Select to expand quote

holy guacamole said..

japie said..It is such a perplexing phenomenon the fact that people flat out deny that there are any global agendas at play. The gullibility of the general public knows no boundaries!

Who said that? Of course there's global agendas at play. Always have been and always will be.

This one's called Agenda 21 and it's 26 years old! So secretive and nefarious it getS talked about every day and online!

What is mind boggling, is the gullibility of some people who leap to the conclusion that these plans and agendas have the objective of setting up a one world communist government, or that climate change will be used as an "excuse" to implement Agenda 21.

But hang on, I thought it was being implemented incrementally under our very noses so we didn't notice, like a frog in warm water being brought slowly to the boil.

It's borderline insanity.

Yep, it's bizarre that the President of the USA cannot keep his sex life secret, that our own special forces cannot keep their own initiation rites secret, that the problems with submarines cannot be kept secret, and yet people reckon that the representatives of countries that hate each other, like the USA, Iran, Iraq, North AND South Korea, Israel and the Arab States, are involved in using A21 to drive the world government concept AND they are all keeping it hush hush.

Sure, the Israelis and Arabs have been at each others throats; and the Russians invaded the Ukraine; and Angola, Namibia, Chad, Sudan, and Zimbabwe, Rwanda, and Uganda were engaged in a war that killed three million people; and the USA and others went into Afghanistan; and there was a little Gulf War. Sure, all of these involved countries that were involved in A21 fighting each other, and sometimes losing. But even as the countries fell apart, and the leaders died, and their cities were destroyed, they all kept silent on the fact that the hateful enemies were part of a massive conspiracy...... yep, that sounds right. :-p

The other weird thing is that since the UN was formed, the world has moved AWAY from one government. Many major countries - Taiwan, India, Pakistan, Indonesia, the Phillipines, etc - and some 120+ other countries have formed or become independent from the major empires of the UK, Russia, France and the USA since the UN was formed. So instead of moving towards one government, we have moved to having MORE governments and MORE armed services - and the UN push towards decolonisation played a major part of that.

In other words, if the UN is trying to create one government it's amazingly bad at it, and yet it's somehow managed to create the world's best and most effective conspiracy. Hmmmmm.......

That's how conspiracy theorists roll Chris....they turn a blind eye to to the truth right in front of them and accept the wildest, most implausible, illogical alternative theory as real.

That's how conspiracy threorists roll holy guacamole........when we watch the symmetrical collapse of WTC 7 and conclude the wildest, most implausible ,illogical alternative theory that it collapsed due to thermal expansion of a single beam on floor 13.

Select to expand quote

petermac33 said..
That's how conspiracy threorists roll holy guacamole........when we watch the symmetrical collapse of WTC 7 and conclude the wildest, most implausible ,illogical alternative theory that it collapsed due to thermal expansion of a single beam on floor 13.

And chemtrails

Oh, yeah Pete, because you are a genius who knows all about the way buildings collapse.

Oh sorry, no, in fact you made it clear here that you know nothing about structures, you knew nothing about the pancaking of Ronan Point, the Sampoon Building, L'Ambiance or other buildings. But you are such a dishonest person that you will throw vile insults at investigators while whining hypocritically about the treatment you get here.

When conspiracy theorists behave like you do, they deserve all the contempt they get.

By the way, exactly how many major companies have you helped to bring down? How many people in positions of power have you brought to task? If you actually wanted to make the world a better place by investigating things you'd have actually done something to get rid of dickheads instead of ranting on the internet.

Select to expand quote

CH3MTR4IL5 said..

petermac33 said..
That's how conspiracy threorists roll holy guacamole........when we watch the symmetrical collapse of WTC 7 and conclude the wildest, most implausible ,illogical alternative theory that it collapsed due to thermal expansion of a single beam on floor 13.

And chemtrails

Yep, these days they are making chemtrails full of giant lizards that weigh so much, buildings collapse when the chemtrailizard falls on them.

Select to expand quote

Chris 249 said..

CH3MTR4IL5 said..

petermac33 said..
That's how conspiracy threorists roll holy guacamole........when we watch the symmetrical collapse of WTC 7 and conclude the wildest, most implausible ,illogical alternative theory that it collapsed due to thermal expansion of a single beam on floor 13.

