. When on earth did they find time to do this with all the activity that goes on in the building? Also, how did people reach the upper floors with no stairs or lifts? I don't think it's unreasonable for you to offer up how this was achieved, or do you blindly believe some conspiracy nut, whose main objective is to make money from publishing and selling their dribble?
Zingari Posted 21 December 2013 Author Posted 21 December 2013 To all the "WTC 7 was blown up" brigade, please, please, please tell me how they achieved it. To demolish a small tower structure it takes around one week to prepare the building and rig it with explosives. Things like stair wells need to be cut, lift cars removed, lift shafts structurally compromising. When on earth did they find time to do this with all the activity that goes on in the building? Also, how did people reach the upper floors with no stairs or lifts? I don't think it's unreasonable for you to offer up how this was achieved, or do you blindly believe some conspiracy nut, whose main objective is to make money from publishing and selling their dribble? not anymore , fire can do on its own
Strokes Posted 21 December 2013 Posted 21 December 2013 It's a steel framed building which collapses in on itself due to fire...And what is keeping the building from retaining its shape after this collapse?The steels.....
MooseBreath Posted 21 December 2013 Posted 21 December 2013 And what is keeping the building from retaining its shape after this collapse? The steels..... I dont really know what you mean there. You seem to be implying that the building doesn't keep its shape. I agree. It collapses in on itself due to fire.
Zingari Posted 21 December 2013 Author Posted 21 December 2013 PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS AND OBSERVATIONS OF STRUCTURAL RESPONSE Collapse of a major reinforced concrete structure in fire, as occurred with this building, is a rare event. Consequently, it is important to understand the factors that led to the collapse, and the implications these factors have on our understanding and practices for assessing the structural fire resistance of reinforced concrete structures. i've just had a quick read about this partial collapse and i rather doubt that there were any solid upright steel core columns , it has a steel reinforced flooring but that's not really the same thing. it only mentions concrete reinforced columns http://www.dr.dk/nr/rdonlyres/fecddba8-7428-460d-846f-0c3d424d3a81/2748348/delft_brandrapport.pdf
Zingari Posted 21 December 2013 Author Posted 21 December 2013 I dont really know what you mean there. You seem to be implying that the building doesn't keep its shape. I agree. It collapses in on itself due to fire. at best , you can only describe as a bit falling off the side
marko Posted 21 December 2013 Posted 21 December 2013 not anymore , fire can do on its own What a brilliant, logical, well-thought, flawless retort. I applaud you.
Zingari Posted 21 December 2013 Author Posted 21 December 2013 What a brilliant, logical, well-thought, flawless retort. I applaud you. you say it takes months of precise planning and stairwells need to be cut etc etc , but you accept random office fires can achieve the same effect ? don't you see a problem with that ?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.