Why I hate 9-11 Truthers

[eots]

its not a debate when you make shit up and ignore evidence that is not part of your fairy tale opinion of how the world works.

Fuck off and Die.

my guess you are another one that does not even know the details of the official reports and is in no position to debate anything

damn funny coming from you...as you constantly leave out or intentionally mis interpret details of those same documents..
or you are just stupid...

really...name one

 

[daws101]

Well,

After the 1993 bombing, the building(s) were deemed unsafe and had to come down. Then after the 1999-2000 Iraqi oil map was drawn up by Saddam Hussein allowing everyone but the US to drill and explore, the map needed to be changed.

the problem with the average truther is that they fail to have a motive.

physics does not require motive...

bahahahahahahahahahaha!
the most asinine statement by a twoofer ever!

 

[eots]

Well,

After the 1993 bombing, the building(s) were deemed unsafe and had to come down. Then after the 1999-2000 Iraqi oil map was drawn up by Saddam Hussein allowing everyone but the US to drill and explore, the map needed to be changed.

the problem with the average truther is that they fail to have a motive.

physics does not require motive...

bahahahahahahahahahaha!
the most asinine statement by a twoofer ever!

care to elaborate...or is just another of your meaningless vague statements
are you trying to imply physics does require a motive ?

 

[daws101]

my guess you are another one that does not even know the details of the official reports and is in no position to debate anything

damn funny coming from you...as you constantly leave out or intentionally mis interpret details of those same documents..
or you are just stupid...

really...name one

Did investigators consider the possibility that an explosion caused or contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?
Yes, this possibility was investigated carefully. NIST concluded that blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event.

In addition, no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses. According to calculations by the investigation team, the smallest blast capable of failing the building's critical column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 decibels (dB) to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile, if unobstructed by surrounding buildings. This sound level is consistent with a gunshot blast, standing next to a jet plane engine, and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert.

For the building to have been prepared for intentional demolition, walls and/or column enclosures and fireproofing would have to be removed and replaced without being detected. Preparing a column includes steps such as cutting sections with torches, which produces noxious and odorous fumes. Intentional demolition usually requires applying explosive charges to most, if not all, interior columns, not just one or a limited set of columns in a building.

Is it possible that thermite or thermate contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?
NIST has looked at the application and use of thermite and has determined that its use to sever columns in WTC 7 on 9/11/01 was unlikely.

Thermite is a combination of aluminum powder and a metal oxide that releases a tremendous amount of heat when ignited. It is typically used to weld railroad rails together by melting a small quantity of steel and pouring the melted steel into a form between the two rails.

To apply thermite to a large steel column, approximately 0.13 lb of thermite would be needed to heat and melt each pound of steel. For a steel column that weighs approximately 1,000 lbs. per foot, at least 100 lbs. of thermite would need to be placed around the column, ignited, and remain in contact with the vertical steel surface as the thermite reaction took place. This is for one column . presumably, more than one column would have been prepared with thermite, if this approach were to be used.

It is unlikely that 100 lbs. of thermite, or more, could have been carried into WTC 7 and placed around columns without being detected, either prior to Sept. 11 or during that day.

Given the fires that were observed that day, and the demonstrated structural response to the fires, NIST does not believe that thermite was used to fail any columns in WTC 7.

Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC buildings, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard used for interior partitions.

An emergency responder caught in the building between the 6th and 8th floors says he heard two loud booms. Isn't that evidence that there was an explosion?
The sound levels reported by all witnesses do not match the sound level of an explosion that would have been required to cause the collapse of the building. If the two loud booms were due to explosions that were responsible for the collapse of WTC 7, the emergency responder-located somewhere between the 6th and 8th floors in WTC 7-would not have been able to survive the near immediate collapse and provide this witness account.

Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation

need more?

 

[daws101]

You're not very bright, I see. That's alright. YOu'll still be in here not being so bright this time next year when I'm willing to entertain this topic.

your answer just screams dodge......