And chemtrails

Yep, these days they are making chemtrails full of giant lizards that weigh so much, buildings collapse when the chemtrailizard falls on them.

That be Chemtales

Select to expand quote

petermac33 said..
That's how conspiracy threorists roll holy guacamole........when we watch the symmetrical collapse of WTC 7 and conclude the wildest, most implausible ,illogical alternative theory that it collapsed due to thermal expansion of a single beam on floor 13.

Oh dear....we have a glitch in the matrix...

Here's a simple way to cast doubt on any bizarre claim that the UN is trying to make the whole world into a single state. As of 1945, the year that the UN was formed, ONE country - the UK - had the following colonies and protectorates;

Aden - now basically the independent country of South Yemen
Bahamas - now an independent country
Bahrain = ditto
Barbados - ditto
Basutoland - now independent Lesotho
Bechaunaland - now independent Botswana
Bermuda - still a colony
British Guiana - now the independent nation of Guyana
British Honduras - now the independent nation of Belize
British Leeward Islands - now part of West Indies.
British Western Pacific territories - now Fiji, Kiribati, Nauru, Nue, Solomons, Tonga, Vanuatu, etc etc etc

Oh hell, this will take too long. So let's cut to bigger former colonies;

Burma - now independent Myanmar
Ceylon - now independent Sri Lanka
Malay States - now independent Malaysia
Hong Kong - OK, part of China
India - now independent and split into India, Pakistan and Bangladesh
Rhodesia - now Zimbabwe
Nigeria - now independent
Straits Settlement - now Singapore.
etc etc etc

So out of 66 colonies, protectorates etc when the UN was formed, now Gibraltar, the Channel Isles, the Isle of Man and Falklands and Bermuda are left and about 60 independent countries have been formed. Most of them are members of the UN. In other words, since the UN was formed, ONE government has become about 60 governments - and that's just in the former British colonies. The same sort of thing has happened to the former empires of France, Germany, Russia and the USA.

Far from being involved in creating one super-state, the era of the UN has seen the formation of dozens of small nations and the end of empires, often with the UN playing a major role. Many of these nations - Singapore, India, Pakistan, etc - are major countries. Four of them have nuclear weapons, so the UN era has seen a splintering of major armed forces, not the creation of a single army. Many of them are mortal enemies to other UN countries. And many of these countries fought long and hard for their independence - why will they supposedly give up to their freedom to the UN when they spent so much blood to become independent from the UK, Russia, the USA etc?

It's just counter-factual madness.

Chris 249.....Yep, these days they are making chemtrails full of giant lizards that weigh so much, buildings collapse when the chemtrailizard falls on them.


Yep,these days they can make a 650 foot superstructures collapse symmetrically with the thermal expansion of a single beam.

Select to expand quote

Chris 249 said..
Here's a simple way to cast doubt on any bizarre claim that the UN is trying to make the whole world into a single state. As of 1945, the year that the UN was formed, ONE country - the UK - had the following colonies and protectorates;

Aden - now basically the independent country of South Yemen
Bahamas - now an independent country
Bahrain = ditto
Barbados - ditto
Basutoland - now independent Lesotho
Bechaunaland - now independent Botswana
Bermuda - still a colony
British Guiana - now the independent nation of Guyana
British Honduras - now the independent nation of Belize
British Leeward Islands - now part of West Indies.
British Western Pacific territories - now Fiji, Kiribati, Nauru, Nue, Solomons, Tonga, Vanuatu, etc etc etc

Oh hell, this will take too long. So let's cut to bigger former colonies;

Burma - now independent Myanmar
Ceylon - now independent Sri Lanka
Malay States - now independent Malaysia
Hong Kong - OK, part of China
India - now independent and split into India, Pakistan and Bangladesh
Rhodesia - now Zimbabwe
Nigeria - now independent
Straits Settlement - now Singapore.
etc etc etc

So out of 66 colonies, protectorates etc when the UN was formed, now Gibraltar, the Channel Isles, the Isle of Man and Falklands and Bermuda are left and about 60 independent countries have been formed. Most of them are members of the UN. In other words, since the UN was formed, ONE government has become about 60 governments - and that's just in the former British colonies. The same sort of thing has happened to the former empires of France, Germany, Russia and the USA.

Far from being involved in creating one super-state, the era of the UN has seen the formation of dozens of small nations and the end of empires, often with the UN playing a major role. Many of these nations - Singapore, India, Pakistan, etc - are major countries. Four of them have nuclear weapons, so the UN era has seen a splintering of major armed forces, not the creation of a single army. Many of them are mortal enemies to other UN countries. And many of these countries fought long and hard for their independence - why will they supposedly give up to their freedom to the UN when they spent so much blood to become independent from the UK, Russia, the USA etc?

It's just counter-factual madness.

Be interesting to see who owns these newly independent states.
Probably the same entity they achieved sovereignty from.
Except now they pay interest on their freedoms.
It's all sleight of hand and magic tricks to keep the tv viewers and protestors distracted
But hey, you worked as a public servant, so of course you would know

BIS

BIS

BIS

Well the truth probably lies somewhere along the spectrum of the conspiracy and those that deny it.
The increasing movement towards a cashless society is a big worry for more control by the banks (and their government puppets) we have now mortgages the earth to.


They can pull their levers at will to create the insidious inflation tax (with exact monetary - credit expansion or contraction ) that only benefits large asset owners and of course governments in huge debt. Not sure about "world control" because the banks and their corporate partners have pretty much got that sorted already or at the very least are well on their way.


Those that don't get that don't really understand how credit is now created and why. Or worse, have an education in modern economics which time and time again fails to explain the boom and bust cycle nor how the real economy actually works.

yes BIS indeed Japie.

Select to expand quote

holy guacamole said..
That's how conspiracy theorists roll Chris....they turn a blind eye to to the truth right in front of them and accept the wildest, most implausible, illogical alternative theory as real.

Sometimes they stumble on the truth though, so you never know.

Select to expand quote

theDoctor said..

Chris 249 said..
Here's a simple way to cast doubt on any bizarre claim that the UN is trying to make the whole world into a single state. As of 1945, the year that the UN was formed, ONE country - the UK - had the following colonies and protectorates;

Aden - now basically the independent country of South Yemen
Bahamas - now an independent country
Bahrain = ditto
Barbados - ditto
Basutoland - now independent Lesotho
Bechaunaland - now independent Botswana
Bermuda - still a colony
British Guiana - now the independent nation of Guyana
British Honduras - now the independent nation of Belize
British Leeward Islands - now part of West Indies.
British Western Pacific territories - now Fiji, Kiribati, Nauru, Nue, Solomons, Tonga, Vanuatu, etc etc etc

Oh hell, this will take too long. So let's cut to bigger former colonies;

Burma - now independent Myanmar
Ceylon - now independent Sri Lanka
Malay States - now independent Malaysia
Hong Kong - OK, part of China
India - now independent and split into India, Pakistan and Bangladesh
Rhodesia - now Zimbabwe
Nigeria - now independent
Straits Settlement - now Singapore.
etc etc etc

So out of 66 colonies, protectorates etc when the UN was formed, now Gibraltar, the Channel Isles, the Isle of Man and Falklands and Bermuda are left and about 60 independent countries have been formed. Most of them are members of the UN. In other words, since the UN was formed, ONE government has become about 60 governments - and that's just in the former British colonies. The same sort of thing has happened to the former empires of France, Germany, Russia and the USA.

Far from being involved in creating one super-state, the era of the UN has seen the formation of dozens of small nations and the end of empires, often with the UN playing a major role. Many of these nations - Singapore, India, Pakistan, etc - are major countries. Four of them have nuclear weapons, so the UN era has seen a splintering of major armed forces, not the creation of a single army. Many of them are mortal enemies to other UN countries. And many of these countries fought long and hard for their independence - why will they supposedly give up to their freedom to the UN when they spent so much blood to become independent from the UK, Russia, the USA etc?

It's just counter-factual madness.

