University Study Finds Fire Did Not Cause Building 7's Collapse on 9/11

[Spendulus]

badecker thinks everything is a movie

its like he is stuck watching the matrix, not realising there are other things in the world. but he just wants to watch the first matrix movie over an over and want to review the first movie.
having no clue about anything else

Notice the attempts to misdirect the conversation from hard-to-argue-facts?

yea. badecker doesnt understand anything beyond the scripts he has read. he comes back with the same old stuff repeated over and over. not an original thought of his own.

I'm still waiting for an explanation of why ram the planes into the towers, and then explode them. Of course I'd also like to see a demo of nano-thermite (a made-up fantasy thing of course, with mythical properties) mixed in with concrete and the resulting mix passing engineering tests on site, then being exploded decades later.

[franky1]

badecker thinks everything is a movie

its like he is stuck watching the matrix, not realising there are other things in the world. but he just wants to watch the first matrix movie over an over and want to review the first movie.
having no clue about anything else

Notice the attempts to misdirect the conversation from hard-to-argue-facts?

yea. badecker doesnt understand anything beyond the scripts he has read. he comes back with the same old stuff repeated over and over. not an original thought of his own.

I'm still waiting for an explanation of why ram the planes into the towers, and then explode them. Of course I'd also like to see a demo of nano-thermite (a made-up fantasy thing of course, with mythical properties) mixed in with concrete and the resulting mix passing engineering tests on site, then being exploded decades later.

that will take him a couple months to get to those conspiracy scripts. its why he is staying ignorant and looping with the same old myths from a decade ago.
he is too afraid to move forward and actually find details/give answers.
.. i have seen guys like badecker over the decades and they just cant even bring themselves to move forward and catch up with reality. so i just giving up on asking him to prove his point and instead just trying to catch him out with spoilers of how his conspiracy scripts end.. just to seep him up and get to the finale lightbulb moment where he has been duped and has to admit he is a bored troll. but taking the long route i see it taking him 3+ years to get to that point

[BADecker]

badecker thinks everything is a movie

its like he is stuck watching the matrix, not realising there are other things in the world. but he just wants to watch the first matrix movie over an over and want to review the first movie.
having no clue about anything else

Notice the attempts to misdirect the conversation from hard-to-argue-facts?

yea. badecker doesnt understand anything beyond the scripts he has read. he comes back with the same old stuff repeated over and over. not an original thought of his own.

Good thing BADecker doesn't have to understand any of it. Loads of people have come out with the understanding, so that anybody who wants to know, can easily see that 9/11 was an inside demolition job.

Since this has been done, it shows that jokers like franky1 and Spendulus are simply the same as climate change deniers.

[BADecker]

badecker thinks everything is a movie

its like he is stuck watching the matrix, not realising there are other things in the world. but he just wants to watch the first matrix movie over an over and want to review the first movie.
having no clue about anything else

Notice the attempts to misdirect the conversation from hard-to-argue-facts?

yea. badecker doesnt understand anything beyond the scripts he has read. he comes back with the same old stuff repeated over and over. not an original thought of his own.

I'm still waiting for an explanation of why ram the planes into the towers, and then explode them. Of course I'd also like to see a demo of nano-thermite (a made-up fantasy thing of course, with mythical properties) mixed in with concrete and the resulting mix passing engineering tests on site, then being exploded decades later.

I think a lot of us have been noticing how difficult it is for you to do research... and even think on your own, a little. Are you still sitting in your dirty diaper, wondering why somebody hasn't changed it yet?

[Spendulus]

..get to the finale lightbulb moment where he has been duped and has to admit he is a bored troll. but taking the long route i see it taking him 3+ years to get to that point

He and I have been through these discussions before, but apparently he's forgot.

[groggin]

freefall speed of collapse, 3x. yeah, 10 seconds quarter mile high to hit the ground (ZERO resistance from existing massive steel columns)

reported on BBC television (bldg 7) to have collapsed 20 minutes BEFORE it actually did collapse

no airplane parts found at the pentagon

and what part of the pentagon was hit? (by something)
   it was where the accountants were working to track D. Rumsfeld's missing 2.3 trillion dollars

just glad someone out there still cares

thanks BD   

[Spendulus]

freefall speed of collapse, 3x. yeah, 10 seconds quarter mile high to hit the ground (ZERO resistance from existing massive steel columns)....