 

[eots]

damn funny coming from you...as you constantly leave out or intentionally mis interpret details of those same documents..
or you are just stupid...

really...name one

Did investigators consider the possibility that an explosion caused or contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?
Yes, this possibility was investigated carefully. NIST concluded that blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event.

they say they investigated carefully but do not say what was done..NIST did not test any of the debris for explosive residue...this is a fact

In addition, no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses.

we all know this is a completely false statement and there where many reports of explosions

According to calculations by the investigation team, the smallest blast capable of failing the building's critical column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 decibels (dB) to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile, if unobstructed by surrounding buildings. This sound level is consistent with a gunshot blast, standing next to a jet plane engine, and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert.

if the loudest explosive where used with no sound damping

For the building to have been prepared for intentional demolition, walls and/or column enclosures and fireproofing would have to be removed and replaced without being detected. Preparing a column includes steps such as cutting sections with torches, which produces noxious and odorous fumes. Intentional demolition usually requires applying explosive charges to most, if not all, interior columns, not just one or a limited set of columns in a building.

Is it possible that thermite or thermate contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?
NIST has looked at the application and use of thermite and has determined that its use to sever columns in WTC 7 on 9/11/01 was unlikely.

unlikely ??...it was unlikely ..so you do not test for it ??

Thermite is a combination of aluminum powder and a metal oxide that releases a tremendous amount of heat when ignited. It is typically used to weld railroad rails together by melting a small quantity of steel and pouring the melted steel into a form between the two rails.

To apply thermite to a large steel column, approximately 0.13 lb of thermite would be needed to heat and melt each pound of steel. For a steel column that weighs approximately 1,000 lbs. per foot, at least 100 lbs. of thermite would need to be placed around the column, ignited, and remain in contact with the vertical steel surface as the thermite reaction took place. This is for one column . presumably, more than one column would have been prepared with thermite, if this approach were to be used.

It is unlikely that 100 lbs. of thermite, or more, could have been carried into WTC 7 and placed around columns without being detected, either prior to Sept. 11 or during that day.

once again unlikely ??... because they think it would be difficult they do not test for it ??
they say its...unlikely...so they are not sure ?

given the fires that were observed that day, and the demonstrated structural response to the fires, NIST does not believe that thermite was used to fail any columns in WTC 7.

so they do not know..as they never tested...they simply ...do not believe

Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC buildings, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard used for interior partitions.

may may of not been conclusive...so again they dont ...know...it just.. might not have

An emergency responder caught in the building between the 6th and 8th floors says he heard two loud booms. Isn't that evidence that there was an explosion?
The sound levels reported by all witnesses do not match the sound level of an explosion that would have been required to cause the collapse of the building. If the two loud booms were due to explosions that were responsible for the collapse of WTC 7, the emergency responder-located somewhere between the 6th and 8th floors in WTC 7-would not have been able to survive the near immediate collapse and provide this witness account.

this statement is all based on a lot assumptions..not on any verifiable science


Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation

need more?

need more ? all you did was cut and paste a NIST FAQ sheet

 

[daws101]

physics does not require motive...

bahahahahahahahahahaha!
the most asinine statement by a twoofer ever!

care to elaborate...or is just another of your meaningless vague statements
are you trying to imply physics does require a motive ?

I'm not implying shit ....
your quip is meaningless...physics has fuck all to do with WHY 911 happened and everything to do with WHAT happened.
I sometimes forget that you have comprehension issues..

but to answer your nearly as asinine second statement YES.
For the laws of physics to change or be broken as you're always whining about, some sort of opposing force (motivation) must be applied = "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction"
so as always your imagined cleverness is not.

 

[daws101]

really...name one

Did investigators consider the possibility that an explosion caused or contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?
Yes, this possibility was investigated carefully. NIST concluded that blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event.

In addition, no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses. According to calculations by the investigation team, the smallest blast capable of failing the building's critical column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 decibels (dB) to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile, if unobstructed by surrounding buildings. This sound level is consistent with a gunshot blast, standing next to a jet plane engine, and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert.

For the building to have been prepared for intentional demolition, walls and/or column enclosures and fireproofing would have to be removed and replaced without being detected. Preparing a column includes steps such as cutting sections with torches, which produces noxious and odorous fumes. Intentional demolition usually requires applying explosive charges to most, if not all, interior columns, not just one or a limited set of columns in a building.

Is it possible that thermite or thermate contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?
NIST has looked at the application and use of thermite and has determined that its use to sever columns in WTC 7 on 9/11/01 was unlikely.

Thermite is a combination of aluminum powder and a metal oxide that releases a tremendous amount of heat when ignited. It is typically used to weld railroad rails together by melting a small quantity of steel and pouring the melted steel into a form between the two rails.

To apply thermite to a large steel column, approximately 0.13 lb of thermite would be needed to heat and melt each pound of steel. For a steel column that weighs approximately 1,000 lbs. per foot, at least 100 lbs. of thermite would need to be placed around the column, ignited, and remain in contact with the vertical steel surface as the thermite reaction took place. This is for one column . presumably, more than one column would have been prepared with thermite, if this approach were to be used.

It is unlikely that 100 lbs. of thermite, or more, could have been carried into WTC 7 and placed around columns without being detected, either prior to Sept. 11 or during that day.

Given the fires that were observed that day, and the demonstrated structural response to the fires, NIST does not believe that thermite was used to fail any columns in WTC 7.

Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC buildings, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard used for interior partitions.

An emergency responder caught in the building between the 6th and 8th floors says he heard two loud booms. Isn't that evidence that there was an explosion?
The sound levels reported by all witnesses do not match the sound level of an explosion that would have been required to cause the collapse of the building. If the two loud booms were due to explosions that were responsible for the collapse of WTC 7, the emergency responder-located somewhere between the 6th and 8th floors in WTC 7-would not have been able to survive the near immediate collapse and provide this witness account.

Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation

need more?

need more ? all you did was cut and paste a NIST FAQ sheet

that's all I needed to do.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Well good morning to you too.

Here's a challenge. Post a single video of a building falling down from structural damage that even slightly resembles how any one of the towers fell.

How many buildings have a tube-within-tube design?

The impact severs some columns on the north side of the North Tower. Each tower is designed as a “tube-in-tube” structure and the steel columns which support its weight are arranged around the perimeter and in the core. The plane, which weighs 283,600 lb and is traveling at an estimated speed of around 430 mph (see October 2002-October 2005), severs 35 of the building’s 236 perimeter columns and damages another two. The damage to the South Tower’s perimeter will be similar (see 9:03 a.m. September 11, 2001). [National Institute of Standards and Technology, 9/2005, pp. 5-9, 20, 22 ] The perimeter columns bear about half of the tower’s weight, so this damage reduces its ability to bear gravity loads by about 7.5 percent. [National Institute of Standards and Technology, 9/2005, pp. 6 ] The actual damage to the 47 core columns is not known, as there are no photographs or videos of it, but there will be much speculation about this after 9/11. It will be suggested that some parts of the aircraft may have damaged the core even after crashing through the exterior wall. According to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST): “Moving at 500 mph, an engine broke any exterior column it hit. If the engine missed the floor slab, the majority of the engine core remained intact and had enough residual momentum to sever a core column upon direct impact.” [National Institute of Standards and Technology, 9/2005, pp. 107 ] According to NIST’s base case computer model, three of the core columns are severed and another ten suffer some damage. [National Institute of Standards & Technology, 9/2005, pp. 189 ] If this is accurate, it means that the impact damage to the core reduces the Tower’s strength by another approximately 7.5 percent, meaning that the building loses about 15 percent of its strength in total. This damage will be cited after 9/11 by NIST and others researchers as an event contributing to the building’s collapse (see October 23, 2002 and October 19, 2004). In addition, some of the fireproofing on the steel columns and trusses may be dislodged. The original fireproofing on the fire floors was mostly Blazeshield DC/F, but some of the fireproofing on the flooring has recently been upgraded to Blazeshield II, which is about 20 percent denser and 20 percent more adhesive. [National Institute of Standards & Technology, 9/2005, pp. xxxvi, 83 ] Photographs and videos of the towers will not show the state of fireproofing inside the buildings, but NIST will estimate the damage to it using a computer model. Its severe case model (see (October 2002-October 2005)) will predict that 43 of the 47 core columns are stripped of their fireproofing on one or more floors and that fireproofing is stripped from trusses covering 60,000 ft2 of floor area, the equivalent of about one and a half floors. NIST will say that the loss of fireproofing is a major cause of the collapse (see April 5, 2005), but only performs 15 tests on fireproofing samples (see October 26, 2005). [National Institute of Standards and Technology, 9/2005, pp. 23 ] According to NIST, more fireproofing is stripped from the South Tower (see 9:03 a.m. September 11, 2001).

