Actually I notice that your aggressive abuse gets worse the more your argument unravels. Ok lets take this from the top. You stated that 'no modern skyscraper has been destroyed by fire' Quote:

" the Windsor building fire in 2005, which destroyed the emblematic 28-story tower in the heart of Madrid's business district"

The skyscraper was destroyed by fire. Firefighters managed to put out the blaze and again I quote "Emergency services are now concerned about the burned building collapsing to the ground" If the blaze had gone unchecked the building would have collapsed. There are also quotes about the top 'melting like a candle' from the emergency services but we have enough to be going on with for now.

So after the fire we are left with a burnt out shell which the emergency services were concerned would collapse and which everyone is agreed has been destroyed by fire.

I mean precisely what do you think destroyed the building? Perhaps you consider a burnt out shell as not being destroyed?

Either a building is destroyed or it is not. You have stated with increasing hysteria that I could not find a modern skyscraper that has been destroyed by fire because it is impossible. So I find one destroyed by fire and cue another bout of hysteria

What the entire 29 floors were left standing and intact? Just a few scorch marks which a lick of paint would cover up perhaps. No concerns about structural integrity being fataly compromised or steel columns melted into nothing?

http://colt.cache.el-mundo.net/fotog...r/img/inc5.jpg

Yep looks fine to me too. Does seem to be melting in the fire though. But I am sure it will be fine. No need to panic. Modern skyscrapers cannot be destroyed by fire.

http://colt.cache.el-mundo.net/fotog...sor/img/03.jpg

Absolutely. If we just move a couple of pot plants around in the lobby in the morning no one will notice the burn mark on the carpets.

But back to where this all started. You said modern skyscrapers cannot be destroyed by fire. The one in Madrid was destroyed by fire.

For those of you who think there was no conspiracy about 9-11, consider:

conspiracy: An agreement between two or more persons to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.

Reguardless if you believe the government was behind it, Islamic terrorists, fundamentalists Raelians, it was a conspiracy.

Actually from what I read, they based all that thinking on Tower #7 which happened 9-11-2001, so you can't really use that as an argument. Not to mention, the building you mentioned burned for like 29 hours. What do you mean if it had gone "unchecked"? 29 hours of burning couldn't bring it down because the fire couldn't get hot enough to melt steel. It pretty much proves something was different with Tower 7 to me unless you got something else.

Yep I see a skyscraper in Madrid being destroyed by fire. I also see the WTC collpasing after being hit by a plane. Pretty sure the Madrid building wasn't hit by a plane. So whats your point? And as a matter of curiousity why is it so vitally important to state upon seeing a building being destroyed by fire that it was not destroyed by fire?

And why is it conspiracy nuts always kick off by abusing someone 'You don't know shit...you're a stupid cunt and a faggot etc etc'

No skyscraper has COLLAPSED by fire. The one in Madrid was NOT DESTROYED but just partly damaged and burning MUCH longer than WTC:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IM...ain_fire14.jpg
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IM...pain_fire6.jpg

I think they are simply questioning what they have been told because it doesn't "add up" or make sense. FEMA, nor the independant researchers, can't seem to be able to explain it either. According to the evidence, it doesn't seem possible the building got hot enough to "melt steel" as it has been assumed. Something else brought the building down. I don't know what happened, but until I see some kind of scientific or otherwise intelligent evidence, I assume people who know don't want us to know.

And why do you have to be a conspiracy nut to question the assumed truth, when there is so little evidence to support it. I am not a conspiracy nut. I don't believe in aliens. I did, however, believe in Area 51 after seeing tons of evidence about that. I was called a conspiracy nut by a teacher even. But after the government comes out and says they were lying for years, were people shocked and appauled? Did people stop trusting the government? Nope, they continued to believe everything without question and try to explain away why the government has to deceive people.

Because IT WAS NOT DESTROYED and it has not COLLAPSED WITH FREE FALL SPEED as WTC!

Repeating one false thing over and over again does not beat all the evidences that this is clearly an inside job.

At last a sensible comment. I understand that the Madrid fire did melt the steel support columns but the design also had concrete support which were lower down and fared better which prevented immediate collapse. The structure was declared unsafe and demolished (or is in the process of being demolished).