I'm confused. what are you saying here?

[BADecker]

freefall speed of collapse, 3x. yeah, 10 seconds quarter mile high to hit the ground (ZERO resistance from existing massive steel columns)

reported on BBC television (bldg 7) to have collapsed 20 minutes BEFORE it actually did collapse

no airplane parts found at the pentagon

and what part of the pentagon was hit? (by something)
   it was where the accountants were working to track D. Rumsfeld's missing 2.3 trillion dollars

just glad someone out there still cares

thanks BD   

Loads of people care. But they don't know what to do and how to do something about it. Probably the payments issued to 9/11 injured and families of victims isn't anywhere near the earnings made by the insiders who did the collapse.

So, here we go again with a pandemic this time... which is as much fake-news as the official report about 9/11. The herd of people matches the lemming story better than the story ever matched the lemmings.

[Spendulus]

....
reported on BBC television (bldg 7) to have collapsed 20 minutes BEFORE it actually did collapse
...

So after they made the wrong report and then figured out it was wrong, they dispatched teams to make it true?

[BADecker]

....
reported on BBC television (bldg 7) to have collapsed 20 minutes BEFORE it actually did collapse
...

So after they made the wrong report and then figured out it was wrong, they dispatched teams to make it true?

Dispatched teams? They did what they could to cover their blunder.

[Spendulus]

....
reported on BBC television (bldg 7) to have collapsed 20 minutes BEFORE it actually did collapse
...

So after they made the wrong report and then figured out it was wrong, they dispatched teams to make it true?

Dispatched teams? They did what they could to cover their blunder.

So instead of a simple mistake by a dumb reporter, it has got to be changed into another part of a coverup by scheming conspirators. That's pretty weak.

But I'm curious about one thing. Why does it matter at all what one guy said on one TV channel?

Anyway, as I remember that day multiple TV channels were reporting about building 7, that it had been on fire, that it was likely to collapse or about to collapse. Can't remember the exact words, but the point was it was common knowledge because half of one side was tilting over and the top had caved in.

So what's the big deal about the BBC reporter's words?

[BADecker]

....
reported on BBC television (bldg 7) to have collapsed 20 minutes BEFORE it actually did collapse
...

So after they made the wrong report and then figured out it was wrong, they dispatched teams to make it true?

Dispatched teams? They did what they could to cover their blunder.

So instead of a simple mistake by a dumb reporter, it has got to be changed into another part of a coverup by scheming conspirators. That's pretty weak.

But I'm curious about one thing. Why does it matter at all what one guy said on one TV channel?

Anyway, as I remember that day multiple TV channels were reporting about building 7, that it had been on fire, that it was likely to collapse or about to collapse. Can't remember the exact words, but the point was it was common knowledge because half of one side was tilting over and the top had caved in.

So what's the big deal about the BBC reporter's words?

LOL!

Thanks, Spendy. Laughs are good for the soul.

The buildings were designed to not come down from plane crashes. So why would anyone step out and say that Building 7 came down when it hadn't and wasn't supposed to and hadn't even been hit by a plane?

You don't just walk around and make statements about things for no reason at all. Or maybe you do: "That car is going to crash into that truck that we don't know is on the other side of the hill."

But thanks. And for the insight into you, a little.

[groggin]

freefall speed of collapse, 3x. yeah, 10 seconds quarter mile high to hit the ground (ZERO resistance from existing massive steel columns)....

I'm confused. what are you saying here?

 the towers were designed to withstand impacts from 2 or 3 707 jets simultaneously. (there are 4 engines on a 707)

 they are were supported by 200 vertical steel columns around the perimeter, and several massive core columns that rise from the foundation to the roof.

on the day, it was as if they did not even exist, as the buildings fell at freefall speed (32 feet per second squared) the roofs meeting the ground in just ten seconds

there was zero resistance from these supporting columns, which means that incindiarys and explosives had to be used to accomplish such a quick fall

Anyway, as I remember that day multiple TV channels were reporting about building 7, that it had been on fire, that it was likely to collapse or about to collapse. Can't remember the exact words, but the point was it was common knowledge because half of one side was tilting over and the top had caved in.

  that's not true at all. watch it again. there were some fires, some incidental damage, the building evacuated. just before the collapse the rooftop can be seen to dip, as the core columns were cut using incindiarys and explosives

it might have been common knowledge locally, because of all the loud explosions heard and reported by many witnesses

jet fuel (kerosine) does not burn hot enough to melt steel. no steel framed building has ever collapsed from a fire

The herd of people matches the lemming story better than the story ever matched the lemmings.

word

[Spendulus]

...
So what's the big deal about the BBC reporter's words?

,,,,,
You don't just walk around and make statements about things for no reason at all. Or maybe you do: "That car is going to crash into that truck that we don't know is on the other side of the hill."
[/quote]

So the reporter was wrong. Who cares? What's laughable is that you make that into a big deal.

Where was this guy anyway? In NY watching the scene, or in London?

Pretty weak, to try to use something like this to support your pet theory.

It remains the fact that I remember hearing a lot of talk about bldg 7 the afternoon of 9/11 by reporters on the television channels.

 "They expect building 7 to fall anytime", "firemen have been told to stay away from building 7," etc etc.

So there's no reason for you to act like it was some big surprise.

freefall speed of collapse, 3x. yeah, 10 seconds quarter mile high to hit the ground (ZERO resistance from existing massive steel columns)....

I'm confused. what are you saying here?

 the towers were designed to withstand impacts from 2 or 3 707 jets simultaneously. (there are 4 engines on a 707)

 they are were supported by 200 vertical steel columns around the perimeter, and several massive core columns that rise from the foundation to the roof.

on the day, it was as if they did not even exist, as the buildings fell at freefall speed (32 feet per second squared) the roofs meeting the ground in just ten seconds

there was zero resistance from these supporting columns, which means that incindiarys and explosives had to be used to accomplish such a quick fall

Okay, I got your argument now. Go ahead and support that with the relevant physics or static force diagrams, if you really believe it.

What you really have to prove is that after the 88th floor (IIRC) collapsed due to fire, then the weight of the floors above coming down at the speed when it hit the next floor was insufficient to pop the supporting structures.

A shearing of a beam would occur at the speed of sound in steel which would be essentially instantaneous, and certainly not result in some slow-motion collapse such as you seem to be arguing for. Once some of the potential energy is converted to kinetic, there is so much force in action that no sort of "slow motion collapse" is conceivable.

[BADecker]

...

So what's the big deal about the BBC reporter's words?

,,,,,
You don't just walk around and make statements about things for no reason at all. Or maybe you do: "That car is going to crash into that truck that we don't know is on the other side of the hill."

So the reporter was wrong. Who cares? What's laughable is that you make that into a big deal.

If a reporter is wrong, who cares, right? But it was the BBC that was wrong. Reporters are the end-point of the system of news. They get their info from their bosses. If they happen to be investigative reporters, it's still their bosses that allow what they report on to go through to the people.

In this case, it's easy to speculate that the BBC knew in advance that Bldg. 7 was going to come down, and simply got their timing wrong with their TV reporter.

However, if the BBC didn't know, and it was a simple reporter mistake (highly unlikely, because reporters don't simply make crazy statements without some reason), you still can't show that this was the way it was.

After all, look at what is going on with Sinclair. Why not the BBC? The point being that things are planned ahead in the news. The suggestion being that the reporter mistake was a mistake in timing of what was already planned. Where did they get their info to plan like this? The inside job people.

Viral video raises worry over Sinclair's political messaging inside local news

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwA4k0E51Oo

[BADecker]

So there is something to the UofA Fairbanks study! They are making it into a movie. See the preview.


SEVEN Official Teaser (2020) | World Trade Center Building 7

"SEVEN" is a documentary about the extraordinary conclusions of the University of Alaska Fairbanks study on the destruction of World Trade Center Building 7 and the epic failure of our institutions to tell the truth.

Subscribe for updates on the upcoming release of the film. For more information and to receive email updates, visit https://AE911Truth.org.

Make a gift to help promote the film's release. https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr...

SEVEN Official Teaser (2020) | World Trade Center Building 7

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FL9CCZFuDFY

[Spendulus]

Anyway, as I remember that day multiple TV channels were reporting about building 7, that it had been on fire, that it was likely to collapse or about to collapse. Can't remember the exact words, but the point was it was common knowledge because half of one side was tilting over and the top had caved in.

  that's not true at all. watch it again. there were some fires, some incidental damage, the building evacuated. just before the collapse the rooftop can be seen to dip, as the core columns were cut using incindiarys and explosives....