Complete 911 Timeline: Bush's Actions on 9/11

Its funny this propaganda piece was even been posted because the credibility of the NIST report has been shot to hell since like i just got done saying, they were caught red handed lying saying there were no pools of molten metal found when several firefighters reported seeing molten metal everywhere. so posting this garbage is all pretty pointless.

I could post those videos where the lead investigater of NIST said that and eyewitnesses reporting they saw molten metal as well by why bother since it will just go ignored.

I love their lies they came up with as well saying just a few columns being knocked out caused it to collapse.
they also conveintly forgot to mention that after the 93 bombing the fireproofing was reinforced even much more so not to come off because of fires.

These three videos that Eots posted earlier debunk the lies and propaganda of NIST as well.






This last one below REALLY shreads to pieces the lies and propaganda of the NIST report.The 9/11 apologist trolls like clockwork, wont watch it of course since they are too afraid to look at the facts.



I love how all the news reporters said bld 7 was struturally unsafe so thats why it was going to collapse.what they forget to point out that I have said thousands of times before and always go ignored though is that there were other buildings much closer to to the towers that had damage that was far more extensive than bld 7 hit by debris so they had far more structral damage done to them yet they did not collapse.

The trolls here of course embrace the theory that it was just a mere coincidence that all three towers that collapsed were all owned by Larry Silverstein and all the other buildings that did not collapse were not.Just a major coincidence according to all the trolls here that worship the 9/11 coverup commission.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Did investigators consider the possibility that an explosion caused or contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?
Yes, this possibility was investigated carefully. NIST concluded that blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event.

they say they investigated carefully but do not say what was done..NIST did not test any of the debris for explosive residue...this is a fact


we all know this is a completely false statement and there where many reports of explosions
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERhoNYj9_fg]WTC 7: Sound Evidence for Explosions - YouTube[/ame]


if the loudest explosive where used with no sound damping

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5IgqJXyLbg]Tom Sullivan - Explosives Technician - Loader - AE911Truth.org - YouTube[/ame]



unlikely ??...it was unlikely ..so you do not test for it ??

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E20yiD_QdPw]Thermate Cutting Steel; Jonathan H. Cole, P.E. - YouTube[/ame]




once again unlikely ??... because they think it would be difficult they do not test for it ??
they say its...unlikely...so they are not sure ?



so they do not know..as they never tested...they simply ...do not believe




may may of not been conclusive...so again they dont ...know...it just.. might not have

An emergency responder caught in the building between the 6th and 8th floors says he heard two loud booms. Isn't that evidence that there was an explosion?
The sound levels reported by all witnesses do not match the sound level of an explosion that would have been required to cause the collapse of the building. If the two loud booms were due to explosions that were responsible for the collapse of WTC 7, the emergency responder-located somewhere between the 6th and 8th floors in WTC 7-would not have been able to survive the near immediate collapse and provide this witness account.

this statement is all based on a lot assumptions..not on any verifiable science


Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation

need more?

need more ? all you did was cut and paste a NIST FAQ sheet

Like clockwork,as usual,Dawgshit gets his ass handed to him on a platter.But what else is new?

They sure pay him well for the constant humiliation and ass beatings he gets here everyday.No way would he keep coming back for this punishment everyday for free.

