Tuesday, 10 February 2009

Another WT7 No-Show!

(Source article: http://www.prisonplanet.com/fire-consumes-wtc-7-size-skyscraper-building-does-not-collapse.html
Building 7 at the World Trade Centre collapsed during the 9/11 attacks, yet it was not hit by a plane. We're told it was collapsed by "fire damage". Here we see a similar-sized skyscaper burning much more fiercely than WTC7 did... yet it doesn't collapse.

This also happened in Madrid to the Windsor Tower. This calls into question yet again the official story of 9/11 and begs the question that I'm always posing: 9/11 was a black-budget military operation.

7 comments:

mel said...

The Windsor Tower didnt total collapse is more like it. The Windsor tower was constructed in 2 different ways. The top part was designed like the WTC and guess what, it partially collapsed. A little fact that most conspiracy theorists miss out.

Ben Emlyn-Jones said...

Well we "Conspiracy Theorists" sometimes find that facts change before we have a chance to miss them out. Yes, the Windsor Tower collapsed, after burning like a Guy Fawkes bonfire all night. One whole side fell down. But since people have looked at it and started remembering WTC7 mainstream commentators mention that the part which collapsed is like WTC7 while the rest is extraordinarily fireproof!

mel said...

On May 01, 2008 you wrote

The Windsor Building fell very differently to the WTC. It didn’t all pancake in one go.

Then on Feb 04, 2009 you wrote

Building 7 at the World Trade Centre collapsed during the 9/11 attacks, yet it was not hit by a plane. We're told it was collapsed by "fire damage". Here we see a similar-sized skyscaper burning much more fiercely than WTC7 did... yet it doesn't collapse.

This also happened in Madrid to the Windsor Tower. This calls into question yet again the official story of 9/11 and begs the question that I'm always posing: 9/11 was a black-budget military operation.


So you knew about the partial collaps at least 9 months aso.
so this:

Well we "Conspiracy Theorists" sometimes find that facts change before we have a chance to miss them out.

Is rubbish bcause you knew about it and posted about it at least 9 months ago.

Things like this dont do 911 conspiracy theorists any good at all as it looks like you have delibretly tried to misslead your readers. It may well be that you forgot but its sloppy if you did. Its a major point missed out and because of its absence some might get the wrong idea.

There many other factors in this that were overlooked like the sprinkler system in WT7 didnt work because the other towers coming down had broken the water pipes. Then we have the fact that the fires in WT7 were left to burn unchallenged for several hours. Was it the same in the Windsor fire? It makes a big difference.

The whole idea that because some buildings have collapsed due to fire then all should is just silly anyway.


The last post by me was deleted becuse i used BB code instead of HTML.

Ben Emlyn-Jones said...

Well, Mel. Seeing as you've been keeping records of everything I've said you're no doubt familiar with the threads on my forum, and other forums I'm a member of, that discuss this subject and know that I have already debated this subject with forum members. I don't really want to reenact debates I've already had. ;-)

If you have anything new to add to the debate then by all means join the HPANWO Forum and post it on the relevent thread.

mel said...

Ive not been keeping records of you Ben you have in your forum that you invited me to.

Reading your forum confirmed you did know about the partial collapse as i had suspected. You chose to mislead your readers on purpose and then tried to make excuses for you deception.

You are even going as far as deleting my posts to try and keep others from knowing the truth. Don't worry Ben others have been alerted to your deceptions.

Aaron Barlow said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Aaron said...

The fact is, fire is an organic process and consumes the available fuel source and moves to another area creating hotter and cooler areas, thus fire could not have caused the symmetric collapse observed. Furthermore fire, as the article mentions is insufficient to fully collapse a steel high-rise.

Due to Thermal conduction heat is drawn away from hotspots and distributed along the steel frame, the heat on any part of the steel never reaches above a few hundred degrees, well below that needed to weaken it.

No steel high rise has EVER collapsed from fire and many have burned much hotter and longer than WTC7.

Now for the mother of all IRREFUTABLE evidence:

The 2.2 seconds of Freefall in WTC7 that NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) ADMITS to is IMPOSSIBLE without Controlled demolition as all structural supports must be removed ahead of the collapse front, otherwise ANY intact structural resistance would slow the collapse to a rate less than freefall.
Freefall means all the object's gravitational potential is converted to motion, in order to crush tonnes of structural steel and concrete, a large part of that gravitational potential must be used, which would slow it down to a rate much less than freefall.