No need to WATCH it again. I'm talking about what the reporters on site SAID that afternoon.

...

So what's the big deal about the BBC reporter's words?

,,,,,
You don't just walk around and make statements about things for no reason at all. Or maybe you do: "That car is going to crash into that truck that we don't know is on the other side of the hill."

So the reporter was wrong. Who cares? What's laughable is that you make that into a big deal.

If a reporter is wrong, who cares, right? But it was the BBC that was wrong. Reporters are the end-point of the system of news. They get their info from their bosses. If they happen to be investigative reporters, it's still their bosses that allow what they report on to go through to the people.

In this case, it's easy to speculate that the BBC knew in advance that Bldg. 7 was going to come down, and simply got their timing wrong with their TV reporter.
.....

Got their timing wrong? That's silly. Your imaginary conspirators would just sit back and let their own reporter watch it go down and report it. This is really, really grasping at threads.

So there is something to the UofA Fairbanks study!

Absolutely. There is Chinese disinformation.

[BADecker]

If a reporter is wrong, who cares, right? But it was the BBC that was wrong. Reporters are the end-point of the system of news. They get their info from their bosses. If they happen to be investigative reporters, it's still their bosses that allow what they report on to go through to the people.

In this case, it's easy to speculate that the BBC knew in advance that Bldg. 7 was going to come down, and simply got their timing wrong with their TV reporter.
.....

Got their timing wrong? That's silly. Your imaginary conspirators would just sit back and let their own reporter watch it go down and report it. This is really, really grasping at threads.

You are basically right. Where you are wrong is, what you said is exactly what they thought they were doing. They mistakenly thought the building had come down already. Otherwise they would never have allow her to tell us that it was down, while it was standing UP right in her background.

[Spendulus]

Got their timing wrong? That's silly. Your imaginary conspirators would just sit back and let their own reporter watch it go down and report it. This is really, really grasping at threads.

You are basically right. Where you are wrong is, what you said is exactly what they thought they were doing. They mistakenly thought the building had come down already. Otherwise they would never have allow her to tell us that it was down, while it was standing UP right in her background.

Lol so a reporter does a ridiculous thing, and you have to find an even more ridiculous explanation.

You started off with a predetermined wacko theory and tried to make the facts fit it.

Like I said, all of the reporters were receiving information that that tower was likely going to fall, among others from firemen. I remember that from watching it that day. This is a gigantic nothing burger. Here's what the BBC had to say about this issue.

5. If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error - no more than that. As one of the comments on You Tube says today "so the guy in the studio didn't quite know what was going on? Woah, that totally proves conspiracy... "

https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html

[BADecker]

Got their timing wrong? That's silly. Your imaginary conspirators would just sit back and let their own reporter watch it go down and report it. This is really, really grasping at threads.

You are basically right. Where you are wrong is, what you said is exactly what they thought they were doing. They mistakenly thought the building had come down already. Otherwise they would never have allow her to tell us that it was down, while it was standing UP right in her background.

Lol so a reporter does a ridiculous thing, and you have to find an even more ridiculous explanation.

You started off with a predetermined wacko theory and tried to make the facts fit it.

Like I said, all of the reporters were receiving information that that tower was likely going to fall, among others from firemen. I remember that from watching it that day. This is a gigantic nothing burger. Here's what the BBC had to say about this issue.

5. If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error - no more than that. As one of the comments on You Tube says today "so the guy in the studio didn't quite know what was going on? Woah, that totally proves conspiracy... "

https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html

I agree. It was an error. But which direction was the error in?
1. An error in timing of a report they knew they were going to broadcast;
2. An error in reporting something that they didn't know they were going to report.

Of course, look at how it is stated in 5, above, "... it would have been an error ..." In other words, "We aren't going to admit that an error was made."

The point being that they might have done it the way they did on purpose, just to find out how many people would think "conspiracy" and how many wouldn't. Or, they might have had another reason for doing it on purpose... an undermining of some real mistakes they made somewhere that day... so that people would focus on this, and never find the really damning mistakes.

So you see? It's a conspiracy no matter how you look at it.