Denier you need a new hobby because you certainly have no success with this one of denying that 9/11 was a inside job. You don't even have the facts on what you do claim. loser.
"The Windsor Tower or Torre Windsor (officially known as Edificio Windsor) was a 32-storey concrete building with a reinforced concrete central core. "
You realy need to research away from truther sies - go back to the wood shop.
The steel was still standing on the windsor with or without the concrete it burned for 24 hrs! You don't get it do you. Building 7 bared had fires big enough yet as in the video it all went straight down as seen in this video. Yet you ignore the reality, what a dummy. You need a wood shop to help you understand the way things work.
The steel at the Windsor tower was not the only structural support, at WTC 7 steel was the only support for the (larger) building -- the steel supported more weight at WTC 7 to it succummed to the fire faster.
The video alone is the proof that should be good enough for you and everyone that building 7 was brought down demolition style. A building that suffered fire damage would never fall systematically in a organized fashion. Go back to your retarded world that ignores what they see only to argue a dead argument. How much did the Bush administration pay you to protect them? The blood of all those who died in 9/11 is on your head as well because you defend those who did this crime.
I know you have the urge to walk your dog.. People figure people like you work for the gov because you act like a fox news correspondent if defend the obvious untruths. I see your favorite word is twoofer you have been around your dog too much buddy. If you valued peoples lives as much as you value a dogs you would not defend criminal behavior against humans.
Say a fire God forbid was to happen to a house, in kitchen area of the house, and it was contained to that area would the whole house collapse all at once because of the fire? No it would not just the area with the fire is likely to collapse and that is with a wooden structure. Now a steel structure is far less likely to collapse. And as shown in the video there are no flames shooting out the windows nor huge amounts of smoke yet you see the whole building falling straight down all of it.. why??
"And as shown in the video there are no flames shooting out the windows nor huge amounts of smoke yet you see the whole building falling straight down all of it.. why?? "
Because you do not see the otherside of the building which did have flames and smoke and fire shooting out the windows
Who says the firemen were wrong they did not bring the building down. They warned the building would be falling down. And it fell straight down you are intelligent enough to see it all fell at once right? Do fires do this, even big ones? Come on now think..
Tell us all how did they know the building would collapse straight down how did they know this? Fires do not weaken steel structures they are made to withstand fires.
Tell us all please of other examples where fires have brought down buildings straight down. Your not allowed to use buildings 1&2 as examples they were part of the same diabolical plan. Tell us of other buildings that you say the steel weakened and gravity brought it straight down. If you have no examples then don't respond because if you do you will be showing complete stupidity because you made a statement with no facts to back it up.
Sorry Glowefelctrum - you do not get to set the parramaters. But please feel free to tell us why you think steel cannot be weakened in a fire and how you think a building should fall if it should not fall downward - feel free to give examples of steel framed buildings that have had even partial collapses that have no fallen strait down.
You Sir are a moron. Why because steel does not melt at the temperature of a fire especially a small fire at that or even a big fire. It takes abnormally high heat to melt steel. That type of heat is not generated in a normal fire. All you do is reverse my questions you have no answers. You have not shown an example of another building that has fallen straight down due to a fire. That is because it does not happen. Buildings are designed to withstand fires. But not explosives!
The truthers believe thermite was used to cut the steel allowing the frame to collapse systematically all in sync this is the only way upright steel beams can fall straight down otherwise it could never happen. Fire is the argument the conspirators claim as well as all co conspirators those who support there horrible conduct.
The Windsor tower burned for 24 hrs and still the majority of the steel frame stood erect except for an outer section. not because of concrete but because steel holds up under the heat fires generate. Yet ironically a fire burns for approx 2 hrs and buildings 1 & 2 and both building fall straight down.. ridiculously impossible It was helped along with explosives.