 

[eots]

Did investigators consider the possibility that an explosion caused or contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?
Yes, this possibility was investigated carefully. NIST concluded that blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event.

In addition, no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses. According to calculations by the investigation team, the smallest blast capable of failing the building's critical column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 decibels (dB) to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile, if unobstructed by surrounding buildings. This sound level is consistent with a gunshot blast, standing next to a jet plane engine, and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert.

For the building to have been prepared for intentional demolition, walls and/or column enclosures and fireproofing would have to be removed and replaced without being detected. Preparing a column includes steps such as cutting sections with torches, which produces noxious and odorous fumes. Intentional demolition usually requires applying explosive charges to most, if not all, interior columns, not just one or a limited set of columns in a building.

Is it possible that thermite or thermate contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?
NIST has looked at the application and use of thermite and has determined that its use to sever columns in WTC 7 on 9/11/01 was unlikely.

Thermite is a combination of aluminum powder and a metal oxide that releases a tremendous amount of heat when ignited. It is typically used to weld railroad rails together by melting a small quantity of steel and pouring the melted steel into a form between the two rails.

To apply thermite to a large steel column, approximately 0.13 lb of thermite would be needed to heat and melt each pound of steel. For a steel column that weighs approximately 1,000 lbs. per foot, at least 100 lbs. of thermite would need to be placed around the column, ignited, and remain in contact with the vertical steel surface as the thermite reaction took place. This is for one column . presumably, more than one column would have been prepared with thermite, if this approach were to be used.

It is unlikely that 100 lbs. of thermite, or more, could have been carried into WTC 7 and placed around columns without being detected, either prior to Sept. 11 or during that day.

Given the fires that were observed that day, and the demonstrated structural response to the fires, NIST does not believe that thermite was used to fail any columns in WTC 7.

Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC buildings, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard used for interior partitions.

An emergency responder caught in the building between the 6th and 8th floors says he heard two loud booms. Isn't that evidence that there was an explosion?
The sound levels reported by all witnesses do not match the sound level of an explosion that would have been required to cause the collapse of the building. If the two loud booms were due to explosions that were responsible for the collapse of WTC 7, the emergency responder-located somewhere between the 6th and 8th floors in WTC 7-would not have been able to survive the near immediate collapse and provide this witness account.

Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation

need more?

need more ? all you did was cut and paste a NIST FAQ sheet

that's all I needed to do.

No it is not...but you are lazy and not to bright and do the minimum required to get your pay check...dont lie

 

[daws101]

need more ? all you did was cut and paste a NIST FAQ sheet

that's all I needed to do.

No it is not...but you are lazy and not to bright and do the minimum required to get your pay check...dont lie

the only liar here is you...
and that post proves it.
you also lie when you posted thiese little gems " post #158.. post#160
post#38 from http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...-documentary-among-most-watched-on-pbs-3.html

 

[Synthaholic]

How many buildings have a tube-within-tube design?

I said the same thing. Don't hold your breath. There's no point in bothering. You'll just get a dozen more pages of the same old pasted videos.

WTC 7 did not have a tube-within-tube design and the towers where designed to take multiple strikes from commercial aircraft

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fQlC2AIWrY"]WTC Towers Designed to Withstand Impact of Loaded Boeing 707 - YouTube[/ame]

When the towers were designed, did they account for fuel?

What was the fuel capacity in early 1970 planes?

Has airline fuel changed since the early 1970s?

 

[LA RAM FAN]

I said the same thing. Don't hold your breath. There's no point in bothering. You'll just get a dozen more pages of the same old pasted videos.

WTC 7 did not have a tube-within-tube design and the towers where designed to take multiple strikes from commercial aircraft

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fQlC2AIWrY"]WTC Towers Designed to Withstand Impact of Loaded Boeing 707 - YouTube[/ame]

When the towers were designed, did they account for fuel?

What was the fuel capacity in early 1970 planes?

