I think that WTC 7 fell down in an unusual way. I also think that the Pentagon has an unusual hole in it. The hole is perfectly straight down. That's about it.
big red bulls eye on the wtc in 9/11
- Thread starter fedr808
- Start date
I think that WTC 7 fell down in an unusual way. I also think that the Pentagon has an unusual hole in it. The hole is perfectly straight down. That's about it.
Why don't you explain to us what you don't understand.
The only post you made in here that any relevance is something to do with the collapse of the penthouse preceding the collapse of the exterior walls. There was an earlier post in which you posted a link to that fraud Gage.
In response to your post about the collapse of the penthouse I asked the following question.
Did you learn what was in the penthouse?
The hole in the Pentagon was made in a line with the incoming plane that struck the building. Why do you think that's odd?
Considering, no other high rise fire has been subjected to the conditions that WTC7 was subjected too...no firefighting at all...what do you base you suspicions on? How do you know it fell too fast with nothing to compare it too?
I never mentioned speed, I don't know anything about free fall speed. The fire doesn't seem to be near the part that collapsed, which was the penthouse.
I tried to find out what was in the penthouse, all I could see were some air vents, but that was an external picture.
Then what makes you think WTC7 was a cd?
Firefighters reported a kink in the building before it collapsed and predicted it's collapse . What caused this if explosives were used?
The straight line just looks unusual being as a huge plane with huge wings hit it..
I see WTC-CD was a "drive by" troofing...no surprise.
Well that's the same as somebody saying that they heard explosions. The kinks may have been there, but the building fell down at the top. Who worries about kinks at the top of the building?
Firefighters do...when you see a building on fire, and the building show signs of collapse..you get everyone out...which is what happened on 911.
Explosions do happen in fires...but if those explosions don't happen at right time to cause the collapse..then they are meaningless.
How do you get to be an expert on steel building collapse when no other steel buildings have collapsed in this way before? I still think you need to take a leap of faith to become an instant expert in this.
The penthouse is not an apartment as you understand.
The penthouse was full of heavy equipment. We can find this out by looking at the plans for the building. The mechanical equipment for the building was up there. That's the air conditioning, generators, elevator hoists, and all the rest. This weighed a lot, thousands of tons. I know the NIST report describes the weight.
The fire weakened parts of the building that collapsed. This dropped the penthouse. The penthouse collapses downward destroying the internal structure, then the exterior walls begin to fall.
The fact that parts of the exterior fell close to free fall speed is understandable seeing that the walls were no longer connected to the internal structure.
Well that would explain the collapse. Then I would alter the way that they have suggested the collapse happened. The top was the significant factor.
The fact is that if explosives were used, why did the towers remain standing for nearly 2 hours? You cant say that the explosives were detonated after the plane hit ebcause the impact would have destroyed the explosives.
And if explosives were used in conjuction with the plane crash, ie, they were blown at the same time of the crash, the building would have fallen instantly.
Tell me, how many people on that idiot site are certified, SANE explosives experts (granted anyone that likes to play with explosives may be a few matches short of a matchbox)
if he was close enough to an explosion to be blown away by it, and considering the amount of explosives that would have been there to blow the columns, that guys brain would have the consistancy of pudding after the explosion, ergo, he is flat out lieing, there is no way he would have been close enough to be blown back and survived, and considering that you guys claim it was thermite that did it, and thermite has no concussive force leads me to the fact that you guys cannot get your facts straight.
What? This post is the most misleading post on here. Get your facts right! 'You guys' isn't even a sensible term for forum members. It's like a label that all members are the same. I never mentioned thermite, I didn't say how close he was to the blast, I just posted what he said. he was the only guy in WTC 7 running around.
Also.. nonsensical.. if you are close enough to be blown away, you get your brains blown out. That's just silly, being as a blast can be from the surrounding air blast.
You missed the obvious one: an aether bubble burst and stopped supporting the building.
From your posts it's becoming quite clear you don't know anything about anything.Pincho Paxton said:
You missed the obvious one: an aether bubble burst and stopped supporting the building.
From your posts it's becoming quite clear you don't know anything about anything.
From your posts you want to state superior knowledge over others.
"State" or "claim"?
Meh, I can't help being smarter than you.
But you could work at not being as dumb as you are.
(I'd also like other people to post in comprehensible English. But it doesn't happen).