45145
44515

Why the burning tower in Britain never collapsed

Conspiracy theories and weird science discussions.

Re: Why the burning tower in Britain never collapsed

Postby Passion4Truth » Jul 24th, 2017, 4:28 pm

Dizzy1 wrote: Common sense and conspiracy theory are an oxymoron.

That's not true...... well not 100% of the time, anyway :)
Strange times are these in which we live
 when old and young are taught in falsehoods school. 
And the one man that dares to tell the truth 
is called at once a lunatic and fool 

-- Plato. 

Passion4Truth
Übergod
 
Posts: 1024
Likes: 46 posts
Liked in: 113 posts
Joined: Jan 19th, 2010, 1:22 pm
Location: The physical plane for now

Re: Why the burning tower in Britain never collapsed

Postby peaceseeker » Jul 24th, 2017, 9:05 pm

Add another to the list...

Image

"I think our society is run by insane people for insane objectives...I think we're being run by maniacs for maniacal ends...but I'm liable to be put away as insane for expressing that. That's what's insane about it."
~ John Lennon
User avatar
peaceseeker
Lord of the Board
 
Posts: 3975
Likes: 376 posts
Liked in: 251 posts
Joined: Sep 11th, 2008, 10:27 am

Re: Why the burning towere in Britain never collapsed

Postby What_the » Jul 24th, 2017, 9:19 pm

fvkasm2x wrote:
LTD wrote:it don't have to warp it all it had to do was compromise its strength which is exactly what it did the freefall effect was the weight of the upper floors collapsing on the ones below not really rocket science the building in Britian simply burnt none of the structure was compromised by a plane flying into it


And what about Tower 7?

You know, the tower that magically fell down exactly like a demolition without anything hitting it?

Fire and debris from the other tower managed to take down an entire sky scraper, but did almost no damage to the 2 buildings on either side of it?

Makes sense.

What_the wrote:The thoughts of false flag or did bush know or let happen is beside the point. I'm interested in the structural failure of the two towers.


I'd focus on the 3rd tower. The one that fell exactly the same as the other 2, even though there was no jet fuel or plane impact.

Ahh yes. I have difficulty reconciling that point/fact.
I don't know. I've only been speaking to what I know about somethinh fundamental about physics and civic structural engineering. My thoughts are based on sciences and the willingness to learn more. Here, contextually.
User avatar
What_the
Übergod
 
Posts: 1413
Likes: 312 posts
Liked in: 621 posts
Joined: Feb 18th, 2017, 2:24 pm

Re: Why the burning tower in Britain never collapsed

Postby Ranger66 » Jul 25th, 2017, 6:56 am

Add another to the list...

One of these things is not like the others.
Ranger66
Übergod
 
Posts: 1422
Likes: 2 posts
Liked in: 186 posts
Joined: Jul 5th, 2007, 11:42 am
Location: West Kelowna

Re: Why the burning towere in Britain never collapsed

Postby averagejoe » Jul 25th, 2017, 5:22 pm

What_the wrote:I don't know. I've only been speaking to what I know about somethinh fundamental about physics and civic structural engineering. My thoughts are based on sciences and the willingness to learn more. Here, contextually.


Ah yes my thoughts are based on science of b.s. [icon_lol2.gif]
"Man is not free unless government is limited." -- Ronald Reagan
User avatar
averagejoe
Walks on Forum Water
 
Posts: 10580
Likes: 1891 posts
Liked in: 1450 posts
Joined: Nov 23rd, 2007, 11:50 pm

Re: Why the burning tower in Britain never collapsed

Postby averagejoe » Jul 25th, 2017, 5:27 pm

No jet fuel....WTC building #7.

Watch explosions bring er down....

Watch the elevator housing on the top collapse and then blowing out the concrete columns.

"Man is not free unless government is limited." -- Ronald Reagan

2 people like this post.
User avatar
averagejoe
Walks on Forum Water
 
Posts: 10580
Likes: 1891 posts
Liked in: 1450 posts
Joined: Nov 23rd, 2007, 11:50 pm

Re: Why the burning tower in Britain never collapsed

Postby maryjane48 » Jul 25th, 2017, 5:40 pm

finally a topic me and joe agree on :130: . nice find joe :up:

averagejoe likes this post.
User avatar
maryjane48
Walks on Forum Water
 
Posts: 14916
Likes: 9406 posts
Liked in: 2322 posts
Joined: May 28th, 2010, 7:58 pm