Be interesting to see who owns these newly independent states.
Probably the same entity they achieved sovereignty from.
Except now they pay interest on their freedoms.
It's all sleight of hand and magic tricks to keep the tv viewers and protestors distracted
But hey, you worked as a public servant, so of course you would know

Oh yeah, that whole war of the Vietnamese against the French - including the siege of Ben Dien Phu (sp) - that was just "slieght of hand" involving tanks, guns, planes and many deaths. And so too was the long war for independence in The Congo, Algeria, Indonesia, etc etc etc. The hundreds of thousands who died, the films of battles, the stories of survivors- they were just done by Hollywood and no one on either side ever blabbed.

It's rather odd that people imply that the leaders of Singapore, Pakistan, Indonesia and India would be too stupid to have achieved the independence they strived for. It's insulting and arrogant, as are most conspiracy theories

And the arrogance does not come from me, but those who claim thAt they know that there is a giant conspiracy that others do not know about. And it's dishonest to infer that I claimed that I'd know because I was for a short while a public servant - I didn't say that. Try to be honest.

Select to expand quote

japie said..
BIS

You mean BS? If so, please explain why a body that is, its claimed, all about creating ONE government has helped create dozens of them. Please explain how countries go to war and lose, and see their leaders die, but still cooperate on this supposed conspiracy and keeping it quiet. And please explain why someone who is either bizarrely ignorant about their own job OR a liar, like the commentator in the vid, should be relied upon

Select to expand quote

FormulaNova said..

holy guacamole said..
That's how conspiracy theorists roll Chris....they turn a blind eye to to the truth right in front of them and accept the wildest, most implausible, illogical alternative theory as real.

Sometimes they stumble on the truth though, so you never know.

Out of interest, FN, when has this sort of conspiracy theorist actually found the truth?

Select to expand quote

petermac33 said..
Chris 249.....Yep, these days they are making chemtrails full of giant lizards that weigh so much, buildings collapse when the chemtrailizard falls on them.


Yep,these days they can make a 650 foot superstructures collapse symmetrically with the thermal expansion of a single beam.

It's just the most basic physics that a column that is moved too far sideways will collapse. That's why Ronan Point and L Ambiance, to give two examples, collapsed vertically after a single beam-type structural member "expanded"

It doesn't take a US conspiracy to make the WTC towers fall like that - it takes terrorists and basic physics and structural theory. Anyone with an enquiring mind who wants to think for themselves and knows basic science can see why these collapses can occur: even messing about with cardboard will show how it happens. I just hope I'm never on a boat or building designed by someone who thinks such collapses cannot occur.

Don't forget, you are the person who just accepts what they are told so
blindly that you didn't even bother to find out how quickly and by what cause other pancakes occurred. You are the person who was utterly wrong when you said they must be slow, when in fact the physics and the actual examples show they are not. When you don't even know such basic things you shouldn't sling **** at those who studied the WTC collapses for the official investigation like you do.

And chemtrails.

Select to expand quote

Chris249 said..

FormulaNova said..

holy guacamole said..
That's how conspiracy theorists roll Chris....they turn a blind eye to to the truth right in front of them and accept the wildest, most implausible, illogical alternative theory as real.

Sometimes they stumble on the truth though, so you never know.

Out of interest, FN, when has this sort of conspiracy theorist actually found the truth?

Sorry. I dont believe it ever has... this is an example of me trolling to see who comes out of the woodwork. Unfortunately no one...

Select to expand quote

FormulaNova said..Sometimes they stumble on the truth though, so you never know.

holy guacamole said..
That's how conspiracy theorists roll Chris....they turn a blind eye to to the truth right in front of them and accept the wildest, most implausible, illogical alternative theory as real.

Oh they stumble alright, but not usually on the truth....more like conceive the conspiracy first then spend decades amassing fake "evidence" that "proves" the theory.

Shame you feel the need to admit to trolling. Why would you do that?

Select to expand quote

holy guacamole said..

FormulaNova said..Sometimes they stumble on the truth though, so you never know.

holy guacamole said..
That's how conspiracy theorists roll Chris....they turn a blind eye to to the truth right in front of them and accept the wildest, most implausible, illogical alternative theory as real.

Oh they stumble alright, but not usually on the truth....more like conceive the conspiracy first then spend decades amassing fake "evidence" that "proves" the theory.

Shame you feel the need to admit to trolling. Why would you do that?