Has airline fuel changed since the early 1970s?

as usual,you 9/11 apologists dont watch the videos anytime we show them to you.all your questions are irrelevent because if you had bothered to watch the video you would have heard how he said it was designed to take hits from MULTIPLE airliners.

the proof is in the pudding from the films as well that the majority of the explosion took place OUTSIDE the towers when they hit the towers.the fires were not intense at all.They werent hot enough to melt a marshmellow let along weaken the steel. we know that because the photos show a women leaning on the steel frames waving the towel out thw window for help.If they were serious at all,she wouldnt have been able to do that.

Oh and just a couple of columns of steel being knocked out cant cause a steel tower to collapse at free fall speed.

oh and finally.yes they anticipcated it as well of AIRLINERS slamming into the towers and jet fuel fires happening.the lead designer said there would be a great loss of lives but the struture itself would remain standing.

Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there. 3


9-11 Research: Towers' Design Parameters

again posting that propaganda NIST report is pointless since NIST has no credibility in the fact they LIED about there being no pools of molten metal amongst other things as well.

anymore pointless and irrelevent questions?

 

[eots]

I said the same thing. Don't hold your breath. There's no point in bothering. You'll just get a dozen more pages of the same old pasted videos.

WTC 7 did not have a tube-within-tube design and the towers where designed to take multiple strikes from commercial aircraft

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fQlC2AIWrY"]WTC Towers Designed to Withstand Impact of Loaded Boeing 707 - YouTube[/ame]

When the towers were designed, did they account for fuel?

What was the fuel capacity in early 1970 planes?

Has airline fuel changed since the early 1970s?

fuel is a none issue...NIST coincides the fuel was burned off in the initial fire ball and from that point in was a office contents on fire..firemen made in to the impact area and reported no fires they could not control

 

[eots]

that's all I needed to do.

No it is not...but you are lazy and not to bright and do the minimum required to get your pay check...dont lie

the only liar here is you...
and that post proves it.
you also lie when you posted thiese little gems " post #158.. post#160
post#38 from http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...-documentary-among-most-watched-on-pbs-3.html

you are pathetic agent... incapable of responding to anything specific..you should be ashamed to collect a check for the substandard work you do

 

[martybegan]

I said the same thing. Don't hold your breath. There's no point in bothering. You'll just get a dozen more pages of the same old pasted videos.

WTC 7 did not have a tube-within-tube design and the towers where designed to take multiple strikes from commercial aircraft

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fQlC2AIWrY"]WTC Towers Designed to Withstand Impact of Loaded Boeing 707 - YouTube[/ame]

When the towers were designed, did they account for fuel?

What was the fuel capacity in early 1970 planes?

Has airline fuel changed since the early 1970s?

One thing I always love about truthers, it takes two people who usually fight tooth an nail against each other on other topics, and brings us together.

They wont answer the question, just post videos of other people doing the "thinking" for them.

 

[Synthaholic]

WTC 7 did not have a tube-within-tube design and the towers where designed to take multiple strikes from commercial aircraft

WTC Towers Designed to Withstand Impact of Loaded Boeing 707 - YouTube

When the towers were designed, did they account for fuel?

What was the fuel capacity in early 1970 planes?

Has airline fuel changed since the early 1970s?

fuel is a none issue...NIST coincides the fuel was burned off in the initial fire ball and from that point in was a office contents on fire..firemen made in to the impact area and reported no fires they could not control

Thanks - I was just asking the questions, not "apologizing" for anything.

 

[Synthaholic]

Just for the record: I'm not a truther, nor do I buy everything we were told by the Bushies.

I still have a lot of unanswered questions. For instance:

It's a fact that all the security cameras in the area of the Pentagon had their video confiscated by authorities, whether it was a nearby gas station, bank, etc.

Why? And why haven't we seen any of that footage?

Shit like that makes me very suspicious.

 

[emptystep]

You're not very bright, I see. That's alright. YOu'll still be in here not being so bright this time next year when I'm willing to entertain this topic.

Are you thinking that thermite was not used? From the way I see it thermite was definitely used, or something similar. Of course something was used in addition to that.