Re: Why the burning tower in Britain never collapsed

Postby Fancy » Jul 25th, 2017, 5:57 pm

You forgot the other thread....
User avatar
Fancy
The Pilgrim
 
Posts: 41920
Likes: 874 posts
Liked in: 4227 posts
Joined: Apr 15th, 2006, 6:23 pm

Re: Why the burning tower in Britain never collapsed

Postby johnny24 » Jul 25th, 2017, 7:13 pm

maryjane48 wrote:finally a topic me and joe agree on :130: . nice find joe :up:


Pretty sure you agree on a flat earth also.
johnny24
Fledgling
 
Posts: 209
Likes: 22 posts
Liked in: 117 posts
Joined: Jan 25th, 2011, 9:16 am

Re: Why the burning tower in Britain never collapsed

Postby Ranger66 » Jul 26th, 2017, 6:59 am

“Watch the elevator housing on the top collapse and then blowing out the concrete columns.”

“What proof is offered that there were demolition explosions?”
Ranger66
Übergod
 
Posts: 1422
Likes: 2 posts
Liked in: 186 posts
Joined: Jul 5th, 2007, 11:42 am
Location: West Kelowna

Re: Why the burning tower in Britain never collapsed

Postby maryjane48 » Jul 26th, 2017, 9:00 am

give it up ranger . you cant even explain why multiton chunks of steel were blown sideways over 500 feet . until you can accomplish that tiny part of the day then your nothing more than a firecracker with no wick [icon_lol2.gif]

2 people like this post.
User avatar
maryjane48
Walks on Forum Water
 
Posts: 14916
Likes: 9406 posts
Liked in: 2322 posts
Joined: May 28th, 2010, 7:58 pm

Re: Why the burning tower in Britain never collapsed

Postby Ranger66 » Jul 26th, 2017, 10:03 am

“explain why multiton chunks of steel were blown sideways over 500 feet”

You have provided not proof this happened as you have no proof there were demolition explosions, just deflection after deflection that continues to show how insubstantial your argument is.
Ranger66
Übergod
 
Posts: 1422
Likes: 2 posts
Liked in: 186 posts
Joined: Jul 5th, 2007, 11:42 am
Location: West Kelowna

Re: Why the burning tower in Britain never collapsed

Postby Fancy » Jul 26th, 2017, 10:13 am

maryjane48 wrote:give it up ranger . you cant even explain why multiton chunks of steel were blown sideways over 500 feet . until you can accomplish that tiny part of the day then your nothing more than a firecracker with no wick [icon_lol2.gif]

Why are you rehashing this thread? You participated in it.
viewtopic.php?f=52&t=22316&p=2077523#p2077523

Maybe refer back to it for clarification as saying the video was a nice find meant you didn't see it on the WTC7 thread?
User avatar
Fancy
The Pilgrim
 
Posts: 41920
Likes: 874 posts
Liked in: 4227 posts
Joined: Apr 15th, 2006, 6:23 pm

Re: Why the burning tower in Britain never collapsed

Postby averagejoe » Jul 26th, 2017, 11:33 am

Ranger66 wrote:“Watch the elevator housing on the top collapse and then blowing out the concrete columns.”

“What proof is offered that there were demolition explosions?”


Duh elevator housing on top of high-rises always fall in the center and then the building collapses every day...

Duh the guy even circled everything for you to watch.

Hello, you sleeping?

Give it up 66. Quit being a troll....your sounding like nebula! [icon_lol2.gif]
Last edited by averagejoe on Jul 26th, 2017, 12:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Man is not free unless government is limited." -- Ronald Reagan

peaceseeker likes this post.
User avatar
averagejoe
Walks on Forum Water
 
Posts: 10580
Likes: 1891 posts
Liked in: 1450 posts
Joined: Nov 23rd, 2007, 11:50 pm

Re: Why the burning tower in Britain never collapsed

Postby maryjane48 » Jul 26th, 2017, 11:42 am

Ranger66 wrote:“explain why multiton chunks of steel were blown sideways over 500 feet”

You have provided not proof this happened as you have no proof there were demolition explosions, just deflection after deflection that continues to show how insubstantial your argument is.

i gave you nists measurments of debris field . they couldnt explain it but when you use math it was easy to calculate speed to get the steel beams that far . it isnt debatable if steel beams were 500 feet from where the should have landed . what the debate is how they ended up there. what supplied the energy .


so again explain how they ended up where they were recorded to be by nist fema and the recovery workers
User avatar
maryjane48
Walks on Forum Water
 
Posts: 14916
Likes: 9406 posts
Liked in: 2322 posts
Joined: May 28th, 2010, 7:58 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Conspiracies and Weird Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests