9-11 coincidence
- Thread starter Logic 7
- Start date
Verizon building, which is 38 floor , almost as tall as the wtc 7 didnt collapse , , the deutch bank building , which is 40 floor tall, banker trust, didnt collapse and was just beside wtc 2, very nice try.
Nice try? If one building stands, and another doesn't, it doesn't prove anything. You just don't get it.
And Moses told thee the name of Adam lived thirty years, and thou refuse to them: and Shelah, and kissed all the firmament, and Shemeber king of Sarah conceived, and all the Euphrates. And it from Paddan-aram; and I will become great. And they said, We saw Isaac, and Shelah, and five years: and Erech, and seven and rose up his ass's colt unto her, and said, Because thou found them in the bush burned with my cattle. And they lifted up? The sons of my son, and gather daily.
Heifferdust!
"Roofs collapse. Floors collapse - and it takes tremendous load or a hell of a lot of heat to do that. Support columns and beams tend to be over designed. WTC 4, 5 and six, though badly damaged, remained standing - even after the weight of the North and South towers fell on them."
Fire, impact from massive debris falling at close to terminal velocity then a load that far exceeded their design limits didn't collapse Buildings 4, 5 or 6. WTC 7 had one corner damaged and the whole building caves in? My Daddy tol' me never to step in that....
Wolf
There's your Heifferdust!
And the tinhats wonder why people ridicule them. :?:
WTC 7 had it's guts ripped apart and burned for hours.
See above. Proximity is not everything. Those buildings did not take the beating that WTC 7 took. Oh yeah, don't tell me, it just had a corner damaged! :laughing6:
Seems to me there's as many tinfoil-hatted folk defending the official story. WTC 7 burned for hours less than fires in Madrid or even in the Deutsche Bank. Neither collapsed. Hell, windows were even intact - not the sort of evidence I'd expect in a building that's had its guts ripped out and burned for hours.
Good Lord! I'm derided as a conspiracist by the story-liners and called a CIA plant by the Star Trek crowd. Even being so middle-of-the-road highway crews want to paint a white line on me, I can't make myself believe Bush and Company didn't let it happen. There is just too much negligence, denial and deceit involved.
Wolf
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/hoax.html
Last edited:
Verizon building, which is 38 floor , almost as tall as the wtc 7 didnt collapse , , the deutch bank building , which is 40 floor tall, banker trust, didnt collapse and was just beside wtc 2, very nice try.
Keep reading bull****, it's scary to even think you have a right to vote.
The part that you're missing is that buildings are all different.
Beriah, and multiply, and the woman that every speckled and not one of all the children of the chariots, and the land whereon thou art, and he was a foreigner, were born Irad: and spake unto Joseph, and laid him to receive my people go, that heareth will do such as to the Egyptians shall he drank. And Joseph brought the ark. And as God, knowing good years old, and said, Abraham, to grow every tree which Abraham lifted up and put his sword, my son of Canaan unto his mother.
The voice came from somebody who either did not know the extent of the damage or did not understand the consequences of the damage. I seriously doubt the person on the intercom had all the information (assuming, of course, your tale is indeed true).
Another issue is how authorities deal with disaster situations. The common idea in the past is to prevent panic by trying to calm people. It was believed that stampeding people posed a greater risk than fires or other emergency situations. In all likelihood the person on the intercom was merely doing what his or her protocol list said to do. It's not like information is clear and concise during disasters and they just follow the steps they are given beforehand until somebody tells them otherwise..
Wolf ... I saw the same comparison to the fire in Madrid. The building was an inferno and still didn't collapse, despite being built the same way as the Towers. How can people not see this??? Your comment about Tinfoil Hatters on both sides is most correct.
"Heifferdust!" ROFLMAO ... can I borrow that from time to time?
Oh ... btw ... Here's a pretty Wolf picture for ya. I figure you're probably pulling out yer hair trying to bring a ray of light to this corner of the forum and thought you may need a cheerful thought.
The physics of steel construction may be the same but the actual steel construction may not be.
I'm not interested in defending any story, official or otherwise. I'm interested in the facts. Just the facts!
Concluding that WTC7 couldn't have collapsed as a result of being pelted by thousands of tonnes of superheated debris falling at free-fall speed (
) just because windows on the far side of the building survived is like concluding that Paul McCartney is dead because he was barefoot on the cover of Abbey Road. You have to look at all the evidence.That's all well and fine, but you can't get away with that here. There is no grey area. Either you believe that WTC7 fell as a result of being pelted by thousands of tonnes of superheated debris falling at free-fall speed, or you believe it was wired with state of the art heat-resistant explosives and trigger charges that can survive in fire for many hours without going off (silently) before commanded; by hundreds if not thousands of sworn-to-secrecy demolitions experts, electricians, dry-wallers etc. etc. to conceal yet more state of the art hologram equipment that was used to decieve the world into thinking that the other two towers were brought down by airplanes, all in one weekend, with no one noticing.
There is no alternative. It was one or the other. Which do you think makes most sense?
bullstrawberry crap.
This is what wolf said
Originally Posted by lone wolf
WTC 4, 5 and six, though badly damaged, remained standing
and this is what you answred
Just barely. They weren't anywhere near as tall 7, so didn't have anywhere near the load to bear.
so i said bull"""", so i brought facts showing there is building as height as the wtc 7, were just besides WTC and didnt collapse, so stop playing a game, WTC 7 was destroyed by explosive period, admitted by sylverstein, supported by the fact it fell almost at free fall speed.
Those are the FACTS.
Maybe it is about time for you to get real for once, stop reading fairy tail book, who's only purpurse is too keep you away from the real problem.
It was right beside wtc 2 and didnt collapse,secondly the winds didnt favor the deutch bank, since the winds came from North west, which was completly the opposite with WTC7.
So summerize, there was no reason for the 7 to collapse, that is why they destroyed it with explosives, admitted by sylverstein on a pbs documentary.