TangerTonyGreen
Well-known member
Two towers, 100 plus floors each, can’t be far off.But 220 floors didn’t collapse on it… So I don’t get that bit in particular
Two towers, 100 plus floors each, can’t be far off.But 220 floors didn’t collapse on it… So I don’t get that bit in particular
It would have had to have had a big samurai sword on it too which could slice through 88 steel girders in one foul swoop on it's way downThat massive transmitter on top of one of the towers weighed a bit I reckon.
200 floors of dustTwo towers, 100 plus floors each, can’t be far off.
The two buildings collapsed into their own footprints and are a distance away from building 7.Two towers, 100 plus floors each, can’t be far off.
The two buildings collapsed into their own footprints and are a distance away from building 7.
The building was hit and damaged (caught fire) from some debris, but 220 floors? No nothing like it.
Why actually comment if you actually know fuck all?
Well yes, it is a surprise… that’s the ** point. The buildings are designed to retain a certain amount of their structural integrity and do collapses of that nature are extremely unusual.Yes and it burned for eight hours or so, so a collapse is no real surprise really is it?
Never happened* in the history of multi storey buildings, then 3 in one day.Well yes, it is a surprise… that’s the ** point. The buildings are designed to retain a certain amount of their structural integrity and do collapses of that nature are extremely unusual.
Completely different building type. The whole of the Twin Towers external metal framework was compromised by the impact. Grenfell was more tradionally built of reinforced concreteWorld Trade Center 7 building did not collapse due to fire: Report - constructconnect.com - Daily Commercial News
A group of engineers and architects is demanding the American National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) retract and correct a 2008 report that concluded one of three World Trade Center buildings collapsed because fire weakened the steel supporcanada.constructconnect.com
Never happened* in the history of multi storey buildings, then 3 in one day.
*except when explosives are used in a demolition
Or people just questioning a narrative that doesn't make sense, a bit like you do with the moderation of this sitelunatics running amok on AVFTT again.
more shiite. The buildings are "designed to" and it is hoped that that is the case but the proof of the pudding is when something like 9/11 actually happens. It's not like they can practically test for an event like that can they?Well yes, it is a surprise… that’s the ** point. The buildings are designed to retain a certain amount of their structural integrity and do collapses of that nature are extremely unusual.
You're just another re-registered user name who no doubt has been banned before and perhaps has other user names. Purpose is solely to cause trouble and stir the pot. There you go ,I've joined the conspiracy theory club.Or people just questioning a narrative that doesn't make sense, a bit like you do with the moderation of this site
Fire is what caused the collapse of all 3 towers, that's the official story. Fire has never brought a building down like that EVER, then we have 3 in a day.more shiite. The buildings are "designed to" and it is hoped that that is the case but the proof of the pudding is when something like 9/11 actually happens. It's not like they can practically test for an event like that can they?
Totally agree 20’s.
How can you test a building without flying a 150 tonne jet carrying 50,000 gallons of aviation fuel at 300 mph into it?
Simple you can’t and no building would have with stood that sort of impact.
WTC7?Totally agree 20’s.
How can you test a building without flying a 150 tonne jet carrying 50,000 gallons of aviation fuel at 300 mph into it?
Simple you can’t and no building would have with stood that sort of impact.
Did you read it wiz as it's an article on building 7 which was not built the same exoskeleton as the towers?Completely different building type. The whole of the Twin Towers external metal framework was compromised by the impact. Grenfell was more tradionally built of reinforced concrete
Excellent, glad you've joined in. TroubleYou're just another re-registered user name who no doubt has been banned before and perhaps has other user names. Purpose is solely to cause trouble and stir the pot. There you go ,I've joined the conspiracy theory club.
Totally agree 20’s.
How can you test a building without flying a 150 tonne jet carrying 50,000 gallons of aviation fuel at 300 mph into it?
Simple you can’t and no building would have with stood that sort of impact.
Really must have dreamed about it then.Nobody flew a 150 tonne jet carrying 50,000 gallons of aviation fuel into building 7.
Yes you must haveReally must have dreamed about it then.
bfc3 is being a knob, he's only referred to WTC 7 in his post.Really must have dreamed about it then.
