How did a plane crash in a field in Pennsylvania knock down a building in New York?
(media.conspiracies.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (19)
sorted by:
Debris from the North tower once it collapsed landed on WTC-7, resulting in fires breaking out in over 10 floors: the building was evacuated, so there was no casualties, so they just let it burn, before collapsing after burning for 7 hours.
Except no building has ever collapsed due to prolonged fire. Look into how many sky scrapers have burned for hours and hours but stayed standing. It's the laziest excuse ever when the guy who basically gambled on a tragedy occuring that day and won big is on video using controlled demolition terms like 'pull it'
That is because usually once a fire breaks out in a sky scraper, there are people working to put out the fire, or contain the fire. For WTC-7, they just let it burn freely for 7 hours. Also it was on the lower floors the fire burned, making it needing to take less structural damage before the integrity of the steel beams holding it up was compromised.
No.
your stupid false fires can't melt steel. this is your cue to say an incredibly stupid thing like
what kind of strength, you faggot. doesn't matter the building would still stand even if it was on fire. tiny fires in the windows of one floor.
However, and this is the bit that your owners don't want you talking about, one face WTC7 - only - was pouring out dust in Plumes, looking like smoke but we don't know what it was, for hours
https://ine.uaf.edu/projects/wtc7/
Have you read that university of Alaska engineering study that concluded these claims of a fire induced collapse for building 7 was not possible? Should look into that.
https://ine.uaf.edu/projects/wtc7/
Would love to hear your response to this unbiased 4(?) year study concluding that the official NIST “findings” are not possible and that fire could not have caused the collapse that occurred. Genuinely wondering if this is news to you or if it changes your thoughts.
Unbiased? The study was funded by 9/11 truthers, and the result of the study was announced even before the study started. Even though it spends its time refuting the NIST "findings", there are other ways that a fire could have caused the collapse of the building. Also analyze of the simulation used in the UAF study is found to not be physical responsive, or dynamic, unlike the NIST simulation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVE3YwRgU9k
Digging into this study, and it falls apart.
three things:
you are a faggot . die. all Israelis are scum
" Digging into this study ... " . stupid lying faggot who thinks that Steel fall apart from fire knows nothing about this report and is a stupid faggot who belongs in Israel.
"truthers" - you use truth as an insult. fuck off and die or fuck off back to Israel.
They literally cut their simulation short when the building begins twisting and showing exterior buckling. Both which were not observed at all in the real life footage
That is because it is a simulation; it is meant to show the fluid dynamics of a steel building catching on fire, in order to understand how WTC-7 collapsed, not to have the simulation match up perfectly to real life footage.
you can't find any bias. of course.
instead you lie that the report is of 911 truthers
what a faggot. still, you people do exist ...
No.
you're the one of the stupidest 10% who still believe the official story. what a fucking fool ; at least you're being paid.
I can't even be bothered dealing with your three lies. I'm over you worthless people.