In essence though I simply challenged the statement that it was impossible for a modern skyscraper to be destroyed by fire yet the Madrid building was destroyed by fire.

The fact is though that the Madrid building and Tower 7 were of different height/design/construction and were subject to different trauma so comparisons between the two events are meaningless. In fact this argument is far better than screaming at me that the Madrid building was not destroyed by fire when it patently was but there you go. It adds to the fun!:thumbsup

O hell, to bad I have no time to read all this now...

Ya know what tommy? As much as I love destroying you and your posts, this is really getting sad? oh well, here goes again. If my house is ?destroyed? by fire, does that mean that it?s completely destroyed? Does that mean it?s collapsed? Guess what buddy? IT DOESN?T! There are plenty of houses destroyed by fire that are still standing. Guess what the difference between that context of ?destroy? and my context of destroyed was little friend? Building #7 was UTTERLY destroyed by fire, as in IT COLLAPSED. If you had posted a link or a story about a modern STEEL SKYSCRAPER falling to fire, I would have clapped for you? instead you posted about the Madrid skyscraper lmao? And guess what my dearest cum guzzler:

The Madrid skyscraper did NOT collapse. Even after burning for almost THIRTY FUCKING HOURS it DID NOT COLLAPSE. Building #7 fell after *just* seven hours. That is the difference tom tom. Building #7 Collapsed. Madrid Skyscraper DID NOT FALL. My dearest tom, what don't you get about NO MODERN SKYSCRAPER IN HISTORY HAS COLLAPSED DUE TO FIRE. None. Zip. Nada. So buddy, PLEASE stop making yourself look like a fool. I really do love tearing you apart here but you are just looking sillier and sillier from all the stupid shit you get wrong.

Building #7 and the Twin WTC towers have been the *only* skyscrapers in HISTORY to fall to flames. The Madrid building, need I remind you again, still STOOD after 26 hours of burning. IT DID NOT FALL you stupid fucking CUNT. Destroyed in the context I?ve been using which I?ve stated FROM THE BEGINNING of our little talks is defined by Building #7 COLLAPSING to the ground in the same manor that the WTC twins did.

To be honest you are really starting to bore me with your drivel. You post on here faulty analogy after analogy, claim after claim and each time I shoot you down and you keep pulling shit out of thin air. There are *no*, I repeat, NO modern skyscrapers in history that have fell to fire. None. You lied and tried to say that the Madrid tower suffered the same fate as Building #7. You made an entire post about it for Jesus fucking sake. After I shot you down you retort to saying something like ?lol destroyed is destroyed LOL?. You are so moronic that it?s not even funny any more little buddy. But I digress.

Simply put tom tom, YOU ARE WRONG. You posted false information, and you are a liar. The Madrid building STILL STOOD STRONG after THIRTY HOURS of BURNING. You sir are a moron, a liar, and you really should be applying for a job at the Bush Administration: They need more assclowns like you to cover for their ass.


Yes, the building was intact and standing. I guess due to your reading disorder you missed what I posted seven thousand times in our last little bout. Here ya go again you stupid faggot and if I were you I would really read it. It?s even bold for fuck sake.

"Landmark 29-floor tower on Madrid skyline remained standing despite a 26-hour, multiple-floor fire. "
http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=1095

Twenty-Six hours later that building was still standing strong. Guess that Madrid building was made out of some kinda of futuristic alien material eh? Oh wait steel? Just like the rest of the skyscrapers that have caught on fire and yet none until 9-11 fell due to fire? JESUS CHRIST ALERT THE INTERNETS.


That is correct, modern skyscrapers cannot collapse due to fire alone. Thanks for pointing out your own stupidity there buddy, saves me some typing.

