Watch Out For Mad Conspiracy Theories!!!

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

Of course, they went to blow up half a bridge just up the Mississippi from here and the whole fawkin' thing fell into the river...



My guess is it wasn't THAT crew that took down the towers and woods is holding out on us as to who actually placed the charges because he's a cocksucker. All I know is, I'm NEVER going to New Zealand...

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

I am not a speculator but I do question gaps in logic and science. The players are a side issue here.

You piece of shit. When you can answer the easy questions, then we can "debate" gravity...

 

[SleepingWarrior]

You piece of shit. When you can answer the easy questions, then we can "debate" gravity...

Its such an easy question to answer too....

It was done by those who were in the armed service that were "accidently" killed by friendly fire in Afghanistan....

 

[woody54]

1. Im an independant voter who usually leans democrat/libertarian.
2. It didnt end up in clean 30 foot lengths.
3. Building 7 had a significant fire after it was allowed to burn, and also had significant structural damage from the collapse of the other towers.
4. Other buildlings were also damaged structurally from the collapse and were closed for months for repairs.

Who you vote for is irrelevant when you have swallowed the neocon story hook , line and sinker.

Building 7 did not burn out to a steel skeleton as expected. Why did it not do so?

An abnormal amount of steel debris was able to be loaded directly onto trucks without cutting so my 30 foot comment was an ovver generalisation but the unusual nature of this result should alert a fire investigator that things were not kocha with the storyabout the fire.

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

We are getting the impression that you consider your posts to be the only relevant thing...

What was the motive?

 

[SleepingWarrior]

Who you vote for is irrelevant when you have swallowed the neocon story hook , line and sinker.

Building 7 did not burn out to a steel skeleton as expected. Why did it not do so?

An abnormal amount of steel debris was able to be loaded directly onto trucks without cutting so my 30 foot comment was an ovver generalisation but the unusual nature of this result should alert a fire investigator that things were not kocha with the storyabout the fire.

Do you think that the building was comprised of 1100 foot continuous steel beams or something?

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

Think?

You gotta BELIEVE!!!

 

[woody54]

You piece of shit. When you can answer the easy questions, then we can "debate" gravity...

Good God, an easier question would be how many nights Bush slept with his faux GI Joe newsboy in the Whitehouse.

You will do anything to avoid answering a straight question, you coward.

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

Good God, an easier question would be how many nights Bush slept with his faux GI Joe newsboy in the Whitehouse.

You will do anything to avoid answering a straight question, you coward.

You have yet to pose a straight question. You asked what forces brought down the towers and I said gravity and you moved right on to your next outrageous contention with nary a discussion of my answer because the simple stuff trips you up...


For far, you have presented us a "crime" with no perps or motives...

Unless that pathetic post WAS you attempt at a motive.

 

[Acanthus]

*Irrelevant crap removed*
Building 7 did not burn out to a steel skeleton as expected. Why did it not do so?
*Irrelevant crap removed*

Because it collapsed due to structural damage caused by a large scale fire and being hit with peices of collapsing skyscraper.

This wasnt your basic 10 story apartment building... It was a huge skyscraper, even though it was dwarved by the twin towers...

We will see more when the NIST report is released.

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

NIst report...

 

[woody54]

Do you think that the building was comprised of 1100 foot continuous steel beams or something?

If you understand anything about structures, it pretty much is like that to start with. The interesting part is how "experts" claim these buildings acted under duress like none others in the world of fire disasters. Why is that? It is a question that draws the soundness of other American constructions into question if they can just fall over after a little upper floor fire.
Are Americans building unsafe buidings? To accept NIST reports, they are.

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

Your case is as tin as dis playin' card...

But you are thick as a brick.

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

A little fire?

 

[Acanthus]

If you understand anything about structures, it pretty much is like that to start with. The interesting part is how "experts" claim these buildings acted under duress like none others in the world of fire disasters. Why is that? It is a question that draws the soundness of other American constructions into question if they can just fall over after a little upper floor fire.
Are Americans building unsafe buidings? To accept NIST reports, they are.

You do know that jet liners full of fuel hit those buildings right?

This isnt a cigarette left in a trash can type of fire.

 

[woody54]

You have yet to pose a straight question. You asked what forces brought down the towers and I said gravity and you moved right on to your next outrageous contention with nary a discussion of my answer because the simple stuff trips you up...


For far, you have presented us a "crime" with no perps or motives...

Unless that pathetic post WAS you attempt at a motive.

See, you are doing it a again, talking nonsense. I took the gravity comment to be a trowaway oneliner of your usual genre.

Gravity was not the force that brought the building down although it was the force that propelled the unsuspended debris to the ground.

What forces disconnected the structural integrity of the building?

 

[woody54]

You do know that jet liners full of fuel hit those buildings right?

This isnt a cigarette left in a trash can type of fire.

You are still in the wrong buidings.

I was talking about Building 7, a much more interesting coverup because no planes were involved.

 

[Acanthus]

See, you are doing it a again, talking nonsense. I took the gravity comment to be a trowaway oneliner of your usual genre.

Gravity was not the force that brought the building down although it was the force that propelled the unsuspended debris to the ground.

What forces disconnected the structural integrity of the building?

Heat.

 

[Acanthus]

You are still in the wrong buidings.

I was talking about Building 7, a much more interesting coverup because no planes were involved.

Fire and structural damage, is there an echo?

 

[bg23]

Don't. Please don't start arguing with the nutcases. It will just go on and on and on. See that cellphone thread? How long is that thing? These guys are nuts and don't mind proving it.

WHY DIDNT ANYONE LISTEN TO HER

FUCKERS

:MAD:

 

[woody54]

Heat.

How much heat and from what source?
What was different in this fire that has never been repeated in any other steel framed building fire and why did the debris footprint not extend far beyond the building base, a situation very unexpected when softened steel structures collapse by toppling over intact until ground contact.

Did I mention the concrete debris thing? Never seen before.

What has gone awry with American building materials.

 

[smartandsexy]

Again?

 

[woody54]

WHY DIDNT ANYONE LISTEN TO HER

FUCKERS

:MAD:

If only the official story co-conspirators will give me some logical answers to my questions, I will go away.


Problem being , they cant explain the integrity if their story because it doesnt stand scrutiny.

Go and play with yourself, its much more rewarding than this.

 

[woody54]

Fire and structural damage, is there an echo?

Your technical analysis doesnt step outside the official brainwashing. I see this as a problem for you.

Would you care to research some other similar fires and compare results? You may feel punkd after that.

 

[Acanthus]

Similar results? Youre fucking stupid, when in the history of man has any event even similar to 9/11 occured?

That was the last straw, welcome to ignore.