I think there are some genuine people out there that think they are uncovering conspiracies. The unfortunate thing is that they seem to prefer the shotgun approach and are convinced everything is a conspiracy. If they are lucky enough to find something that was close to right, instead of admitting that they have a 0.01% hit rate, they will tell people "see, I was right" and this then encourages them to think more things are conspiracies.

I see something similar with a family member that points out "the government want,... blah blah blah", yet when I point out why market forces make something the logical reason something has happened the way it had, it falls on deaf ears. People just don't want to listen to the reality of why things happen, and some prefer to think that others are in charge.

I firmly believe that it is harder now than ever to keep a secret. There are too many people with phones that have cameras, that publish everything on social media, that talk to everyone, that are happy to share secrets. So how can such great conspiracies be kept from the public, yet seemingly well known by many conspiracy theorists? The common theme seems to be the burden of truth. The official story always seems to have been held up to a much higher standard, yet a CT than can exist on merely the thought that 'something is going on'.

Couldn't have put it better myself.

Select to expand quote

Chris 249 said..
Oh, yeah Pete, because you are a genius who knows all about the way buildings collapse.

Oh sorry, no, in fact you made it clear here that you know nothing about structures, you knew nothing about the pancaking of Ronan Point, the Sampoon Building, L'Ambiance or other buildings. But you are such a dishonest person that you will throw vile insults at investigators while whining hypocritically about the treatment you get here.

When conspiracy theorists behave like you do, they deserve all the contempt they get.

By the way, exactly how many major companies have you helped to bring down? How many people in positions of power have you brought to task? If you actually wanted to make the world a better place by investigating things you'd have actually done something to get rid of dickheads instead of ranting on the internet.

Interesting use of examples; Ronan Point, Sampoon and L'Ambience.
Not too much in common with building 7, Ronan Point was a gas explosion that DID NOT collapse the entire building; L'Ambience happened during construction, and Sampoong was altered a few times during construction, and did not fully collapse.

Ronin Point:
www.theguardian.com/society/from-the-archive-blog/gallery/2018/may/16/ronan-point-tower-collapse-may-1968
At around 6am on 16 May 1968, Mrs Ivy Hodge, a tenant on the 18th floor, leaned over her cooker and struck a match. Instantly, an explosion blew out the pre-cast concrete panels which formed the side of the building and the entire end of the block collapsed like a house of cards. Mrs Hodge - and gas cooker - survived. (Archive ref: OBS/6/9/3/1/1/D).

L Ambience:
connecticuthistory.org/the-collapse-of-the-lambiance-plaza/
In the weeks and months that followed the accident, a number of theories emerged as to the cause of the collapse. These theories included catastrophic failure due to a bent support column, an improper alignment of the columns, cracks in the concrete layers, improper curing of the concrete, and a malfunctioning hydraulic lift. But others suspected that carelessness, as well as the building design itself (which had been modeled on 13 other structures built in Connecticut since the early 1970s), ultimately deserved the blame.

Sampoong:
www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/may/27/seoul-sampoong-department-store-disaster-history-cities-50-buildings
But it didn't enter construction as a department store: the original plan called for a large four-storey apartment complex. After work had already begun, owner Lee Joon, in the first of many ill-considered decisions, switched the project from a residential one to a commercial one, a conversion which necessitated the removal of support columns to make room for escalators. When the contractors balked at this, Lee exchanged them for a more obedient in-house crew.
Using a building of this size entirely as a department store went against zoning regulations, which Lee circumvented by ordering the addition of a skating rink on an originally unplanned-for fifth floor. Again, when the first building company he hired advised against such a structure-compromising modification, he simply sacked them. The firm that did build the fifth floor even went along when he changed his mind once again, turning it into a gallery of restaurants heated by a system of under-floor hot-water pipes, increasing the stress on the already overburdened columns remaining.
Still, the Sampoong Department Store might stand today if not for the air-conditioning machinery installed on top. When tenants of neighbouring buildings to the east complained about the noise it made, management moved the three units to the west, not by lifting them with cranes, but by dragging them - their combined 45-tonne weight four times what the building was designed to handle - all the way across the roof. This opened up cracks that widened each and every morning the air conditioners clicked on and vibrated to life over the next two years.
Then came the morning of 29 June 1995. The structure's visible cracks had widened alarmingly and continued to do so as the day wore on, provoking enough concern to force two executive decisions: first, to switch off the air conditioning, and second, to close the top floor. But Lee refused to evacuate the day's unusually large and lucrative shopping crowd, and so in the store they remained at 5:52 pm, when the air-conditioning units fell through the roof and the support columns gave way, resulting in the deadliest building collapse since antiquity.