"Landmark 29-floor tower on Madrid skyline remained standing despite a 26-hour, multiple-floor fire. "
http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=1095


I guess you missed this again:

"Landmark 29-floor tower on Madrid skyline remained standing despite a 26-hour, multiple-floor fire. "
http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=1095


No, I?ve said since the beginning no modern skyscraper has fell due to fire alone. The one in Madrid was NOT destroyed by fire. Here ya go Bush Buddy, just in case you missed it one last time:

"Landmark 29-floor tower on Madrid skyline remained standing despite a 26-hour, multiple-floor fire. "
http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=1095

You don't have to be a nut to question the assumed truth or anything else for that matter. I simply asked why conspiracy nuts get very abusive when you challenge them. But it does not follow that I think everyone who questions 9/11 is a conspiracy nut.

I for example have been doing some digging on the death of David Kelly (a British weapons inspector) who leaked against the British Govenment on the build up to the Iraq war was found out and committed 'suicide'. Things do not add up for me on this case. This I guess would make me a conspiracy theorist in some peoples eyes! lol

man im reading this thread over

i know whats up...course i have always been ahead of the curve

Yes if you have a theory for "a secret agreement between two or more people to perform an unlawful act" ie. kill David Kelly and put it out as a suicide, then technically you are a conspiracy theorist. So what now? Are the conspiracy theorists seekers for the truth or just the false image that the illuminati-controlled media created about them by making many them look redicilious and what not, so no one believes them.

And that my friends is why they call us crazy.

No it means your house is destroyed ie 'spoiled, ruined or demolished'. You stated on more than one occasion that modern skyscrapers cannot be destroyed by fire. The Madrid building was destroyed by fire. That is indisputible.

But I do now see you have shifted your argument from 'destroyed' to 'collapsed' so can I now assume you agree that a modern skyscraper can be destroyed by fire?

:1orglaugh

The ENTIRE CONTEXT in which I have been talking about skyscrapers being DESTROYED has been based on the SKYSCRAPER utterly destroyed, i.e., have been being COLLAPSED. Reread (lol? yeah right, you?ll just post something about magic again) pages 1-5 and let's see you try to weasel your way out of this shit you stupid fucking fucker. And NO a modern skyscraper, using the word destroy(ed) the same way I?ve been using it the last fucking five pages, can NOT be destroyed by fire you fucking moron.

Yes I agree that a skyscraper can be destroyed by fire like this burning 29 hours:

http://www.tallestbuildingintheworld.../mdf858690.jpg

and not like this after burning just less than 2 hours:

http://www.boundaryinstitute.org/images/rubble1.jpg

I repeat can a modern skyscraper be destroyed by fire? To destroy means 'spoil, ruin or demolish'. Your understanding or grasp of English is not my concern or responsibility.

We have a winner! :thumbsup

Comparison of the two events is in fact meaningless. Madrid sheds no light either way on what happened to Building 7 or the twin towers as the height/design/construction of the building and the event trauma were different in each case.

Goodnight

Nice faggot, real nice. In the English vernacular destroy can be used to mean many things; from slight damage to full blown world war II style events such entire countries getting DESTROYED left and right, and it's even used as slang when referring to killing someone. "I am going to destroy you!". Though someone as smart as yourself should know this right? =) The context I am using is from dictionary.com, and is as follows:
To ruin completely

That's right, I meant destroy as to completely and UTTERLY be fucking DESTROYED. Not a little tiny itsy bit or even a whole lot -- I meant it as UTTER DESTRUCTION WHICH LED TO THE COLLAPSE OF THE BUILDING. Again, if you think otherwise re-read pages 1-5 and get back to me sometime later tonight pal. Anyways, I think we've cleared this up my dear cum guzzler. It seems you are the one that can't quite comprehend the complexity of the English language. =(

LMAO. So you are honestly going to say that comparing the two skyscrapers means nothing? Then why did you bring it up in the first place? I'll explain it to you if you don't understand it yourself:

Let's see... you brought it up because you somehow thought it would magically prove that a skyscraper could be demolished completely from fire alone. Instead of double checking, you were so sure that this was your "magic bullet" and you went ahead and decided to foolishly make an entire post dedicated to the Madrid building. When I point out to you that the Madrid building never collapsed, unlike Building #7, you went on to say "Uh huh, it did TOO get destroyed tee-hee! See the fire damage! Tee-hee!". When I pointed out that the entire time I have been referring to modern skyscrapers and being destroyed is using destroy in such a context to mean total COLLAPSE of the building. In fact, if you care to actually re-read pages 1-5 you?ll see that I clearly state modern skyscraper + collapse about fifty some-odd times BEFORE you stupidly brought Madrid into the mix.