This one happening was the flaw in their plan..what fools! I never really was one who took to conspiracies until I saw building 7 fall straight down for no reason. To me it needs no debate and explains all. They wanted to cover up what was in that building. They are dumb if they think ppl don't know this. Frankly I think they are so arrogant and think they are so secure that they will never be brought to justice I say think again kingdoms have come and gone before them. They have a sealed fate
"until I saw building 7 fall straight down for no reason"
Did you miss the part when the NYFD independly made the determination that the unchecked fires and structural damage would cause the building to collapse and evacuated the area?
What are you talking about the fires in building seven were under control. And as far as structural damage it was not significant enough to make bldg 7 fall straight down. A fire in one section does not weaken the entire building structure so that all of it would fall straight down all at once. It was demolished using explosives anyone in their right mind can see this. Go back to denial.
The firefighters themselves said the fire was controllable I know what I heard them say. You on the other hand have not answered the problem a small fire does not make a whole building fall straight down all 47 stories.. Look even your name shows you deny everything what a nitwit you are.
It was not a small fire and the firefighters did not say it was controllable -- the statement about a controllable fire was made by firefighters in one of the towers and it only pertained to what they saw in front of them.
Let's suppose there was a fire the firemen could not put out. Even though there was not. You explain to me and all of us that see the picture of building 7 falling straight down how a small fire or even a larger fire will bring a building straight down as in the video! You cannot explain this because this does not happen. It's people like you that don't use their heads for anything good. Who perpetuate and allow people who scheme to get away with their crimes.
I am hoping someone can find a video of a known controlled demolition that shows a collapse as smooth and symmetrical as the collapse of WTC7. It seems to me the WTC7 implosion was BETTER than most of those we watch in Las Vegas and elsewhere. Or maybe it just looks that way by chance due to the fire...
go by the evidence. "WTC7 was an inferno" ... is hear-say and you assume facts not in evidence. This video is evidence. Building falls in 7 seconds into its own footprint. You can watch the top fall with no resistance. A completely symmetrical "collapse" with no outside force. This is completely unreasonable and simply not provable with this evidence. Although it is not impossible, it is extremely unlikely even if the entire building is a blaze!
It takes weeks, even months to prepare a building for demolition, something that you can't do in secret without people noticing. It's simply impossible, if you had done the slightest bit of research you'd of discovered the WTC7 was an inferno with massive structural damage. Experts arent suprised by its collapse but suprised the WTC buildings lasted aslong as they did. It begs the question if fire cannot bring down buildings with a steel frame and core why on earth do they fireproof the steel?
Where did all my latest comments go?
Glowofelectrum 2 years ago
Denier you need a new hobby because you certainly have no success with this one of denying that 9/11 was a inside job. You don't even have the facts on what you do claim. loser.
Davewoodshop 2 years ago
"The Windsor Tower or Torre Windsor (officially known as Edificio Windsor) was a 32-storey concrete building with a reinforced concrete central core. "
You realy need to research away from truther sies - go back to the wood shop.
Denierbud11 2 years ago
The steel was still standing on the windsor with or without the concrete it burned for 24 hrs! You don't get it do you. Building 7 bared had fires big enough yet as in the video it all went straight down as seen in this video. Yet you ignore the reality, what a dummy. You need a wood shop to help you understand the way things work.
Davewoodshop 2 years ago
The steel at the Windsor tower was not the only structural support, at WTC 7 steel was the only support for the (larger) building -- the steel supported more weight at WTC 7 to it succummed to the fire faster.
Logic just doesn't work in twoofer world does it?
Denierbud11 2 years ago
The video alone is the proof that should be good enough for you and everyone that building 7 was brought down demolition style. A building that suffered fire damage would never fall systematically in a organized fashion. Go back to your retarded world that ignores what they see only to argue a dead argument. How much did the Bush administration pay you to protect them? The blood of all those who died in 9/11 is on your head as well because you defend those who did this crime.
Glowofelectrum 2 years ago
"How much did the Bush administration pay you to protect them? "
LOL
tried and fast twoofer arguments
Denierbud11 2 years ago
I know you have the urge to walk your dog.. People figure people like you work for the gov because you act like a fox news correspondent if defend the obvious untruths. I see your favorite word is twoofer you have been around your dog too much buddy. If you valued peoples lives as much as you value a dogs you would not defend criminal behavior against humans.
