Pages:
Author

Topic: University Study Finds Fire Did Not Cause Building 7's Collapse on 9/11 - page 14. (Read 2858 times)

legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
...

So, what's left.

Everything except what paid Chinese and Iranian disinformation agents would want to assert was the cause. That rules out explosives and your inside jobbers.

If there really was a pay-off, prove it. But if there really was, anybody who could pull off an inside job like 9/11 would easily cover their bases by paying off some jokers that could be accused of lying.

So, still an inside job.

Cool
legendary
Activity: 2926
Merit: 1386
...

So, what's left.

Everything except what paid Chinese and Iranian disinformation agents would want to assert was the cause. That rules out explosives and your inside jobbers.
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
You are forgetting that the model showed that it wasn't fire that brought the building down. This means that we have fire out of the way as a cause.

So, what's left. Wind, bulldozers, and explosives. Oh yeah! Explosives.

Cool

the models dont show anything. because the models did not even come close to what happened in reality

plus it was not fire.
it was physical debris hitting the building from the twin towers

if you think it was just fire.. then you have just made an error for yourself

thats like me slapping you in the head with a basball bat. u falling to the ground. i then say it must have been fire or a granade that caused you to collapse
now heres a video of your head tilding first and then u falling on ur ass.. but ignore that
instead heres is two computer models. one not showing the head tilting first. and other u just falling sideways on your face

neither models suggest reality neither suggest truth. but are just meaningless distractions to keep a troll entertained

Anybody who thinks that a little bit of physical debris can bring down a building like Building 7, so that it falls at nearly free-fall speeds, into its own footprint...
... and then advertises that he believes this, doesn't know anything about construction, common sense, or gravity...
... and is essentially a waste of time.

But if he gets into a position of authority, he could easily be dangerous.

Cool
legendary
Activity: 4410
Merit: 4766
You are forgetting that the model showed that it wasn't fire that brought the building down. This means that we have fire out of the way as a cause.

So, what's left. Wind, bulldozers, and explosives. Oh yeah! Explosives.

Cool

the models dont show anything. because the models did not even come close to what happened in reality

plus it was not fire.
it was physical debris hitting the building from the twin towers

if you think it was just fire.. then you have just made an error for yourself

thats like me slapping you in the head with a basball bat. u falling to the ground. i then say it must have been fire or a granade that caused you to collapse
now heres a video of your head tilting first due to delayed concussion.. and then you falling on ur ass.. but ignore that

instead heres is two computer models. one not showing the head not tilting first. and other u just falling sideways on your face

neither models suggest reality neither suggest truth. but are just meaningless distractions to keep a troll entertained
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
WELL, WHAT ABOUT THOSE HUGELY MASSIVE BEAMS THAT GOT TOSSED 500 FEET LIKE NOTHING, HUH? THAT COULDN"T POSSIBLY HAPPEN WITHOUT EXPLOSIVE LEVELS OF EXPLOSIVELY EXPLOSIVE EXPLODERS.

 YOU KNOW I'M RIGHT BECAUSE, HUGHLY HUGE, AND EXPLOSIVELY EXPLOSIVE. BECAUSE, SHUT UP.

You are so funny, lol. "So he huffed, and he puffed, and he puffed, and he huffed, and at last he blew the house down."

Cool
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
The university model talked about in the OP, is a peer reviewed study that shows that fire didn't bring Building 7 down.

Cool

the university done 2 models
one where the whole building tumbled over like a tree.. (never gonna happen even in natural disaster) and THEY said thats what happened in non explosive situation... but that has been disproven by science and architects.. and even by badecker himself by saying building suppose to be built to withstand certain things.

the other model was just a fall flat model. but it was not a model that resembled the actual fall of the building seven..
and THEY said this model was(facepalm) and then said it can only happen in a explosive used scenario.. again wrong

the models didnt accurately show actual events. and the summary of how the results of the models occured were not realistic either

.. sorry badecker. but try to actually do some research and compare info you find to actual events and other info available

You are forgetting that the model showed that it wasn't fire that brought the building down. This means that we have fire out of the way as a cause.

So, what's left. Wind, bulldozers, and explosives. Oh yeah! Explosives.

Cool
legendary
Activity: 2926
Merit: 1386
The university model talked about in the OP, is a peer reviewed study that shows that fire didn't bring Building 7 down.