Metropolis. Cult 1927 German film directed by Fritz Lang. A deranged Kraut dominated by his father imagines he knows everything but in fact knows nowt.You're just another re-registered user name who no doubt has been banned before and perhaps has other user names. Purpose is solely to cause trouble and stir the pot. There you go ,I've joined the conspiracy theory club.
Try these guys.I’d love to join in, but I’m not an expert on aviation crash investigations, nor one on structural engineering.
If someone could put a link up to the YouTube video they got their qualifications from I’d appreciate it.
You don’t need to be an expert Johnno. The statistics are out there and easy to understand.I’d love to join in, but I’m not an expert on aviation crash investigations, nor one on structural engineering.
If someone could put a link up to the YouTube video they got their qualifications from I’d appreciate it.
Really must have dreamed about it then.
Nobody flew a 150 tonne jet carrying 50,000 gallons of aviation fuel into building 7.
It’s a fukcing hoot 20s. I’ve just been reading this hilarious (surely spoof) thread and pissing myself laughing. It’s relaxed me entirely and I am going to my bed with a smile on my facelunatics running amok on AVFTT again.
Kerosine does not burn hot enough or long enough to melt steel.Aye and gravity didn’t take any fuel downwards.
I've said the passport thing alone to me is very fishy.Loads of stuff really…
But a few that spring to mind..
The miracle passport
The fact Jewish owner had adjusted insurance and neither him or significant family members were present at WTC that day (highly unusual apparently)
The collapse of three buildings (especially building 7)
The mysterious mobile phone calls
Thick as fuckAye and gravity didn’t take any fuel downwards.
I’m not peddling anything at all….For someone peddling a conspiracy theory that is quality.
Hang on. Have you looked at all the claims and counter claims to make an evidence based judgement? If so and conclude all nonsense then fine but there's a few fishy things that don't add up. Do you think finding a passport from that exploded plane and ridiculously hot fireball is legit?It’s a
It’s a fukcing hoot 20s. I’ve just been reading this hilarious (surely spoof) thread and pissing myself laughing. It’s relaxed me entirely and I am going to my bed with a smile on my face
Is that what you were feeling once BSA were exposed as mushroom central?desperation,desperation desperation.
Whilst I agree about Kerosine the steel was all but destroyed in the impact and was the beginning of the end it couldn’t support the weight above it.Kerosine does not burn hot enough or long enough to melt steel.
What about the other 109 floors? What destroyed them to the point of freefall collapse?Whilst I agree about Kerosine the steel was all but destroyed in the impact and was the beginning of the end it couldn’t support the weight above it.
That’s absolute bollocksWhilst I agree about Kerosine the steel was all but destroyed in the impact and was the beginning of the end it couldn’t support the weight above it.
And one thing I do know is that aluminium wings, no matter how hard they hit steel, will not break it. The plane would have been broken up and blown up, not the steel though.Whilst I agree about Kerosine the steel was all but destroyed in the impact and was the beginning of the end it couldn’t support the weight above it.
Like I said the building simply snapped due to the weak structures caused by the impact the building fell in on itself what’s difficult not to understand?What about the other 109 floors? What destroyed them to the point of freefall collapse?
That’s absolute bollocks
I don’t need to have been there it’s just a bullshit comment. You state it like it’s a fact,but it’s totally false.Yer whatever, no doubt you were there or you built the building in the first place so know everything about it. (Not)
Snapped is fine, falling on itself is fine too. But don't you think it very surprising that there was zero resistance all the way down? No stopping at all, no slight deviation from the downward movement, no toppling over? All 3 buildings ?Like I said the building simply snapped due to the weak structures caused by the impact the building fell in on itself what’s difficult not to understand?
And one thing I do know is that aluminium wings, no matter how hard they hit steel, will not break it. The plane would have been broken up and blown up, not the steel though.
I don’t need to have been there it’s just a bullshit comment. You state it like it’s a fact,but it’s totally false.
You’re on here accusing people of conspiracy or whatever and lording it up taking the kids out of folk, yet like the other fella you’re spouting complete pooster.
Freefall is the biggest anomaly of everything that's wrong to do with the attack.What about the other 109 floors? What destroyed them to the point of freefall collapse?
I’am accusing people of conspiracy?
You’ll be telling me there’s an alien craft next in area 53.