Instead of accepting your wrongs, you instead have to keep on posting more and more bullshit and in doing so you keep digging yourself deeper into a hole. That hole is kinda huge now wouldn't you say? I bet it's so big that not even O?Reilly could lie himself out of. I really enjoyed our little debate though to be honest it really wasn?t much of a debate with you lying and spewing out false analogy after false analogy. But it was fun regardless! If you care to continue please bring up some other useless lie so we can have fun with that tomorrow :) :thumbsup

Well - Im sure some civil engineers will disagree with this - but - NIST(the US government testing labs) did some studies and tests on the stuctural steel from the towers and found that they had only been exposed to a temperature that would be expected from a jet fuel fire of that type - which generally burns at less than 500 deg F - the fuel fire lasted approximately 10 minutes before it was all used up based on the colors of smoke from the building - then the furniture and office supplies as well as wall board took over and would have burned at the temperature of a normal house fire - again - way lower than the temperatures need to deform steel

More importantly is that the firefighters were able to reach the stairway door outside the primary impact floor (they were all killed just as they were going in to put out the remaining fire due to the collapse) - which if a fire inside the door was burning anywhere near the melting point of steel - would have vaporized the firefighters and their hoses - which just didnt happen. The construction of those doors was not steel and no firefighter in his right mind makes the decision to enter a room that is burning above 500 degrees - let alone 1500 degrees - and they would have radioed that to the command center if they encountered those temps - but they didnt - they radioed they were entering the floor to fight the leftover fires

Why the hell is this thread still going on? It was already PROVEN earlier on (read the entire thread, people) that building #7 was intentionally brought down with explosives. This is all public information... geezus.

Oh and don't forget the conspiracy theorists will sell tons of books and tapes/CDs that they would not have sold before.
Add to that all the face time they would not get otherwise.

:1orglaugh

next will be the tipo ( oups, I meant typo ) ....

.. like Ann Coulter :thumbsup

( happy 9/11 money grabbing widows ) ....

I recorded this CSPAN thing, I gotta say, they gave great VERBAL EXPLINATIONS, but seriously lacked in the multimedia department.

It was boring to watch, if theyre serious about getting people interested its gonna need to be presented to the public in a better, more eye-catching way.

Find out the truth about 911 tonight at 5:00 CST on C-SPAN. Also, you can watch it now at http://cspan.org.

damn i missed it

You can view it now at cspan.org and they are re-airing it tonight on cspan

While all this discussion of collapsing buildings is interesting, it is all a diversion from much more compelling evidence and core reasons for 911. To understand the how and why of 911, read this excellent 700-page bestseller. Only the government's Ommission and Distortion report on 911 sold more copies:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/ima...283155&s=books

Buy it here:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/086...423146?ie=UTF8

The needs of many out way the needs of a few.
To kill 3000 of your own to benfit billions is a acceptable trade off for big goverment.

it is the current state of thought for sure...something that needs to be changed

see Star trek: search for SPock to see what i mean ;)

http://fromthewilderness.com/images/...NGshadowed.jpg

http://fromthewilderness.com/store/s...didyouknow.gif

Hitler used to blow shit up, oganize rallies and Kill people all in the name of the jews to insite anti jew sentiment.

It's nothing new, Castro has done it to his own people. It's one of the oldest tricks in the book. Do I beleive that Bush pulled this off. No.
I don't think we conspired to destroy our own buildings which led to one of the worst recessions financially for the US.

i am sure their original plan was to get will farrel to give the presentations... he probably just didn't show up..

its CSPAN... not MTV.

Neither do I. Bush did not do it. He was simply one small player amongst a few hundred elitists that cut across the administration, intel agencies and private think tanks, often referred to as a "shadow government". They are the real power and have been running things for decades, responsible for such things as the Iran-Contra scandal, drug running, and black operations too numerous to mention. The president is nothing more than a figurehead and puppet for the puppet masters.