Glowofelectrum 2 years ago
" If you valued peoples lives as much as you value a dogs you would not defend criminal behavior against humans. "
I do not defend criminal behavior by humans - I believe those responsible shoud be brought to justice.
I just do not believe conspiracy theories unsupported by facts.
Denierbud11 2 years ago
It's so laughable to think that anyone gets paid to write comments on YT. Only from the minds of conspiracy freaks.
Synthetrix 2 years ago
Yes, but consider the source, these are the star war mini nuke people and all that
rather pathetic
Denierbud11 2 years ago
Say a fire God forbid was to happen to a house, in kitchen area of the house, and it was contained to that area would the whole house collapse all at once because of the fire? No it would not just the area with the fire is likely to collapse and that is with a wooden structure. Now a steel structure is far less likely to collapse. And as shown in the video there are no flames shooting out the windows nor huge amounts of smoke yet you see the whole building falling straight down all of it.. why??
Glowofelectrum 2 years ago
"And as shown in the video there are no flames shooting out the windows nor huge amounts of smoke yet you see the whole building falling straight down all of it.. why?? "
Because you do not see the otherside of the building which did have flames and smoke and fire shooting out the windows
Denierbud11 2 years ago
"Because you do not see the otherside of the building which did have flames and smoke and fire shooting out the windows"
And just how do you know this? Proof?
Glowofelectrum 2 years ago
Proof?
watch?v=kMr3ZSL6l-4
Why would the NYFD lie and participate in the conspiracy that murdered 300 of their own?
Denierbud11 2 years ago
watch?v=WnYBX6QT0R4
Denierbud11 2 years ago
Who says the firemen were wrong they did not bring the building down. They warned the building would be falling down. And it fell straight down you are intelligent enough to see it all fell at once right? Do fires do this, even big ones? Come on now think..
Glowofelectrum 2 years ago
"Do fires do this, even big ones? '
Why would a fire not cause a building to collapse? The NYFD was not shocked it did so.
Denierbud11 2 years ago
The fire department called for building to collapse hours before it did
Denierbud11 2 years ago
Tell us all how did they know the building would collapse straight down how did they know this? Fires do not weaken steel structures they are made to withstand fires.
Davewoodshop 2 years ago
Buildings collapse down - its called gravity. Fires do in fact weaken steel.
Denierbud11 2 years ago
Tell us all please of other examples where fires have brought down buildings straight down. Your not allowed to use buildings 1&2 as examples they were part of the same diabolical plan. Tell us of other buildings that you say the steel weakened and gravity brought it straight down. If you have no examples then don't respond because if you do you will be showing complete stupidity because you made a statement with no facts to back it up.
Glowofelectrum 2 years ago
Sorry Glowefelctrum - you do not get to set the parramaters. But please feel free to tell us why you think steel cannot be weakened in a fire and how you think a building should fall if it should not fall downward - feel free to give examples of steel framed buildings that have had even partial collapses that have no fallen strait down.
Denierbud11 2 years ago
You Sir are a moron. Why because steel does not melt at the temperature of a fire especially a small fire at that or even a big fire. It takes abnormally high heat to melt steel. That type of heat is not generated in a normal fire. All you do is reverse my questions you have no answers. You have not shown an example of another building that has fallen straight down due to a fire. That is because it does not happen. Buildings are designed to withstand fires. But not explosives!
Davewoodshop 2 years ago
"Why because steel does not melt at the temperature of a fire especially a small fire at that or even a big fire. "
Who besides truthers claim the steel melted?
Denierbud11 2 years ago
The truthers believe thermite was used to cut the steel allowing the frame to collapse systematically all in sync this is the only way upright steel beams can fall straight down otherwise it could never happen. Fire is the argument the conspirators claim as well as all co conspirators those who support there horrible conduct.
