Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

OT: London fire

332 views
Skip to first unread message

TennisGuy

unread,
Jun 15, 2017, 5:47:59 PM6/15/17
to
Hey Icey what do you think about PM May ordering a full public inquiry
into the disaster?

Oh and what do you think about the fire officials saying that the
building was not at risk of collapsing?

calim...@gmx.de

unread,
Jun 15, 2017, 5:54:04 PM6/15/17
to
On Thursday, June 15, 2017 at 11:47:59 PM UTC+2, TennisGuy wrote:
> Hey Icey what do you think about PM May ordering a full public inquiry
> into the disaster?

That is a good thing.

> Oh and what do you think about the fire officials saying that the
> building was not at risk of collapsing?

Why would it collapse?


Max

TennisGuy

unread,
Jun 15, 2017, 9:04:42 PM6/15/17
to
Well prior to 9/11 fire officials would never even
consider the question for a high rise steel framed building.

But since 9/11, fire officials throughout the western world have
been 'instructed' to consider the possibility, however remote.




calim...@gmx.de

unread,
Jun 15, 2017, 9:20:19 PM6/15/17
to
What do you mean by a "steel framed" building and which building you are talking about is supposed to be such a building?


Max

TennisGuy

unread,
Jun 15, 2017, 10:29:05 PM6/15/17
to
Almost every high-rise building you see in the world today is built
with a steel frame.

The reason? Best structural support and best fire-resistant material
available.

> ... and which building you
> are talking about is supposed to be such a building?

The London tower that just had the fire and the WTC towers 1, 2 and 7.








PeteWasLucky

unread,
Jun 15, 2017, 10:31:35 PM6/15/17
to
> The London tower that just had the fire and the WTC towers 1, 2 and 7.

What are you implying? :)

Brian W Lawrence

unread,
Jun 16, 2017, 2:43:30 AM6/16/17
to
Warning: Conspiracy Theory Alert!!!

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

Pelle Svanslös

unread,
Jun 16, 2017, 3:01:54 AM6/16/17
to
On 16.6.2017 9:43, Brian W Lawrence wrote:
> On 15/06/2017 22:47, TennisGuy wrote:
>
>> Hey Icey what do you think about PM May ordering a full public inquiry
>> into the disaster?
>>
>> Oh and what do you think about the fire officials saying that the
>> building was not at risk of collapsing?
>
> Warning: Conspiracy Theory Alert!!!

I doubt Icey will fall for those. Just consider the available facts for
yourself: Benghazi, Syria, ... the fire in London.

It's HILLARY !!!!

--
“Donald Trump is the weak man’s vision of a strong man.”
-- Charles Cooke

calim...@gmx.de

unread,
Jun 16, 2017, 4:36:32 AM6/16/17
to
The WTC had a very unique structure. Read it at Wikipedia.


Max

The Iceberg

unread,
Jun 16, 2017, 5:35:50 AM6/16/17
to
Yeah can't see what else she can do, nobody knows much about what happened yet, even the cause of the fire, it's all speculation so far.
Also I saw the place the other day and it looks quite dangerous but structurally holding up without trouble. If it wasn they'd be doing something about it. The worse thing is the local council and mayor seem to be useless and not taking any control of the situation, it's all being left to volunteers.

The Iceberg

unread,
Jun 16, 2017, 5:37:38 AM6/16/17
to
You Hillary and Remoaners types try to drag everything back to Madam Clinton, you very very nasty, nasty people!

The Iceberg

unread,
Jun 16, 2017, 5:39:00 AM6/16/17
to
Jet fuel doesn't melt steel beams! Clearly this Grenfell fire was started by George Bush!

jdeluise

unread,
Jun 16, 2017, 10:53:36 AM6/16/17
to
On Fri, 16 Jun 2017 07:43:26 +0100, Brian W Lawrence wrote:

> On 15/06/2017 22:47, TennisGuy wrote:
>
>> Hey Icey what do you think about PM May ordering a full public inquiry
>> into the disaster?
>>
>> Oh and what do you think about the fire officials saying that the
>> building was not at risk of collapsing?
>
> Warning: Conspiracy Theory Alert!!!

Please don't tell me this theory involves holograms...

TennisGuy

unread,
Jun 16, 2017, 11:49:33 AM6/16/17
to

On 6/16/2017 5:35 AM, The Iceberg wrote:
> Yeah can't see what else she can do, nobody knows much about what
> happened yet, even the cause of the fire, it's all speculation so
> far.

Too bad they didn't call a public inquiry for 9/11 where not 30 people
were killed because of fires, but almost 3,000.

As a result, very few people (including most here on rst) know much
about what really happened that day.


> Also I saw the place the other day and it looks quite dangerous
> but structurally holding up without trouble. If it wasn they'd be
> doing something about it.


Of course it's holding up structurally. Why shouldn't it?
It was only fire.

Do you realize that fire has never brought down a steel high rise
structure before and never will on this planet?

The story about fires bringing down three towers on 9/11 was completely
bogus.

In contrast to the Grenfell fires which lasted for 36 hours,
the fire in WTC2 had been burning for a mere hour before the entire
robust structure (30+ years of life) disappeared into a pile of dust and
debris.
It is physically impossible for fires to do this.

It is also physically impossible for the building to have collapsed into
its own footprint by any means.

