We'll see about that. You were wrong about Cossiga. You should make good on your promise and admit it. Just so we're on the same page, it's you that prefers to use the terms tree fort and sky bunker. I don't prefer to call it either of those things because it was not either of those things. You're also wrong about the midsection of the building being reinforced against terrorism. You made these two statements: Both statements are false for multiple reasons. 1. It was not a counter terrorism office. It was the office of emergency management. Their purpose was to coordinate response to natural and man-made disaster. Their purpose was not "counter terrorism." 2. The OEM offices were not a treefort or sky bunker. 3. The OEM fitout did not take place "just before" 9/11. The OEM fitout was completed in 1999. First of all, the 22-24 floors of the WTC7 contained belt trusses for the purpose of wind bracing. These braces were part of the original design of the building which can be seen on the structural plans here: http://the911forum.freeforums.org/nist-foia-wtc7-shop-and-structural-drawings-t502.html Of particular note are drawing S-9 and S-19 through S-22 which show this reinforcement in detail. This design was created long before it was decided that OEM would occupy the 23rd floor (drawings are dated 6-27-85) . The newspaper article (that I assume you are referencing) got it wrong. The structure of the building was never hardened against terrorism as part of the OEM fitout. The structure of the building was not hardened to defend against terrorism. It was braced against wind load on that floor as part of the original design. The 13 million dollars spent in the OEM fitout was spent on retrofitting the building with redundant power generation and communication capabilities. You are wrong, elephant. You should admit it.
There you go again–misrepresenting the truther position. The theory is that the planes that took off from the airports didn't have any special controls. Painful Deceptions (Part 1) - YouTube (27:50 time mark) The theory is that they landed at military bases and the remote control planes that hit the towers were unmanned. You knew this; you're just trying to muddy the waters.
Then what happened to the real planes. Theoretically speaking. Forgive me if that is explained in the videos. If it is, if you could please provide the time mark so I don't have to sit through the entire thing, I'd surely appreciate it.
PAs EPA tested the soil at the crash site and found very little contamination. Where did the fuel and other liquids go?
Based on the size of the explosion, and the loosely packed soil at the crash site, where would expect it to go? Curious; where did you read that "PAs EPA tested the soil at the crash site and found very little contamination."? Source this, please.
Creativedreams, it's been 4 days since I responded to you. Did you miss the post, or are you just declining to respond?
Yeah I've been having trouble with that one... My deep fried ice on a stick for my concession stand at the fair may be even more challenging...
So you had time to start a whole new thread on a whole new topic but you didn't have time to admit you were wrong about WTC7. I can see how the rest of this is going to go, elephant.
Is it really all that hard to figure out? The discussion is right on the same page as your post. Are you not able to back read 4 posts?
Yeah, I had very little hope that Creativedreams would make good on his promise to admit when he was wrong. I have little doubt that he simply packed up his kit of regurgitated bologna and trotted off to some place where the "fish" are more willing to bite.
There are some very good dancers in here for sure. The all start with "The Official BS story" is correct because Joe Blow told them it was. ROFL