A bunch of other high rise buildings that were heavily burnt but did not collapse.
911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html#caracastower

Grenfell Tower in the U.K:
www.abc.net.au/news/2019-10-30/lfb-worsened-grenfell-tower-blaze-death-toll/11651716

Here is what happens when 1 or more "beams are displaced", not total collapse:
www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/13/oklahoma-city-bombing-20-years-later-key-questions-remain-unanswered

This is what happens when you blow up a 1,200lb truck bomb under a skyscraper:
edition.cnn.com/2013/11/05/us/1993-world-trade-center-bombing-fast-facts/index.html
Facts
The explosion created a hole 200 feet by 100 feet, several stories deep. It caused the PATH station ceiling to collapse.
The 1,200-pound bomb was in a Ryder truck parked in a parking garage beneath the World Trade Center.

20 odd minutes PRIOR to the collapse of WTC 7 the BBC discussed its collapse.. Prior knowledge.

No different from the BBC discussing the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 20 odd minutes before they actually collapsed.

Select to expand quote

morningsun said..

Chris 249 said..
Oh, yeah Pete, because you are a genius who knows all about the way buildings collapse.

Oh sorry, no, in fact you made it clear here that you know nothing about structures, you knew nothing about the pancaking of Ronan Point, the Sampoon Building, L'Ambiance or other buildings. But you are such a dishonest person that you will throw vile insults at investigators while whining hypocritically about the treatment you get here.

When conspiracy theorists behave like you do, they deserve all the contempt they get.

By the way, exactly how many major companies have you helped to bring down? How many people in positions of power have you brought to task? If you actually wanted to make the world a better place by investigating things you'd have actually done something to get rid of dickheads instead of ranting on the internet.

Interesting use of examples; Ronan Point, Sampoon and L'Ambience.
Not too much in common with building 7, Ronan Point was a gas explosion that DID NOT collapse the entire building; L'Ambience happened during construction, and Sampoong was altered a few times during construction, and did not fully collapse.

Ronin Point:
www.theguardian.com/society/from-the-archive-blog/gallery/2018/may/16/ronan-point-tower-collapse-may-1968
At around 6am on 16 May 1968, Mrs Ivy Hodge, a tenant on the 18th floor, leaned over her cooker and struck a match. Instantly, an explosion blew out the pre-cast concrete panels which formed the side of the building and the entire end of the block collapsed like a house of cards. Mrs Hodge - and gas cooker - survived. (Archive ref: OBS/6/9/3/1/1/D).

L Ambience:
connecticuthistory.org/the-collapse-of-the-lambiance-plaza/
In the weeks and months that followed the accident, a number of theories emerged as to the cause of the collapse. These theories included catastrophic failure due to a bent support column, an improper alignment of the columns, cracks in the concrete layers, improper curing of the concrete, and a malfunctioning hydraulic lift. But others suspected that carelessness, as well as the building design itself (which had been modeled on 13 other structures built in Connecticut since the early 1970s), ultimately deserved the blame.