The three towers (WTC1, WTC2, WTC7) would still be standing
today had they not been blown to smithereens by pre-planted explosives.


calim...@gmx.de

unread,
Jun 16, 2017, 12:23:42 PM6/16/17
to
On Friday, June 16, 2017 at 5:49:33 PM UTC+2, TennisGuy wrote:
> On 6/16/2017 5:35 AM, The Iceberg wrote:
> > Yeah can't see what else she can do, nobody knows much about what
> > happened yet, even the cause of the fire, it's all speculation so
> > far.
>
> Too bad they didn't call a public inquiry for 9/11 where not 30 people
> were killed because of fires, but almost 3,000.
>
> As a result, very few people (including most here on rst) know much
> about what really happened that day.
>
>
> > Also I saw the place the other day and it looks quite dangerous
> > but structurally holding up without trouble. If it wasn they'd be
> > doing something about it.
>
>
> Of course it's holding up structurally. Why shouldn't it?
> It was only fire.
>
> Do you realize that fire has never brought down a steel high rise
> structure before and never will on this planet?
>
> The story about fires bringing down three towers on 9/11 was completely
> bogus.


Lol.
Hurry up and look for you tin foil. Idiot.


Max

*skriptis

unread,
Jun 16, 2017, 12:30:02 PM6/16/17
to
TennisGuy <TG...@techsavvy.com> Wrote in message:
Im not into conspiracy theories but it does look strange that a
fire brings down entire structure almost in a controled
demolition way.

However let's keep an open open. WTC buildings suffered major
impact with those planes which might or could have caused their
structural integrity to collapse.

Also they were really huge so lot of weight and maybe there was a
physical phenomena that current builders yet aren't aware of.


Or it could be that they were poorly built in the first way,
saving money etc. Not completely unthinkable.
--

calim...@gmx.de

unread,
Jun 16, 2017, 12:35:09 PM6/16/17
to
> demolition way. ...


It has been explained again and again and again and again how it happened.
If dumb Trumpers or Sandernistas don't want to accept this - I say, fuck them!


Max

PeteWasLucky

unread,
Jun 16, 2017, 1:37:04 PM6/16/17
to
> It has been explained again and again and again and again how it happened.
If dumb Trumpers or Sandernistas don't want to accept this - I say, fuck them!

You accept it because your brain hurts when you try to use it.

calim...@gmx.de

unread,
Jun 16, 2017, 1:48:36 PM6/16/17
to
I accept it because I use my brain.

Max

PeteWasLucky

unread,
Jun 16, 2017, 1:58:57 PM6/16/17
to
> I accept it because I use my brain.

Your brain tells you that even if the impacted floors collapsed in this way the steel structure of the floors under them couldn't carry what it used to carry and even collapsed in the perfect way it did?

calim...@gmx.de

unread,
Jun 16, 2017, 2:09:43 PM6/16/17
to
On Friday, June 16, 2017 at 7:58:57 PM UTC+2, PeteWasLucky wrote:
> > I accept it because I use my brain.
>
> Your brain tells you that even if the impacted floors collapsed in this way the steel structure of the floors under them couldn't carry what it used to carry and even collapsed in the perfect way it did?

My brain tells me that you can hold a heavy beer box. But will have some difficulties when I hold a heavy beer box 3 meters above you and then let it fall.

Why are nutters like you so intellectually lazy that they just do not want to read at least what all structural engineer have to say about the WTC?

Oh, I forgot, they are all paid by "the government", the "deep state", the "Bilderbergers", "the Jews" and "the elites" .... lol


Max

Guypers

unread,
Jun 16, 2017, 2:17:12 PM6/16/17
to
Scott has company, it was the Jews, who planted bombs in the twc complex fukking bastards!

PeteWasLucky

unread,
Jun 16, 2017, 2:32:06 PM6/16/17
to
> My brain tells me that you can hold a heavy beer box. But will have some difficulties when I hold a heavy beer box 3 meters above you and then let it fall.

Why are nutters like you so intellectually lazy that they just do not want to read at least what all structural engineer have to say about the WTC?

Oh, I forgot, they are all paid by "the government", the "deep state", the "Bilderbergers", "the Jews" and "the elites" .... lol

And what happened to wtc 7? Any ideas?

TennisGuy

unread,
Jun 16, 2017, 2:38:21 PM6/16/17
to
Leave the poor guy alone.
He probably never heard about WTC7 before.

Most people haven't either, so don't be so hard on him. ;)

TennisGuy

unread,
Jun 16, 2017, 2:43:38 PM6/16/17
to
On 6/16/2017 12:06 PM, *skriptis wrote:

>
> Im not into conspiracy theories but it does look strange that a
> fire brings down entire structure almost in a controled
> demolition way.
>
> However let's keep an open open. WTC buildings suffered major
> impact with those planes which might or could have caused their
> structural integrity to collapse.
>
> Also they were really huge so lot of weight and maybe there was a
> physical phenomena that current builders yet aren't aware of.
>
>
> Or it could be that they were poorly built in the first way,
> saving money etc. Not completely unthinkable.
>

"Poorly built" buildings do not stand for 30+ years.


It is physically impossible for a steel high rise building to collapse
completely due to fires.
It's never happened before and never will on this planet.

Check out what this guy has to say on the subject.
He is light years ahead of me in the IQ department.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjZDDfxL1Kw




calim...@gmx.de

unread,
Jun 16, 2017, 3:04:41 PM6/16/17
to
Some jew "pulled it"?


Max

calim...@gmx.de

unread,
Jun 16, 2017, 3:07:08 PM6/16/17
to
That wouldn't be very difficult.
What does he say? That Dubya and Cheney blew it up? Or the Mossad since all jews were warned not to enter the buildings?