Cool

the university done 2 models
one where the whole building tumbled over like a tree.. (never gonna happen even in natural disaster) and THEY said thats what happened in non explosive situation... but that has been disproven by science and architects.. and even by badecker himself by saying building suppose to be built to withstand certain things.

the other model was just a fall flat model. but it was not a model that resembled the actual fall of the building seven..
and THEY said this model was(facepalm) and then said it can only happen in a explosive used scenario.. again wrong

the models didnt accurately show actual events. and the summary of how the results of the models occured were not realistic either

.. sorry badecker. but try to actually do some research and compare info you find to actual events and other info available
WELL, WHAT ABOUT THOSE HUGELY MASSIVE BEAMS THAT GOT TOSSED 500 FEET LIKE NOTHING, HUH? THAT COULDN"T POSSIBLY HAPPEN WITHOUT EXPLOSIVE LEVELS OF EXPLOSIVELY EXPLOSIVE EXPLODERS.

 YOU KNOW I'M RIGHT BECAUSE, HUGHLY HUGE, AND EXPLOSIVELY EXPLOSIVE. BECAUSE, SHUT UP.
legendary
Activity: 4410
Merit: 4766
The university model talked about in the OP, is a peer reviewed study that shows that fire didn't bring Building 7 down.

Cool

the university done 2 models
one where the whole building tumbled over like a tree.. (never gonna happen even in natural disaster) and THEY said thats what happened in non explosive situation... but that has been disproven by science and architects.. and even by badecker himself by saying building suppose to be built to withstand certain things.

the other model was just a fall flat model. but it was not a model that resembled the actual fall of the building seven..
and THEY said this model was(facepalm) and then said it can only happen in a explosive used scenario.. again wrong

the models didnt accurately show actual events. and the summary of how the results of the models occured were not realistic either

.. sorry badecker. but try to actually do some research and compare info you find to actual events and other info available
legendary
Activity: 2926
Merit: 1386
The university model talked about in the OP, is a peer reviewed study that shows that fire didn't bring Building 7 down.

Cool
Virtually no one believes any of the conspiracy theories about 911.

They are just too nutty.

Nano-explosives built into concrete from the day the buildings were constructed?

Crackpot.
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
The university model talked about in the OP, is a peer reviewed study that shows that fire didn't bring Building 7 down.

Cool
legendary
Activity: 4410
Merit: 4766
^^^ Your excuses that attempt to defy logic, show how your mindset is being controlled by the sad situation you are in. It's been shown over and over - taking all the things into account that you said - that the buildings came down by demolition. Demolition experts express this, and have for the last almost 18 years.

But understanding this would wreck your cozy fantasies about how things work in life, wouldn't it?

Cool

the actual video shows no explosives. the logic is with the video footage from many sources.
the video shows no low floor huge velocity horizontal thrust.
many actual real videos and photos onscene show debris lodging in the roof not slamming the side. thus double backing up the lean/spin/curve fall of exterior panelling.
architects show no explosives. the logic is with the architects.
architects show that building is able to withstand the initial hit by the plane. but the weakening of the columns due to the plane would eventually not support the weight.

all logic supports reality.. so its your illogic an fantasy which you are not realising is your flaw

as for your conspiracy websites that ask for donations to get special priviledges of more conspiracy theories and other silly things, reavels their interest is in getting money by telling stories. even your supplement salesmen cultish sites do the same

so instead of believing websites that ask for loyalty and money and recurring loyalty and money. just take a step back. and start researching the facts. and when presented then look for the source.
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
^^^ Wow! You did a little bit of your own research, rather than wait for TECSHARE to do it for you, and then express you don't believe him anyway.

Cool
legendary
Activity: 2926
Merit: 1386
- that the buildings came down by demolition. Demolition experts express this, and have for the last almost 18 years.
....

Only the few "demo experts" paid off by the anti-American, foreign enemies say these lies. All of the other demo experts, all of the other people laugh at these ridiculous crazy ideas.

One more time.

Why would anyone run planes into the towers, and then after a while, blow them up?

You assume it is the case, so it must be true! Am I anti-American? Do you really believe that? Just for the sake of argument assume my assertions of what happened on 9/11 were true. Which of us is REALLY anti-American here in that case?
Duck and dodge the question, AGAIN?

The ONE conspiracy theory that makes perfect sense about 911 is the continued funding and internet promotion of various schemes in which the US Government was behind the attack on the twin towers and the Pentagon. Why, for those who hate America it's just the gift that keeps on giving, isn't it?
legendary
Activity: 3318
Merit: 2008
First Exclusion Ever
- that the buildings came down by demolition. Demolition experts express this, and have for the last almost 18 years.
....