Sampoong:
www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/may/27/seoul-sampoong-department-store-disaster-history-cities-50-buildings
But it didn't enter construction as a department store: the original plan called for a large four-storey apartment complex. After work had already begun, owner Lee Joon, in the first of many ill-considered decisions, switched the project from a residential one to a commercial one, a conversion which necessitated the removal of support columns to make room for escalators. When the contractors balked at this, Lee exchanged them for a more obedient in-house crew.
Using a building of this size entirely as a department store went against zoning regulations, which Lee circumvented by ordering the addition of a skating rink on an originally unplanned-for fifth floor. Again, when the first building company he hired advised against such a structure-compromising modification, he simply sacked them. The firm that did build the fifth floor even went along when he changed his mind once again, turning it into a gallery of restaurants heated by a system of under-floor hot-water pipes, increasing the stress on the already overburdened columns remaining.
Still, the Sampoong Department Store might stand today if not for the air-conditioning machinery installed on top. When tenants of neighbouring buildings to the east complained about the noise it made, management moved the three units to the west, not by lifting them with cranes, but by dragging them - their combined 45-tonne weight four times what the building was designed to handle - all the way across the roof. This opened up cracks that widened each and every morning the air conditioners clicked on and vibrated to life over the next two years.
Then came the morning of 29 June 1995. The structure's visible cracks had widened alarmingly and continued to do so as the day wore on, provoking enough concern to force two executive decisions: first, to switch off the air conditioning, and second, to close the top floor. But Lee refused to evacuate the day's unusually large and lucrative shopping crowd, and so in the store they remained at 5:52 pm, when the air-conditioning units fell through the roof and the support columns gave way, resulting in the deadliest building collapse since antiquity.

A bunch of other high rise buildings that were heavily burnt but did not collapse.
911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html#caracastower

Grenfell Tower in the U.K:
www.abc.net.au/news/2019-10-30/lfb-worsened-grenfell-tower-blaze-death-toll/11651716

Here is what happens when 1 or more "beams are displaced", not total collapse:
www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/13/oklahoma-city-bombing-20-years-later-key-questions-remain-unanswered

This is what happens when you blow up a 1,200lb truck bomb under a skyscraper:
edition.cnn.com/2013/11/05/us/1993-world-trade-center-bombing-fast-facts/index.html
Facts
The explosion created a hole 200 feet by 100 feet, several stories deep. It caused the PATH station ceiling to collapse.
The 1,200-pound bomb was in a Ryder truck parked in a parking garage beneath the World Trade Center.

Everything I can find indicates that explosions and building designs are way, way, way too variable for anyone to be able to say that what happens with a particular type of blast in a particular area of a particular style of building allows you to draw exact conclusions about what will happen with a different blast in a different area of a different type of building.

For example, the Ufundui building wasn't even the target of the Kenyan bomb, but the building (in between the two remaining ones) collapsed utterly and onto itself, in a way that PM claims only occurs in demolitions;
Your own 911 source points out that you can't really compare buildings like the ones that burned in your link, to the WTC buildings that had different structures; as your source says "parallels may be limited by major structural differences between the buildings in the two cases".

Ronan Point was a partial collapse because the gas explosion moved the wall out of column because there was no proper link between the wall and the "beam" (ie the floor). The part that collapsed went down quickly and pretty much vertically. In other words, it was a vertical collapse due to the "expansion" of the beam allowing the column to get out of vertical - the same simple and obvious problem that PM sneered. The point is that yes, if a beam fails to hold a column in column then collapse can (and normally will) follow, despite PM's sneers.

For L'Ambiance I'm using the explanation I have in most detail, which comes from Levy and Salvadori. Again, the point is that a "beam" (ie the floor) became wider in a sideways direction when a jack slipped, allowing the column to get out of vertical and the building to pancake vertically, at about double free fall speed. Again, not dissimilar to the WTC.

The Sampong building was relevant for two reasons - one that it collapsed pretty much onto itself, which is something that PM says only occurs in planned explosions. Secondly, like the New World (IIRC) hotel in SIngapore, it shows how ridiculous is is that PM makes a big deal about bangs in the WTC building before collapse, claiming that they must have been explosions. As your report says, the Sampong building and the hotel were both showing signs of damage well before the collapse and loud bangs were heard therefore PM's claims that the bangs heard before the collapse must have been explosions are silly.

Select to expand quote

petermac33 said..
20 odd minutes PRIOR to the collapse of WTC 7 the BBC discussed its collapse.. Prior knowledge.

No different from the BBC discussing the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 20 odd minutes before they actually collapsed.

Okay, now for a change, you really do have my interest. Did the BBC really discuss the collapse of the first tower to fall before it fell?

if so, do you have any sources for this? My understanding is that no one, absolutely no one, had an expectation that these would fall before the first one demonstrated that it was possible.

Are you sure you are not extrapolating in reverse?

Oh no, I just realised I have been suckered into talking about 9/11 in another thread, and even in the general forum, instead of the dedicated 9/11 discussion nuthouse called Heavy Weather.