Max

*skriptis

unread,
Jun 16, 2017, 3:30:03 PM6/16/17
to
calim...@gmx.de Wrote in message:
I've never watched even 15 seconds of such material, whether pro
or cons piracy.
I'd rather watch paint dry.



--

PeteWasLucky

unread,
Jun 16, 2017, 3:38:52 PM6/16/17
to
> Some jew "pulled it"?

Your brain hurts? Time for a drink?

calim...@gmx.de

unread,
Jun 16, 2017, 4:02:11 PM6/16/17
to
On Friday, June 16, 2017 at 9:38:52 PM UTC+2, PeteWasLucky wrote:
> > Some jew "pulled it"?
>
> Your brain hurts? Time for a drink?

Tell us about the cruise missile which hit the pentagon!


Max

jdeluise

unread,
Jun 16, 2017, 4:18:23 PM6/16/17
to
On Fri, 16 Jun 2017 14:42:46 -0400, TennisGuy wrote:

> Check out what this guy has to say on the subject. He is light years
> ahead of me in the IQ department.

Does he discuss the holographic planes that supposedly hit the towers too?

TennisGuy

unread,
Jun 16, 2017, 5:12:02 PM6/16/17
to
Ignorance is bliss. :)

If sometime in the future you do choose to start researching this
(for whatever reason) please come back and thank me for giving you
that nudge.

There is a fellow rst'er that I have to give credit to for giving me
that nudge. I was just as ignorant as your are about this a few years ago.





TennisGuy

unread,
Jun 16, 2017, 5:14:25 PM6/16/17
to
Don't be so f'in lazy and watch the damn video.
He's talking about the London fire.

PeteWasLucky

unread,
Jun 16, 2017, 5:16:17 PM6/16/17
to
> There is a fellow rst'er that I have to give credit to for giving me
that nudge. I was just as ignorant as your are about this a few years ago.

Scott?

*skriptis

unread,
Jun 16, 2017, 5:30:03 PM6/16/17
to
Ok. On a first look the weirdest thing seems to be collapse of
adjacent building.
--

TennisGuy

unread,
Jun 16, 2017, 6:19:11 PM6/16/17
to
Yup. Thumbs up to the man for giving me the heads up on 9/11. :)

I was sceptical but also ignorant at the time, just as
Max, jdeluise, Brian Lawrence, Guypers and Icey are now.

Being the curious lad that I am I finally bit the bullet and
decided to do some serious research into it.

My life changed and will never be the same again.

After discovering the truth about 9/11 I later went
on to discover lots of other lies that the MSM/governments
have been feeding us for decades.

TennisGuy

unread,
Jun 16, 2017, 6:31:01 PM6/16/17
to
On 6/16/2017 4:36 AM, calim...@gmx.de wrote:

> The WTC had a very unique structure. Read it at Wikipedia.
>
>
> Max
>


Yes the WTC towers did indeed have a unique structure.
But its structure was not flimsy.

They were robust buildings standing tall and 'proud' for 30+ years
with no signs of stress or fatigue.

Read some more about them.
They were designed to withstand the impact of jet aircraft!

It doesn't matter what a building's design is.
If it is a steel high rise, 10, 25, 50, 75 or 100+ stories
it can not collapse completely in its own footprint due to fires.

The laws of physics prevent it from doing so.



Carey

unread,
Jun 16, 2017, 6:46:22 PM6/16/17
to
...and then there's WTC7, not hit by a plane, collapsing as well. Odd, that. ;)

jdeluise

unread,
Jun 16, 2017, 7:03:24 PM6/16/17
to
On Fri, 16 Jun 2017 15:46:20 -0700, Carey wrote:

> ...and then there's WTC7, not hit by a plane, collapsing as well. Odd,
> that. ;)

Although there is photographic and video evidence that it was damaged...
if the supposed conspiracy had the resources to hijack and crash planes
into the other towers and the Pentagon, why not WTC7 as well? The
conspiracy theories don't really add up.

The Iceberg

unread,
Jun 16, 2017, 7:17:07 PM6/16/17
to
it had nothing to do with jet fuel, jet fuel doesn't melt steel beams! Lolol the Jews and Bush planted explosives! Lol

The Iceberg

unread,
Jun 16, 2017, 7:18:37 PM6/16/17
to
Ask the physics guys now! Lol

The Iceberg

unread,
Jun 16, 2017, 7:20:00 PM6/16/17
to
Must've been the Roswell aliens!

Carey

unread,
Jun 16, 2017, 7:23:15 PM6/16/17
to
Do the 'conspiracy theories' need to add up? My take is that it is the Official Version™, which has been
repeatedly revised, needs to adequately explain the events of 11 September. It does not.

TennisGuy

unread,
Jun 16, 2017, 7:28:00 PM6/16/17
to
Well let's break this apart, so to speak. :)

Yes photo + video evidence WTC7 was damaged (fires).

When you say "supposed conspiracy had the resources to hijack and crash
planes into the other towers and the Pentagon"

It sounds kind of strange.
Why? Because you start with 'supposed'.

So it seems that you don't agree with or have doubts about the official
government conspiracy story of hijacked planes, crashing them into the
towers and the Pentagon?

Some do believe that WTC7 was supposed to also take a hit by a plane,
namely Flt. 93 (I have no opinion on this).

Leaving that aside, the fact is that WTC7 was not hit by a plane
and suffered office fires, yet still managed to collapse neatly in its
own footprint at around 5:30 pm on 9/11.

The only way a building can collapse neatly in its own footprint on this
planet, is by the use of explosives that take out every single
supporting column simultaneously.

As far as "The conspiracy theories don't really add up."
It depends on which theories you are considering. :)

Make no mistake, there are many kooks out there!









*skriptis

unread,
Jun 16, 2017, 7:30:02 PM6/16/17
to
jdeluise <jdel...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
Most likely they were all poorly built, stolen money crooked thing
etc.


--

TennisGuy

unread,
Jun 16, 2017, 7:45:37 PM6/16/17
to
On 6/16/2017 7:17 PM, The Iceberg wrote:
> it had nothing to do with jet fuel, jet fuel doesn't melt steel
> beams! Lolol the Jews and Bush planted explosives! Lol
>

Good one!
It sounds like you have done at least a modicum of research about this.

The Lol wasn't necessary though.

I am presuming you are referring to G.W. Bush?

It would have been more accurate if you stated Marvin P. Bush
the president’s younger brother.

He was a principal in a company called Securacom that provided
'security' for the World Trade Center.


jdeluise

unread,
Jun 16, 2017, 7:51:00 PM6/16/17
to
On Fri, 16 Jun 2017 19:44:45 -0400, TennisGuy wrote:

> He was a principal in a company called Securacom that provided
> 'security' for the World Trade Center.

By your logic, since no building has ever been fitted with controlled
demolition charges while fully occupied and operational it must be
impossible.

TennisGuy

unread,
Jun 16, 2017, 7:55:23 PM6/16/17
to
When you dig into this deeper and really start doing your homework
you will discover that the twin towers were huge white elephants.

They were a big liability for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.

Why? Because for most of their lifespan they were mostly unoccupied
(very few tenants) and they contained vast amounts of asbestos.
The asbestos was a legal construction component at the time
the towers were built, but as building codes changed, asbestos
was banned as a fire-proofing method.

It would have cost billions of dollars to remove the asbestos
hiring professionals to do the work.

But if the buildings were demolished with explosives and the payoff
(for Silverstein) would be billions, which method would be the preferred
one for sick greedy minds?








*skriptis

unread,
Jun 16, 2017, 8:01:03 PM6/16/17
to
The Iceberg <iceber...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
> Ask the physics guys now! Lol
>


Just not that guy that explains everything with aliens.

"The only way we could be sure aliens didn't build pyramids would
be if they came and told us they didn't do it."



--

TennisGuy

unread,
Jun 16, 2017, 8:01:07 PM6/16/17
to
Wait a second jd. I never stated that.

The only thing I have said is impossible up until now, is that
a steel high rise building can not collapse into its own footprint
due to fires.

PeteWasLucky

unread,
Jun 16, 2017, 8:18:12 PM6/16/17
to
> The only thing I have said is impossible up until now, is that
a steel high rise building can not collapse into its own footprint
due to fires.

Not one but three of them that collapsed in their footprint.

*skriptis

unread,
Jun 16, 2017, 8:30:02 PM6/16/17
to
TennisGuy <TG...@techsavvy.com> Wrote in message:
But it would take a large conspiracy, no?
It's not just forging s signature to commit criminal act.
--

TT

unread,
Jun 16, 2017, 8:35:50 PM6/16/17
to
They should fall like trees, obviously. And planes should bounce off
buildings.

TT

unread,
Jun 16, 2017, 8:40:55 PM6/16/17
to
TennisGuy kirjoitti 17.6.2017 klo 2:54:
> They were a big liability for the Port Authority of New York and New
> Jersey.

This must be one of the most absurd and illogical things I've ever read...

So your theory is that the City of New York had a health problem with
Twin Towers asbestos so they decided to demolish the buildings with
people in them and somehow managed to persuade a bunch of terrorists for
suicide mission to cover their tracks.

And one plane for the Pentagon for good measure.

Yeah, that must be it. Congrats.

TennisGuy

unread,
Jun 16, 2017, 8:51:18 PM6/16/17
to
On 6/16/2017 8:05 PM, *skriptis wrote:
> TennisGuy <TG...@techsavvy.com> Wrote in message:
>>
>> When you dig into this deeper and really start doing your homework
>> you will discover that the twin towers were huge white elephants.
>>
>> They were a big liability for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.
>>
>> Why? Because for most of their lifespan they were mostly unoccupied
>> (very few tenants) and they contained vast amounts of asbestos.
>> The asbestos was a legal construction component at the time
>> the towers were built, but as building codes changed, asbestos
>> was banned as a fire-proofing method.
>>
>> It would have cost billions of dollars to remove the asbestos
>> hiring professionals to do the work.
>>
>> But if the buildings were demolished with explosives and the payoff
>> (for Silverstein) would be billions, which method would be the preferred
>> one for sick greedy minds?
>
>
> But it would take a large conspiracy, no?
> It's not just forging s signature to commit criminal act.
>

Well larger than 19 Muslims and Osama bin Laden! Yes. :)


We don't have numbers unfortunately for all the players involved, but
only a few would need to know the entire big picture.
Most of the other operations could be compartmentalized.

For example the team planting the explosives in the WTC towers would
not have been briefed about the entire operation.





TennisGuy

unread,
Jun 16, 2017, 8:56:58 PM6/16/17
to
Not quite.

Yes for the towers' 'health problem'.

There were no terrorists on 9/11.
At least not 19 Muslim hijackers guided by Osama bin Laden.

The only terrorists operating on 9/11 were Western insiders.

There is not a single shred of legitimate evidence that supports
the 19 hijacker/Osama bin Laden myth started by the U.S. government
and backed by the MSM.

TennisGuy

unread,
Jun 16, 2017, 9:05:27 PM6/16/17
to
Yes and your head should roll down the street like Berlioz'
in Mikhail Bulgakov's The Master and Margarita novel. :)


Federer Fanatic

unread,
Jun 16, 2017, 9:10:06 PM6/16/17
to
And the were built in 1970....a time when computer simulation for testing was
nonexistent. The assumption that architects are infallible when designing building
is laughable. The PBS special on the towers pretty much explains it very clearly.
A sustained fire of furniture debris with jet fuel burns long enough to start weaking
outer stell skeleton. Gravity takes care of the rest.

FF


--
The measure of a man is what he does with power.
- Plato

TT

unread,
Jun 16, 2017, 9:20:18 PM6/16/17
to
Must have been suicidal New York city employees then...

PeteWasLucky

unread,
Jun 16, 2017, 9:20:37 PM6/16/17
to
> There is not a single shred of legitimate evidence that supports
the 19 hijacker/Osama bin Laden myth started by the U.S. government
and backed by the MSM.

Don't waste your time and efforts, people believe what they want to believe.

TT

unread,
Jun 16, 2017, 9:23:03 PM6/16/17
to
TennisGuy kirjoitti 17.6.2017 klo 3:50:
> For example the team planting the explosives in the WTC towers would
> not have been briefed about the entire operation.

lol

Why are we putting live explosives to ground floor Jake?
...I don't know, I just work here.

TennisGuy

unread,
Jun 16, 2017, 10:06:19 PM6/16/17
to
PeteWasLucky said it right.

This will be limited hangout for me here.

My goal is not to convince you of what happened in 5 minutes.
It takes months of serious research.

If you are not interested, fine.

What I can do is show you in 5 minutes that gravity can NOT take care of
the rest.









jdeluise

unread,
Jun 16, 2017, 10:14:05 PM6/16/17
to
On Fri, 16 Jun 2017 22:05:27 -0400, TennisGuy wrote:

> What I can do is show you in 5 minutes that gravity can NOT take care of
> the rest.

You can't show anything but links to youtube to better spoken conspiracy
theorists than yourself.

The Iceberg

unread,
Jun 18, 2017, 4:44:50 AM6/18/17
to
LOLOL

Brian Lawrence

unread,
Jun 18, 2017, 7:50:25 AM6/18/17
to
On 16/06/2017 22:13, TennisGuy wrote:
> On 6/16/2017 3:07 PM, calim...@gmx.de wrote:
>> On Friday, June 16, 2017 at 8:43:38 PM UTC+2, TennisGuy wrote:

>>> Check out what this guy has to say on the subject. He is light
>>> years ahead of me in the IQ department.
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjZDDfxL1Kw
>>
>>
>> That wouldn't be very difficult. What does he say? That Dubya and
>> Cheney blew it up? Or the Mossad since all jews were warned not to
>> enter the buildings?

> Don't be so f'in lazy and watch the damn video.
> He's talking about the London fire.


He hardly mentions it at all.

If he was 'light years ahead of you' you couldn't possibly be capable of
posting here. From that video he doesn't demonstrate any intelligence
whatsoever.


Brian Lawrence

unread,
Jun 18, 2017, 8:14:36 AM6/18/17
to
On 16/06/2017 02:20, calim...@gmx.de wrote:
> On Friday, June 16, 2017 at 3:04:42 AM UTC+2, TennisGuy wrote:
>> On 6/15/2017 5:54 PM, calim...@gmx.de wrote:
>>> On Thursday, June 15, 2017 at 11:47:59 PM UTC+2, TennisGuy wrote:
>>>> Hey Icey what do you think about PM May ordering a full public inquiry
>>>> into the disaster?
>>>
>>> That is a good thing.
>>>
>>>> Oh and what do you think about the fire officials saying that the
>>>> building was not at risk of collapsing?
>>>
>>> Why would it collapse?
>>>
>>>
>>> Max
>>>
>>
>> Well prior to 9/11 fire officials would never even
>> consider the question for a high rise steel framed building.
>>
>> But since 9/11, fire officials throughout the western world have
>> been 'instructed' to consider the possibility, however remote.
>
>
> What do you mean by a "steel framed" building and which building you are talking about is supposed to be such a building?

Grenfell tower was built with concrete beams not steel.

The lead architect, Nigel Whitbread, said this last year:

"The design is a very simple and straightforward concept. You have a
central core containing the lift, staircase and the vertical risers for
the services and then you have external perimeter columns. The services
are connected to the central boiler and pump which powered the whole
development and this is located in the basement of the tower block. This
basement is about 4 meters deep and in addition has 2 meters of concrete
at its base. This foundation holds up the tower block and in situ
concrete columns and slabs and pre-cast beams all tie the building
together.'

<http://www.grasart.com/blog/lancaster-west-estate-an-ideal-for-living>

Some photos taken during construction (in that article) also make this
clear.



Carey

unread,
Jun 18, 2017, 10:43:10 AM6/18/17
to
Good article on the Grenfell Towers fire from a human POV, with solid links:

https://renegadeinc.com/tale-two-cities/

TennisGuy

unread,
Jun 18, 2017, 1:23:15 PM6/18/17
to
Thanks for this information.

You do realize you are putting your foot in your mouth now?

I hadn't studied the construction of the tower, but if it's correct that
steel was not used in their construction, one has to really scratch
one's head and ask why the tower didn't collapse after burning for more
than 24 hours?

After all, WTC2 'collapsed' in one hour and WTC1 'collapsed' in 1.5
hours and they had the extra support of the steel columns. :)











TennisGuy

unread,
Jun 18, 2017, 1:43:25 PM6/18/17
to
That's not as funny as you think.

There was an explosion in the basement of WTC1 _before the first plane
hit the tower.

calim...@gmx.de

unread,
Jun 18, 2017, 2:00:22 PM6/18/17
to
Only nutters still believe in those conspiracy theories.
And a lot of cynical people make a lot of money from those nutters.

Melting steel? Who ever on this planet suggested that the WTC collapsed due to MOLTEN steel???

TennisGuy, Iceberg, Shitpiss, Carey always came across as very simple minds here. Now we have proof. It is incredible. This intellectual lazyness is just stunning. More - it is frightening.

BTW, Shitpiss is a Russian troll. So maybe he is not one of the dumb ones. But of course his agenda is to destroy any confidence in democratic institutions in western countries.


Max

jdeluise

unread,
Jun 18, 2017, 2:14:26 PM6/18/17
to
On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 13:22:23 -0400, TennisGuy wrote:

> I hadn't studied the construction of the tower, but if it's correct that
> steel was not used in their construction, one has to really scratch
> one's head and ask why the tower didn't collapse after burning for more
> than 24 hours?

You already admitted the consipracy theorists are light years beyond your
intelligence level. What could you possibly contribute to the discussion?

jdeluise

unread,
Jun 18, 2017, 2:15:54 PM6/18/17
to
On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 13:42:33 -0400, TennisGuy wrote:

> There was an explosion in the basement of WTC1 _before the first plane
> hit the tower.

Why before?

TennisGuy

unread,
Jun 18, 2017, 3:15:36 PM6/18/17
to
Good question.
Do some research on William Rodriguez and find out more.
Tons of stuff.

Try this...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ADjXLS0jYc

Federer Fanatic

unread,
Jun 18, 2017, 3:30:12 PM6/18/17
to
Fake report.

The Iceberg

unread,
Jun 18, 2017, 3:37:35 PM6/18/17
to
This is obviously fake news and they are just covering up that Grenfell was exactly the same as the WTC, except it didn't fall down like 911! Wake up and smell the coffee, Brian! And RST!

The Iceberg

unread,
Jun 18, 2017, 3:44:23 PM6/18/17
to
It clear max is Illuminati! Steffi Graf is clearly one of the lizard people! Wake up and smell the coffee RST!

TT

unread,
Jun 18, 2017, 4:25:47 PM6/18/17
to
TennisGuy kirjoitti 18.6.2017 klo 20:42:
> On 6/16/2017 9:23 PM, TT wrote:
>> TennisGuy kirjoitti 17.6.2017 klo 3:50:
>>> For example the team planting the explosives in the WTC towers would
>>> not have been briefed about the entire operation.
>>
>> lol
>>
>> Why are we putting live explosives to ground floor Jake?
>> ...I don't know Rufus, I just work here.
>
>
> That's not as funny as you think.
>

Yeah, fixed above and it's now much funnier.

> There was an explosion in the basement of WTC1 _before the first plane
> hit the tower.
>

So you're supposed to be some sort of expert on this and yet you haven't
even seen the video of collapse which clearly starts NOT from the
basement but the same level where the airplane hit...

First link on googling 'wtc collapse':
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhyu-fZ2nRA

The Iceberg

unread,
Jun 18, 2017, 4:36:20 PM6/18/17
to
Erm TT, everyone knows everything on Google is paid for by the CIA and Israel, especially those fake videos!

*skriptis

unread,
Jun 18, 2017, 5:01:02 PM6/18/17
to
calim...@gmx.de Wrote in message:
Yeah, I posted here about tennis for a decade just to infiltrate,
gain respect and then unleash vicious Russian propaganda.


Imbecile.

But I guess that, however dumb is, it's still more credible than
suggestion that Yankee and Dixie duo, Trump and Sessions are my
colleagues as Kremlin agents.

So, sadly or luckily, since max has already reached intellectual
and moral low, he can't go lower. I guess he'll try more. I am
sure he will.


It is interesting on another note. It shows the tyrannical and
exclusive mind of a person whose forefathers were Nazis.


He's either very evil and hates Russia, wants it destroyed just as
his ancestors so he's nervous when someone points to certain
facts in general discussions around here that touched those
subjects.

Or he's simply to ignorant and arrogant to believe that normal
people can have non-russophobic views, without being Russian
agents, or not even Russians.

Lesson for you Max, you don't have to be Russian yourself or paid
by Russians, in order not to hate Russia.


Trump has been saying during his campaign, wouldn't be better if
we get along?

Is that pro Russian in any way?
The reactions from the neocons were as if he promised entire west
coast to Putin.

--


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

bob

unread,
Jun 18, 2017, 8:45:18 PM6/18/17
to
On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 13:42:33 -0400, TennisGuy <TG...@techsavvy.com>
wrote:
said who?

bob

TennisGuy

unread,
Jun 18, 2017, 9:17:15 PM6/18/17
to
Guys, seriously.

The questions people are asking are indicative that they haven't as much
as lifted up a finger to investigate this.

Sorry I will not spoon feed you.
If you are _genuinely interested in knowing the answer, Google is your
friend.

It takes a few seconds to type in the question bob.

bob

unread,
Jun 18, 2017, 9:23:25 PM6/18/17
to
On Fri, 16 Jun 2017 15:46:20 -0700 (PDT), Carey <carey...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Friday, June 16, 2017 at 3:31:01 PM UTC-7, TennisGuy wrote:
>> On 6/16/2017 4:36 AM, calim...@gmx.de wrote:
>>
>> > The WTC had a very unique structure. Read it at Wikipedia.
>> >
>> >
>> > Max
>> >
>>
>>
>> Yes the WTC towers did indeed have a unique structure.
>> But its structure was not flimsy.
>>
>> They were robust buildings standing tall and 'proud' for 30+ years
>> with no signs of stress or fatigue.
>>
>> Read some more about them.
>> They were designed to withstand the impact of jet aircraft!
>>
>> It doesn't matter what a building's design is.
>> If it is a steel high rise, 10, 25, 50, 75 or 100+ stories
>> it can not collapse completely in its own footprint due to fires.
>>
>> The laws of physics prevent it from doing so.
>
>
>...and then there's WTC7, not hit by a plane, collapsing as well. Odd, that. ;)

WTC7 was brought down IMO. NRO and CIA offices were abundant in WTC7
it couldn't be allowed to stand IMO.

but not 1,2.

bob

Carey

unread,
Jun 18, 2017, 9:37:12 PM6/18/17
to
I use Startpage or occasionally Duckduckgo for searches. YMMV

bob

unread,
Jun 18, 2017, 9:59:35 PM6/18/17
to
On Fri, 16 Jun 2017 20:56:07 -0400, TennisGuy <TG...@techsavvy.com>
wrote:

>On 6/16/2017 8:41 PM, TT wrote:
>> TennisGuy kirjoitti 17.6.2017 klo 2:54:
>>> They were a big liability for the Port Authority of New York and
>>> New Jersey.
>>
>> This must be one of the most absurd and illogical things I've ever
>> read...
>>
>> So your theory is that the City of New York had a health problem
>> with Twin Towers asbestos so they decided to demolish the buildings
>> with people in them and somehow managed to persuade a bunch of
>> terrorists for suicide mission to cover their tracks.
>>
>> And one plane for the Pentagon for good measure.
>>
>> Yeah, that must be it. Congrats.
>
> Not quite.
>
>Yes for the towers' 'health problem'.
>
>There were no terrorists on 9/11.
>At least not 19 Muslim hijackers guided by Osama bin Laden.
>
>The only terrorists operating on 9/11 were Western insiders.
>
>There is not a single shred of legitimate evidence that supports
>the 19 hijacker/Osama bin Laden myth started by the U.S. government
>and backed by the MSM.

nice to see what i'm dealing with here.

bob

bob

unread,
Jun 18, 2017, 10:01:59 PM6/18/17
to
On Fri, 16 Jun 2017 16:23:14 -0700 (PDT), Carey <carey...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Friday, June 16, 2017 at 4:03:24 PM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Jun 2017 15:46:20 -0700, Carey wrote:
>>
>> > ...and then there's WTC7, not hit by a plane, collapsing as well. Odd,
>> > that. ;)
>>
>> Although there is photographic and video evidence that it was damaged...
>> if the supposed conspiracy had the resources to hijack and crash planes
>> into the other towers and the Pentagon, why not WTC7 as well? The
>> conspiracy theories don't really add up.
>
>
>Do the 'conspiracy theories' need to add up? My take is that it is the Official Version™, which has been
>repeatedly revised, needs to adequately explain the events of 11 September. It does not.

problem is that if you were not an eyewitness, you are only taking
other peoples word for everything. and if you choose to believe
conspiracy theorists over eyewitnesses or gov't officials, etc. that's
your right. the gov't can very well lie about many things.

but there comes a pt where believing complete crack pots making up
stories is no better than believing 100% everything the gov't tells
you. use some common sense.

bob

TennisGuy

unread,
Jun 19, 2017, 12:56:47 AM6/19/17
to
On 6/18/2017 9:23 PM, bob wrote:

>>
>>
>> ...and then there's WTC7, not hit by a plane, collapsing as well. Odd, that. ;)
>
> WTC7 was brought down IMO. NRO and CIA offices were abundant in WTC7
> it couldn't be allowed to stand IMO.
>
> but not 1,2.
>
> bob
>


Well we have some meat on the bones here. Something to discuss.

First of all, anyone who concedes that WTC7 was brought down by
controlled demolition has essentially conceded that 9/11 was an inside
job. No need to go any further really.

It takes time and preparation (weeks or longer) to bring down a building
using controlled demolition. Especially when said building
is has raging office fires that are dangerous and might burn someone
fiddling around inside.

No need to get into WTC1/2.


Federer Fanatic

unread,
Jun 19, 2017, 3:00:48 AM6/19/17
to
And you trust the internet ;-) ?

calim...@gmx.de

unread,
Jun 19, 2017, 3:08:23 AM6/19/17
to
But why didn't anyone notice Dick Cheney planting those tons of explosives in WTC 7?
And all those jews milling around there for many weeks?

I think WTC 1&2 were brought down by huge laser beams from orbit, most probably already in collusion with the Russians. And wait - wasn't the Bilderberg conference held just a week before 9/11.
There!!


Max

The Iceberg

unread,
Jun 19, 2017, 6:44:05 AM6/19/17
to
The Russians hacked the news feeds!

calim...@gmx.de

unread,
Jun 19, 2017, 6:50:56 AM6/19/17
to
On Monday, June 19, 2017 at 12:44:05 PM UTC+2, The Iceberg wrote:
> The Russians hacked the news feeds!

OK, Icey baby, I got it.
At first I really thought you were on the same side as the conspiracy nutters like Carey, TennisGuy, RogerWasLucky ...


Max

Whisper

unread,
Jun 19, 2017, 7:50:44 AM6/19/17
to
It's much funnier actually. I can't believe people like you actually
exist & are part of the same species.

I'm 99.9% certain a brain scan would show large chunks of the left side
of the brain (controls logical and rational thinking) damaged/dead.

The logistics involved in pulling off a conspiracy on this grand scale
are just too great to seriously entertain. You guys fascinate me. No
offense.

Can you just imagine the thousands of people & operations that would
have to be involved, & absolutely everything would have to go to plan
with no room for fuck ups? And then all these people would have to
carry these secrets to the grave. Yet your brain tells you this is not
only possible (billions to 1), but highly probable. I have no words.

: )








---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

Whisper

unread,
Jun 19, 2017, 7:51:56 AM6/19/17
to
Someone fucked up?

Whisper

unread,
Jun 19, 2017, 7:55:39 AM6/19/17
to
This guy is hilarious. You can tell he's a conman & doesn't believe
anything he's saying.

Well, maybe not all of us can tell.

: )

Whisper

unread,
Jun 19, 2017, 8:19:57 AM6/19/17
to
Please never change. People like you amaze me.

PeteWasLucky

unread,
Jun 19, 2017, 8:21:05 AM6/19/17
to
Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com> Wrote in message:
Do you think insulting other people that have different opinion is
a civilized way to communicate and interact?

I'd say the only thing it reflects is the limited intellectual
driving to aggression.

Whisper

unread,
Jun 19, 2017, 8:22:17 AM6/19/17
to
A good friend of mine was fond of saying 'common sense is not very common'.

Whisper

unread,
Jun 19, 2017, 8:33:11 AM6/19/17
to
> Do you think insulting other people that have different opinion is
> a civilized way to communicate and interact?
>
> I'd say the only thing it reflects is the limited intellectual
> driving to aggression.
>



Sorry, I agree. I just think the idea is so ridiculous & am genuinely
gobsmacked anyone believes it.

PeteWasLucky

unread,
Jun 19, 2017, 9:26:10 AM6/19/17
to
> Sorry, I agree. I just think the idea is so ridiculous & am genuinely
gobsmacked anyone believes it.

I wouldn't argue the different theories about who did what, but I think it's normal to wonder about three buildings that collapsed like full organized symphony in their own footprint in couple of hours.
They didn't tilt a little to the right or the left, forward or backward, no partial collapse in any of them.
BTW, my manager was on one of the planes that hit the towers, she was a great lady and super manager.

Whisper

unread,
Jun 19, 2017, 9:42:53 AM6/19/17
to
On 19/06/2017 11:26 PM, PeteWasLucky wrote:
>> Sorry, I agree. I just think the idea is so ridiculous & am genuinely
> gobsmacked anyone believes it.
>
> I wouldn't argue the different theories about who did what, but I think it's normal to wonder about three buildings that collapsed like full organized symphony in their own >footprint in couple of hours.

It's normal to be inquisitive & question things, but you have to draw
the line somewhere. Things like moon landing, 9/11 are billions to 1
to pull off due to the numerous 'moving parts' that all have to be
trusted to not fuck up.

The odds of 911 being staged are the same as a tennis player winning 30
tournaments in a yr & winning every point.



> They didn't tilt a little to the right or the left, forward or backward, no partial collapse in any of them.
> BTW, my manager was on one of the planes that hit the towers, she was a great lady and super manager.
>

Sorry to hear that. Just goes to show you can't take life too seriously
- you could choke on a biscuit & be dead in 5 mins.

PeteWasLucky

unread,
Jun 19, 2017, 10:11:44 AM6/19/17
to
Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com> Wrote in message:
> On 19/06/2017 11:26 PM, PeteWasLucky wrote:
>>> Sorry, I agree. I just think the idea is so ridiculous & am genuinely
>> gobsmacked anyone believes it.
>>
>> I wouldn't argue the different theories about who did what, but I think it's normal to wonder about three buildings that collapsed like full organized symphony in their own >footprint in couple of hours.
>
> It's normal to be inquisitive & question things, but you have to draw
> the line somewhere. Things like moon landing, 9/11 are billions to 1
> to pull off due to the numerous 'moving parts' that all have to be
> trusted to not fuck up.
>
> The odds of 911 being staged are the same as a tennis player winning 30
> tournaments in a yr & winning every point.

If we all behave or act the way you described our lives would have
been very different than what we have now because many of the
people that changed our lives chose to be in odd with average
public because they believed differently.

Even if they were wrong, the discussion and argument leads to lots
of reading and research that enlighten us a little.

You simply decided to draw the line and either accepted what you
were told or really believed it but many others are different and
can't accept what they can't fully understand or explain to
themselves.

>
>
>
>> They didn't tilt a little to the right or the left, forward or backward, no partial collapse in any of them.
>> BTW, my manager was on one of the planes that hit the towers, she was a great lady and super manager.
>>
>
> Sorry to hear that. Just goes to show you can't take life too seriously
> - you could choke on a biscuit & be dead in 5 mins.


Oh this is the one I struggle with, I know I shouldn't take life
seriously but I can't do anything in a way less than to my full
satisfaction.
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> http://www.avg.com
>
>


It is loading more messages.
0 new messages