Davewoodshop 2 years ago
The steel frame of the windsor tower fell strait down - the concrete core did not - WTC 7 did not have this core
Denierbud11 2 years ago
The Windsor tower burned for 24 hrs and still the majority of the steel frame stood erect except for an outer section. not because of concrete but because steel holds up under the heat fires generate. Yet ironically a fire burns for approx 2 hrs and buildings 1 & 2 and both building fall straight down.. ridiculously impossible It was helped along with explosives.
Davewoodshop 2 years ago
Comment removed
Denierbud11 2 years ago
This one happening was the flaw in their plan..what fools! I never really was one who took to conspiracies until I saw building 7 fall straight down for no reason. To me it needs no debate and explains all. They wanted to cover up what was in that building. They are dumb if they think ppl don't know this. Frankly I think they are so arrogant and think they are so secure that they will never be brought to justice I say think again kingdoms have come and gone before them. They have a sealed fate
Davewoodshop 2 years ago
"until I saw building 7 fall straight down for no reason"
Did you miss the part when the NYFD independly made the determination that the unchecked fires and structural damage would cause the building to collapse and evacuated the area?
Denierbud11 2 years ago
What are you talking about the fires in building seven were under control. And as far as structural damage it was not significant enough to make bldg 7 fall straight down. A fire in one section does not weaken the entire building structure so that all of it would fall straight down all at once. It was demolished using explosives anyone in their right mind can see this. Go back to denial.
Davewoodshop 2 years ago
"What are you talking about the fires in building seven were under control.:
There were no fire fighting activities, the collapse of the towers severed the water mains.
Don't know much about this do you?
Denierbud11 2 years ago
The firefighters themselves said the fire was controllable I know what I heard them say. You on the other hand have not answered the problem a small fire does not make a whole building fall straight down all 47 stories.. Look even your name shows you deny everything what a nitwit you are.
Glowofelectrum 2 years ago
It was not a small fire and the firefighters did not say it was controllable -- the statement about a controllable fire was made by firefighters in one of the towers and it only pertained to what they saw in front of them.
the truther lies will burn you every time
Denierbud11 2 years ago
Let's suppose there was a fire the firemen could not put out. Even though there was not. You explain to me and all of us that see the picture of building 7 falling straight down how a small fire or even a larger fire will bring a building straight down as in the video! You cannot explain this because this does not happen. It's people like you that don't use their heads for anything good. Who perpetuate and allow people who scheme to get away with their crimes.
Glowofelectrum 2 years ago
Explain why the NYFD is wrong.
Denierbud11 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WTC 7
Enough said !
NASANAZIRACE 2 years ago
Comment removed
NASANAZIRACE 2 years ago
No one ever talks about that bldg. In fact when I mention it...no one even remembers!
marinagarza 3 years ago
I am hoping someone can find a video of a known controlled demolition that shows a collapse as smooth and symmetrical as the collapse of WTC7. It seems to me the WTC7 implosion was BETTER than most of those we watch in Las Vegas and elsewhere. Or maybe it just looks that way by chance due to the fire...
RichardC111165 5 years ago
youtube[dot]com/watch?v=8U4erFzhC-U&mode=related&search=
muzicmaker2001 4 years ago
go by the evidence. "WTC7 was an inferno" ... is hear-say and you assume facts not in evidence. This video is evidence. Building falls in 7 seconds into its own footprint. You can watch the top fall with no resistance. A completely symmetrical "collapse" with no outside force. This is completely unreasonable and simply not provable with this evidence. Although it is not impossible, it is extremely unlikely even if the entire building is a blaze!
PewterPlunder 5 years ago
Actually, fires have --- http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/firsttime.htm
PkofPk 5 years ago
Not: Checked out this website. A lot of doublespeak. No Steel frame bldg. collaps due to fire.
chrissarns 5 years ago
It takes weeks, even months to prepare a building for demolition, something that you can't do in secret without people noticing. It's simply impossible, if you had done the slightest bit of research you'd of discovered the WTC7 was an inferno with massive structural damage. Experts arent suprised by its collapse but suprised the WTC buildings lasted aslong as they did. It begs the question if fire cannot bring down buildings with a steel frame and core why on earth do they fireproof the steel?
Maniple 5 years ago