London Apartment Tower ENGULFED in flames for a day but NO COLLAPSE!!!

blackascoal said:
Bin Laden never claimed responsibility for the attack .. AND, the FBI never charged him with anything related to 9/11. If Bin Laden had confessed, he would had been charged with the crime.

If the FBI had ANY evidence that Bin Laden was in ANY way responsible for the attacks, he would have been charged.

You do know the Bin Laden 'confession tapes' were a fraud, right? Why would your government offer up OBVIOUS fake tapes as evidence?

I have a better question .. who told you that Bin Laden was behind the attacks? Bush and Cheney say they never told you that.


If the FBI never told you that .. Bush and Cheney say that it wasn't them .. then who told you? :0)
Click to expand...

Well always knew you were an idiot. This proves it.
 
Micawber said:
I can't remember who. I just remember that he confessed. He blamed the US citizens regarding our military killing in the Middle East as the justification. Seems straightforward. The nist report, the planes, the hijackers origins, the confession, the prior bombing in like 1991. It all makes perfect sense. What you say on this, respectfully, makes no sense at all. Frankly it is ridiculous. Nothing else you say is. Just this. I'm totally on board with you otherwise.
Click to expand...

At some point you must take ownership for what you allow into your head my friend.

Bin Laden never confessed to 9/11 .. and the tapes you watched were decidedly fake. A confession is evidence .. if it's a real confession.

The FBI explained that they didn’t charge him because they didn’t have indictment-worthy evidence that he was guilty.

No disrespect taken nor intended .. but obviously there is much of this fairy-tale that you have never paid much attention to.

This is a hard truth for many Americans to accept .. even with our long, LONG history of false flags to war.
 
Nomad said:
Basic, rudimentary engineering principles explain it quite plausibly.
Click to expand...

Wrong again .. and NIST had to change their reports several times while bumbling through mindless 'explanations.'

NIST claimed that small localized fires brought down WTC 7 .. whereas FEMA has stated that such a theory has only a low probability of occurrence.

In other words, they don't know what brought WTC7 down .. or so they claim.

I'm not trying to convince you of what you should believe, but what you seem to believe simply isn't true.
 
blackascoal said:
I have no idea. Who did it requires a serious investigation that must be lead by science, not politics.

.. and that will never happen.

Any idea how many people we've killed and how much money the MIC has made from our so-called 'war on terror?'

Guess who OUR ground troops were when Obama destroyed Libya?

Answer: AL QUEDA.


Should have listened to Eisenhower.
Click to expand...

It's kind of hard to take this seriously that something like this could occur with absolutely no one knowing how it happened.
 
It collapse on its footprint: Because the Super-Structure of the 911 Tower was like a chinese finger trap frame lattice.

So maybe the Towers fell just as foreseen they would by those that sought it.

Here's a conspiracy theory: The London tower was arson by 3rd and 4th party workers of the sub-contractors working for the Construction contractors overseen by the local Bulding department inspectors.

Who would have known that the "Fire-Smoke Seals ---that fit between the Exterior Curtainwalls and each floor at the edge of concrete floor slabs" was Never Re-Installed?
 
cawacko said:
It's kind of hard to take this seriously that something like this could occur with absolutely no one knowing how it happened.
Click to expand...

Lots of people know how it happened .. I know how it happened. WE did 9/11.

But most Americans .. like you good brother, aren't going to see what is so clearly right in front of their face.

Giant buildings cannot fall straight down into their own footprints at free fall speed. Where is the mystery? That's 3rd grade science.

Did they ever get around to showing you the photos from Pentagon cameras and from the gas station across the street? Nope? Why not?

Wanna' see something funny?

whitewall.jpg


That's the impact site where the 'plane' hit the Pentagon .. fully loaded big ass plane.

The walls are free of the smoke damage, soot & heat of the “intense” fire that supposedly took place within the building – at the hottest point! The furniture is in good condition — in its original place. Heat rises, especially any of the reported “thousands of degrees.” But, the upper offices are nearly untouched by any damage, whatsoever. In fact, on the top floor you can see a plastic computer monitor sitting on a cabinet after the impact .. untouched.

How about the war games that were going on the same day which confused scrambling fighter jets? Did Bin Laden plan that too to cover his tracks?

Did you know that the height of this building was about the same height as a 767? Yet the roof stayed intact until 40 minutes after the impact
 
Anyone comparing the twin towers to this is truly a moron of epic proportions. I could get somewhat technical, but don't feel like it, however, fuel, heat, height etc....
 
blackascoal said:
WRONG.

Jet fuel is essentially kerosene.

The design of the Towers INCLUDED structures that would limit the damage from several planes crashing into it.

madrid_fire_small_collapse.jpg


The Madrid Tower inferno that lasted over 24 hours. The fire was so intense you could see it from outer space.

windsor-tower-after-the-fire-of-february-12th-2005-madrid-spain-a767mr.jpg


Still standing after the blaze that was FAR hotter than the WTC Towers .. and the small fires in WTC 7.
Click to expand...

Welcome to the Information Age, where everyone gets to invent their own physics and material sciences.
 
Maybe this is institutional denial of science but I would pay for TDAK, Desh and BAC to walk in to a corporate board room and say this is a bush/bin laden conspiracy
 
Idiot, airplane fuel burns much hotter than regular fire, structure in London did not melt.
 
cawacko said:
Maybe this is institutional denial of science but I would pay for TDAK, Desh and BAC to walk in to a corporate board room and say this is a bush/bin laden conspiracy
Click to expand...

Can you point out where I said this was a Bush / Bin Laden conspiracy? Bin Laden had nothing to do with it .. ask the FBI. Can you address that, or would slinging false accusations your preferred way of addressing this?

Can you point out the science / physics that says steel-frame structures can fall straight down without implosion? I'd be real interested in your theory, as I'm sure FEMA and NIST would be given that they could not replicate such an event.

Can you explain how WTC 7 collapsed from small localized fires .. or is such questions deemed unpatriotic in your mind?

FYI, I'd have absolutely no problem walking into a board room or anywhere else saying that steel-frame buildings cannot fall in the manner suggested in the 9/11 fairy-tale .. adding that such an occurrence has never ever happened before in the history of buildings, fire, or human existence.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
you have to admit, what are the odds that two sky scrapers would collapse in upon themselves so perfectly as to minimize the possible damage to surrounding areas, within minutes of each others AND so close to each other?????????????
Click to expand...

About the same odds that there would be 2 high-jacked airlines, crashing into adjoining buildings; but that would have been a bet, HUH!

:facepalm:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top