Why the burning tower in Britain never collapsed

[Passion4Truth]

Common sense and conspiracy theory are an oxymoron.

That's not true...... well not 100% of the time, anyway :)

[peaceseeker]

Add another to the list...

[What_the]

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.

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.

[Ranger66]

Add another to the list...

One of these things is not like the others.

[averagejoe]

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.

[averagejoe]

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.

[maryjane48]

finally a topic me and joe agree on . nice find joe

[Fancy]

You forgot the other thread....

[johnny24]

finally a topic me and joe agree on . nice find joe

Pretty sure you agree on a flat earth also.

[Ranger66]

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

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

[maryjane48]

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

[Ranger66]

“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.

[Fancy]

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

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?

[averagejoe]

“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!

[maryjane48]

“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