Ground zero building catches fire, burns for 7 hours, doesn't collapse

jlew24asu

JamMastaE wrote:

you're really reaching dude.

it's apparent that the main reason you don't think it was an inside job is because YOU DON'T WANT TO!!

or are you just an agent of dis-info?

I pose serious questions and reasons for doubts and this is all you can come up with?

get back to me when you can add to the discussion. till then, go waste someone else's time.

jlew24asu

spiral out wrote:

We are still allowed to have a different view to you over this. Without you going mental everytime someone has something to say about it that doesn't fit your view.

You never have a rational argument when you post in threads concerning 9/11.

I don't think you ever really throw up a view that proves ours arguments wrong. You tend to just try and mock us.

see my post #13. and the response I get in #20.

you might want to try your post again

even flow?

jlew24asu wrote:

yes

After wishing that someone and their dad died in another thread the other day. This is like a balloon ball being tossed to Bonds!!!!!

jlew24asu

even flow? wrote:

After wishing that someone and their dad died in another thread the other day. This is like a balloon ball being tossed to Bonds!!!!!

DIED?? you must mean when I wish they were deported. and I apologized. I never wished anyone be dead.

got it now?

RainDog

jlew24asu wrote:

a Bic lighter? not exactly an experiment to scale eh?

I think comparing a welding torch to a lighter is similar to comparing a passanger jet explosion and burning jet fuel to a fire.

But at least we agree on what the real conspiracy is - and if you ask me, when combined with the "heroes of 9-11/defenders of the nation" mantra this administration puts out, it's just as dangerous.

JamMastaE

jlew24asu wrote:

I pose serious questions and reasons for doubts and this is all you can come up with?

you never offer up shit except to regurgitate the lies and ignorance.

you're a parrot.

poly wanna cracker?

g under p

HANKTHELANK wrote:

do have sand in your vagina jlew? you're always so argumentative, you gotta relax man.

My girlfriend had this happen once in Palm Beach after some love play and after that man was she EVER bitchy and it wasn't due to her red hair.

Peace

jlew24asu

JamMastaE wrote:

you never offer up shit except to regurgitate the lies and ignorance.

you're a parrot.

poly wanna cracker?

hey spiral, you sure about that post you made?

RolandTD20Kdrummer

jlew24asu wrote:

how the fuck do you know? has this been tested before?

Yes many many times. It's what engineers do when they build them.

No steel building in the history of mankind has ever collapsed before 9/11 remember? It's why they use steel.

If you think anyone is expected believe isolated fire and minimal damage (also isolated) causes perfect, and symmetrical, spontaneous building collapse, then you would be stretching it all a bit to too far beyond reality.

Don't you think?

RolandTD20Kdrummer

We should try to keep everything less about hating each other, and more about what happened here, and what are the possibilities, (and associations therein).

People that are already considered "crazy" (CT'ers) only look more crazy when they get angry.

jlew24asu

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Yes many many times. It's what engineers do when they build them.

No steel building in the history of mankind has ever collapsed before 9/11 remember? It's why they use steel.

fire wasnt the only factor in the collapse.

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

If you think anyone is expected believe isolated fire and minimal damage (also isolated) causes perfect, and symmetrical, spontaneous building collapse, then you would be stretching it all a bit to too far beyond reality.

Don't you think?

minimal damage? thats a stretch.

Don't ya think?

RolandTD20Kdrummer

jlew24asu wrote:

fire wasnt the only factor in the collapse.



minimal damage? thats a stretch.

Don't ya think?

Looking at the entire building. Absolutely yes the damage was very minimal.

Not even close to cause the collapse that happened. Nowhere near.

Why is it the 9/11 commission remained so quiet and elusive about it. They have no answer. Dozens (thousands) of the worlds top engineers cannot place logic to the damage it sustained with the collapse is sustained. What does that tell you?

It's a steel cage building. Fire does not affect open steel enough, nor was the structural damage enough to cause what happened.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Here some reasoning that rings true regardless of the source. Building #5 stayed up.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2006/230806wtccomplex.htm

mammasan

9/11 conspiracy, abortion, and religion threads are like bad acid. Not meant for human consumption. Neither side can really prove without a doubt that they are right so what you get is a debate that decends into childish name calling and utter stupidity.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

mammasan wrote:

9/11 conspiracy, abortion, and religion threads are like bad acid. Not meant for human consumption. Neither side can really prove without a doubt that they are right so what you get is a debate that decends into childish name calling and utter stupidity.

It's pure physics and laws of nature. Since when is that conspiracy?

jlew24asu

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Looking at the entire building. Absolutely yes the damage was very minimal.

Not even close to cause the collapse that happened. Nowhere near.

how do you know? did you personally inspect the damage? you seem so sure of yourself. but you are only going by what you read on the net. mostly by what alex jones says.

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Why is it the 9/11 commission remained is quiet and elusive about it. They have no answer. Dozens (thousands) of the worlds top engineers cannot place logic to the damage it sustained with the collapse is sustained. What does that tell you?

it tells me they dont know yet. what does it tell you? that bombs were planted throughout the building? regardless, I'm not going to say 100% that the building was not taken down on purpose. I think its very relevant that not a single person was even injured in the collapse.

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

It's a steel cage building. Fire does not affect open steel enough, nor was the structural damage enough to cause what happened.

fire weakens steel. you have no idea how bad the damage was from the fallen debris of 1 & 2

mammasan

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

It's pure physics and laws of nature. Since when is that conspiracy?

It's not pure physics. Unless you are a structural engineer and personally examined WTC 7 prior to it's collapse and saw first hand how the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 affected and/or comprimised the structural integrity of the building it is all speculation.

You can take the same building and set off a truck bomb outside it's main entrance and the building could still remain erect. You can take the same building and place a much smaller amount of explosives next to a weight bearing support collumn and probably bring the whole fucker down.

None of us was inside that building so we really have no idea what the structural damage was like inside.

jlew24asu

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

It's pure physics and laws of nature. Since when is that conspiracy?

no its not. its physics and laws of nature according to alex jones.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

jlew24asu wrote:

how do you know? did you personally inspect the damage? you seem so sure of yourself. but you are only going by what you read on the net. mostly by what alex jones says.

it tells me they dont know yet. what does it tell you? that bombs were planted throughout the building? regardless, I'm not going to say 100% that the building was not taken down on purpose. I think its very relevant that not a single person was even injured in the collapse.

fire weakens steel. you have no idea how bad the damage was from the fallen debris of 1 & 2

Well the engineers on site saw it...they have all the video...the pictures...the diagrams...all the blueprints...the many firefighter eyewitness testimonies from inside and outside the building... etc...etc...etc... essentially every angle of being there and witnessing it.

....and not a single one of them can see ANY reason whatsoever why #7 fell exactly like a demolished building does.

Actually there is far more evidence leaning towards demolition (#7) than not.

So combine the two realities of that encompassing scenario, and see where common sense seems to rest.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

jlew24asu wrote:

no its not. its physics and laws of nature according to alex jones.

That's an inaccurate statement and you know it.