If you think I'm not being truthful, point it out.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
On 9/11, WTC7 Collapse Was Firemen's Concern (controlled demolition debunked)
- Thread starter dannyb
- Start date
If you think I'm not being truthful, point it out.
Please watch the videos I just posted for better understanding.
NoahFence
Banned
Holy crap.
How much time you got?
One sample:
You said no windows were blown out.
If you've seen ONE photo of WTC 7 on fire you know this is wrong, yet you post it anyway.
So again I ask:
Why lie?
NoahFence
Banned
I guess the point is, there isn't a single image of WTC 7 from 9/11 that doesn't show windows blown out.
The windows in those areas were damaged from falling debris. I see where you could misconstrue that.
NoahFence
Banned
Ah ha.
You understand of course, that the images in the video were from the North face, that didn't get struck by debris?
<SNIP>
Edited, breach of rule 0, rule 12.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By: Locknar
Last edited by a moderator:
Prove it.
You're expecting someone who is either ergo or as near to him as makes no odds to actually think about what they're saying?
Last edited by a moderator:
Thank you, Pardalis. I didn't think you believed in youtube vids.
Edited to add: I think I learned a lesson not to rely on memory alone. Perhaps we can all learn from this.
Last edited:
332nd
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2006
- Messages
- 11,278
K, you claimed that the Pirelli tower fire was caused by the same thing that caused the WTC fires on 9/11. Since no 767s (or jetliners for that natter) were involved in the Pirelli fire, this would be a lie.
Now then, why are you so afraid of facts?
Sabretooth
No Ordinary Rabbit
I was aware of the '75 fire. Same as you. But I actually checked some facts. You should try it sometime.
This one? You couldn't take 10 seconds out of your busy day to keep yourself from sounding like yet another crazy truther bot?
Should we review your post again?
Funny. This article doesn't say that. It does say, however, that "the fire appeared to be confined primarily to 11th-floor office equipment".
Real firemen go into skyscrapers on fire and put the fires out. WTC1 caught on fire back in 1975, and became 'fully involved'.
True. It blew out a few windows on the east side 11th floor of the building. Not really a surprise in any fire.
Wrong on both accounts. You purposely omitted details to make this sound worse than it was. Fire did not cover floors, it traveled through utility shafts. Those fires were quickly extinguished and the only damage was to some electric and phone lines.
Oh, and the fire was knocked down in 3 hours, not 6.
Why would it? Comparing the '75 fire to 9/11 is like comparing a book of lit matches to a bonfire.
Let's see:
2/14/1975
- Fire on 1 floor. Covered about 65% of the floor. Some extension to utility corridors.
9/11/2001
- Large, fully fueled aircraft, flown into the buildings at high speed, dislodging fireproofing, damaging the core, and instantly and completely igniting 6+ floors.
Yeah...sound like the same thing to me.
You were referring to airplane impacts and the resulting kerosene starting the fires, no?
Office fires ignited by kerosene are just that.
Last edited:
Does this mean you will adjust your assessment of the intensity of the fires in WTC 7?
Again, aircraft impact and kerosene started the fires on 9/11. Unless you have another theory, I am correct.
NoahFence
Banned
Good point.