US freedom of speech: hi rise buildings DO NOT collapse due to fire - WT7 DID

Make a deal with you. Between just me and you. If you can explain why NORAD changed their timeline of events for the day no less than 3 times, and explain why the first two times wasn't good enough, but now we should believe the third one, I'll answer your question as best I can....deal??

 

I don't even know what that is. And I really don't care. All I care about is that structural engineers claim that jet fuel can weaken the structural integrity of a skyscraper. You can't even name a single reason why engineers would lie about the subject other than vague threats by the government you can't even name. This is pathetic. You know when people say don't believe everything you read on the internet? This is the bull(*)(*)(*)(*) they're talking about. Be a skeptic. You'll be smarter for it. You may think you're being one right now but you're not. You're being gullible. Your swallowing what you're told even when it spits in the face of expert opinion.

 

Spin, Spin, until steel becomes like thin ice. that is how government experts explain the collapse of 3 buildings.

 

Me and my fathers business was repeatedly vandalized because we spoke out against the official government theory. my father did not believe the planes destroyed it, he made his opinion known repeatedly in our bar. there were consequences.

 

No. That's how structural engineers explain it. And it doesn't need to be as thin as ice when it's holding several thousand tons of concrete. Stop being so gullible. Be a skeptic.

 

Please explain how jet fuel got into building 7

 

This only accounts for the floors above, if that. But fire damage would not account for the way the buildings collapsed. You can't plan for a tower to fall like that. There's no way. That would be making the building unsound from the beginning- having it crumble perfectly on impact.

But let's say the floors were comproised by fire damage. That only means the top floors and those floor near the site of impact would be affected. The bottom half would retain it's structural integrity. If the top floor collapsed, they should collapse at a tilt or a greater angle. There's no way fire damage creates symmetrical desturction to bring the building down so neat. And even if it did bring those floor above down neat, it would only spill over the bottom floor that would remain structurally resisitant- creating a splash effect over it, like pouring water over an upside down cup.

You could say it was designed like that, though, but if that was the case than the city fire department would have known that the cities largest building was going to fall and wouldn't have let anyone...ANYONE near it...much less inside it, like fire fighters or police.

Nope. I'm not sold on the planes theory. I'm not saying planes didn't crash into the building, I'm saying planes didn't bring it down. Without a proper sequence of explosives, I couldn't get a tower of jinga blocks to fall down in it's own footprint.

 

I never said Jet Fuel got into building 7. Building 7 collapsed because it was rained upon by giant slabs of concrete and steel.

 

lol..........

 

I'm just going to copy and paste here because frankly I'm not even sure why I joined this thread. These are the exact same freakin arguments that were being made 10 years ago. Nothing has changed.

So neither has the debunking...

Source: http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

 

Hey genius. The debris damage was on just one side of the bldg. How can that cause a unitary collapse?. Same with the fires. None were even visible on the north side.

 

Few people know the names of any engineers anywhere. But Rosie Odonnell and Charly Sheen denied the muslim conspiracy theory of 911 and saw their careers go in the toilet.

 

Also, don't forget all the explosives stored in all 3 buildings in case of attack from Russians

 

Hey genius. Bldg 7 was not hit by a jet so how could jet fuel fires cause it to collapse ? And BTW jet fuel is kerosene and does not produce a hot fire. THINK

 

There is no evidence diesel fuel was stored in wtc7. That's just what the govt says. Do you really think it's routine for buildings to store enough fuel to collapse the bldg if it catches on fire? THINK

 

The evidence is there. You just can't admit to it. It was supposed ot be an emergency backup remeber that means you'd probably have fuel on hand of government vehicles and for backup generators. And you stil can;t explain how you could clandetinely wire 267 floor for controlled demolition in less than five years. Hell I doubt it could be done in five years if everyone knew it was happening and nothing had to be kept secret.

 

Then you haven't investigated anything for yourself. Do you even know who/what NORAD is?

When your knowledge of 9/11 increases a bit...get back to me. The balance of your post is not worth responding to.

 

Funny...that's not what the "official" explanation is. Have you check out ANYTHING for yourself about that day's alleged happenings or not? Or do you just swallow the whole BS story hook, line and sinker for a different reason?

 

Nothing has changed? Oh contraire! NORAD's version of events changed 3 different times alone!!

 

NORAD has very little to do with what happened on 9-11. It has to do with a conspiracy theory that doesn't understand physics. That's enough for me not to give a (*)(*)(*)(*).

 

I think it was on this thread where I posted where the owner of the building told the fire dept to pull it, or blow it up when told of the fire damage to the building. Several fire fighters testified they also heard that from their sureriors. It makes sense with all the rubble to be cleaned up after the WTC fell and all that mess would have to be cleaned up. Why wait till that was done and then take down building 7 and have another mess to clean up later and traffic interrupted.

 

Barbara Olson is now JFK's love-slave on the Grey's secret Moon Base that attacked Apollo 13.

 

Pull in firefighter terms means something different from pull in demolitions terms. Pull to firefighters means pull the team out of the building because it is no longer safe to attempt any further firefighting or rescue operations.

Essentially they were saying that they expected the building to collapse and needed to get the heck out of there.

 

The silverstein apologists claim he said "pull out" not "pull it" and that may be true. Even i don't put much store by the "pull it" issue.

 

"Pull building 7" was one phrase Sliverman used. Another was "pull IT". He NEVER used the term "pull out". Building 7 was intentionally dropped....without question.