Only the few "demo experts" paid off by the anti-American, foreign enemies say these lies. All of the other demo experts, all of the other people laugh at these ridiculous crazy ideas.

One more time.

Why would anyone run planes into the towers, and then after a while, blow them up?

You assume it is the case, so it must be true! Am I anti-American? Do you really believe that? Just for the sake of argument assume my assertions of what happened on 9/11 were true. Which of us is REALLY anti-American here in that case?
legendary
Activity: 2926
Merit: 1386
- that the buildings came down by demolition. Demolition experts express this, and have for the last almost 18 years.
....

Only the few "demo experts" paid off by the anti-American, foreign enemies say these lies. All of the other demo experts, all of the other people laugh at these ridiculous crazy ideas.

One more time.

Why would anyone run planes into the towers, and then after a while, blow them up?

legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
^^^ Your excuses that attempt to defy logic, show how your mindset is being controlled by the sad situation you are in. It's been shown over and over - taking all the things into account that you said - that the buildings came down by demolition. Demolition experts express this, and have for the last almost 18 years.

But understanding this would wreck your cozy fantasies about how things work in life, wouldn't it?

Cool
legendary
Activity: 4410
Merit: 4766
the twin towers were not built to be invinsible..
they were also not built to just topple over with a push of wind or earthquake ir the instant there was a direct hit by a large plane not even available in the 1960's

the towers withstood the impact. but weakened the structure. which later collapsed.

it seems you think humans and buildings are immortal to harm. whats next, are you going to start saying that 911 wouldnt of happened if they injected megadosed of chlorine and vitamins into the concrete

sorry but i do find it really funny how one day you think buildings are not built or planned and you expect them to topple over.. but because it didnt topple over it must have been a bomb..

next you say it was so carefully designed that it would never fall under any circumstance

can you try and make your mind up.
because now your making so many theories that it just makes each of your arguments weaker
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
There are only two basic ways to look at it. Either 9/11 was done by terrorists from the outside, or 9/11 was an inside job by people in government and others.


The terrorists-from-the-outside idea doesn't fly, because the buildings were built to withstand the exact thing that happened to them. The only way to take them down via airplanes, is that some highly intelligent construction analysts examined the building plans, and found an overlooked weakness. The only people who could do this were people who were trained in such construction analysis.

In addition, there are loads of other things - like the lack of ability of Muslim pilots to properly fly the planes - that make the terrorists-from-the-outside idea to be impossible.


All that remains is "terrorists" from the inside - inside job.

Probably there was no design flaw in the Twin Towers. The way the planes were expertly piloted into the buildings as they were - through radio controlled, drone-like controllers - shows that the whole thing was a hoax, and that the buildings came down via demolition... of the kind shown here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2k_kuU84ro#t=3m0s.

Cool
legendary
Activity: 2926
Merit: 1386
It's funny how people call the story about it being an inside job "made up by conspiracy nutjobs" but they completely ignore that buildings that were not hit by planes on 9.11 collapsed to the inside, just like a normal demolished buildings do and witnesses heard explosions. It's the good old "if it looks like a duck..." case. Also, I haven't even seen the government try to prove that it wasn't a demolition. They just gave their version that it was all due to fire damage. How many often do you see buildings collapse and turn into a pile of rubble just hours after a fire breaks out? Never?

Building 7 had been extensively changed prior to these tragic events. The interior had been hollowed out into a large atrium.

It's not exactly like the water pressure, fire sprinklers were working.

Steel under heat becomes weak. It doesn't have the strength to hold buildings up.

.... witnesses heard explosions. ...

It's hard for most people to tell the difference between a firecracker, a car backfiring, or a gunshot. After all, all three ARE explosions, of a sort.
legendary
Activity: 2814
Merit: 1192
It's funny how people call the story about it being an inside job "made up by conspiracy nutjobs" but they completely ignore that buildings that were not hit by planes on 9.11 collapsed to the inside, just like a normal demolished buildings do and witnesses heard explosions. It's the good old "if it looks like a duck..." case. Also, I haven't even seen the government try to prove that it wasn't a demolition. They just gave their version that it was all due to fire damage. How many often do you see buildings collapse and turn into a pile of rubble just hours after a fire breaks out? Never?
Pages:
Jump to: