The Official KMC "Conspiracy" Thread

And lets not forget the fact that the steel and concrete magically disintegrated.

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
The ofiicial story has said many times, it was due to fire that it fell not because of the planes. if they were correct than buildings like the merdian plaza would have fallen.

And that allegation makes no sense, they were designed to sway upon impact so how could they not with stand the force?

There is more to it than just the force my friend, I never said the crash brought them down, I thought it would be fairly self-explanitory to include the fire, the poor construction and the lack of fireproofing when i say, a jet...all effects...

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
The ofiicial story has said many times, it was due to fire that it fell not because of the planes. if they were correct than buildings like the merdian plaza would have fallen.

And that allegation makes no sense, they were designed to sway upon impact so how could they not with stand the force?

He didn't say 'the force of it'. It is patently obvious that the force of the jet crashing didn't knock it over (part of why I cannot work out what this 'why didn't it topple?' nonsense is all about). He just said it wasn't designed to survive a jet strike. Which it clearly was not.

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
And lets not forget the fact that the steel and concrete magically disintegrated.

Is that 'disintegrate' or is that 'half melted and then got caught in the phenomenal force of the building collapsing', hmm?

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
And lets not forget the fact that the steel and concrete magically disintegrated.

Not magic, there is no such thing! tsk tsk, though, I have been told I'm magic in bed 😉

Originally posted by Ushgarak
They just caught fire. They hadn't just been involved in high speed explosive impact. Rather silly to compare the two.

And what does the impact have to do with the building falling,the official reason it fell was because of fire. now again when has a building fell because of fire?

When, for example, a fire started on the 80th floor hits with such force that parts of it are projected into the damn lobby.

One example of which being... a plane strike! Hence being completely unlike the Meridian Tower or other tower fires.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
He didn't say 'the force of it'. It is patently obvious that the force of the jet crashing didn't knock it over (part of why I cannot work out what this 'why didn't it topple?' nonsense is all about). He just said it wasn't designed to survive a jet strike. Which it clearly was not.

It clearly wasn't since it was designed to sway and was composed of low carbon steel. 😕

But not designed to have the strength of its steel destroyed throughout the building.

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
And what does the impact have to do with the building falling,the official reason it fell was because of fire. now again when has a building fell because of fire?

In Edinburgh a few years back a column of flats collapsed all because a chip pan on the bottom floor caught fire,

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Yes but just imagine every expert was united in the events apart from Icke, all he says is, you work for the Illuminati!

He doesn't try to back up his points when they come under critism, he just says, "Your Wrong, You are contolled by the Illuminati"

No he doesnt.He shows evidence all the time to back up what he says.at least on what he says about 9-11 he does.You guys just choose to ignore it and say they are not credible sources blah blah blah. 🙄

Originally posted by Ushgarak
When, for example, a fire started on the 80th floor hits with such force that parts of it are projected into the damn lobby.

One example of which being... a plane strike! Hence being completely unlike the Meridian Tower or other tower fires.

And again your running away from my question, the official reason why the tower fell was because of fire and not the plane. so I'll ask you again when has a building fell from fire?

Originally posted by Ushgarak
But not designed to have the strength of its steel destroyed throughout the building.

Can you rephrase that so it can make sense?

I'm not running from the question, I am giving you the answer. Read more carefully.

The WTC was downed by fire resulting from a plane strike. You have no previous examples to compare that to.

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Can you rephrase that so it can make sense?

Can you learn to read properly?

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
In Edinburgh a few years back a column of flats collapsed all because a chip pan on the bottom floor caught fire,

Can you give me more details and a new link, that's a vague statement.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
But not designed to have the strength of its steel destroyed throughout the building.

What does "the strength of it's steel destroyed thought the building" supposed to mean? 😕

Originally posted by Ushgarak
I'm not running from the question, I am giving you the answer. Read more carefully.

The WTC was downed by fire resulting from a plane strike. You have no previous examples to compare that to.

How does that change the fact, they were both on fire?

Exactly that. The strength of the steel holding up the WTC was severely weakened by the widespread fire at many levels.

Combined with the fact that a huge chunk of the upper sections had been torn away from the impact, this was enough to create a point where the collapse started.

A link? I dont have one BUT, Look at the blitz, fire caused alot of bulidings to fall over, why? Because the roof supports caught fire, thats right wood, and then the the roof caved, so did the floors and it pulls down the house with it leaving maybe only half a wall left...