WTC building 7

[daws101]

back on topic, jet fuel was not the cause of wtc7 fires..
no traces of thermite other accelerants or explosives were found ...

 

[irosie91]

back on topic, jet fuel was not the cause of wtc7 fires..
no traces of thermite other accelerants or explosives were found ...

I certainly BELIEVE that------ a plane crashed into the damn thing-----the event provided a few hundred reasons for fires to start up in a big building with all kinds
of machinery around, and electrical connections and------of course some chick with nail polish remover in her purse ........well ---anyway ----lots of reasons ----OH----the SEVEN building!!!!!!!!!-----that had all kinds of stuff FALL on it-----same thing

 

[daws101]

back on topic, jet fuel was not the cause of wtc7 fires..
no traces of thermite other accelerants or explosives were found ...

I certainly BELIEVE that------ a plane crashed into the damn thing-----the event provided a few hundred reasons for fires to start up in a big building with all kinds
of machinery around, and electrical connections and------of course some chick with nail polish remover in her purse ........well ---anyway ----lots of reasons ----OH----the SEVEN building!!!!!!!!!-----that had all kinds of stuff FALL on it-----same thing

a plane did not but wtc 1 did.

 

[irosie91]

back on topic, jet fuel was not the cause of wtc7 fires..
no traces of thermite other accelerants or explosives were found ...

I certainly BELIEVE that------ a plane crashed into the damn thing-----the event provided a few hundred reasons for fires to start up in a big building with all kinds
of machinery around, and electrical connections and------of course some chick with nail polish remover in her purse ........well ---anyway ----lots of reasons ----OH----the SEVEN building!!!!!!!!!-----that had all kinds of stuff FALL on it-----same thing

a plane did not but wtc 1 did.

right are we still talking about that building? As far as I recall there was
no one in it when it went down

 

[daws101]

back on topic, jet fuel was not the cause of wtc7 fires..
no traces of thermite other accelerants or explosives were found ...

I certainly BELIEVE that------ a plane crashed into the damn thing-----the event provided a few hundred reasons for fires to start up in a big building with all kinds
of machinery around, and electrical connections and------of course some chick with nail polish remover in her purse ........well ---anyway ----lots of reasons ----OH----the SEVEN building!!!!!!!!!-----that had all kinds of stuff FALL on it-----same thing

a plane did not but wtc 1 did.

right are we still talking about that building? As far as I recall there was
no one in it when it went down

not a soul ..nothing that couldn't be replaced either as a target is was useless.

 

[eots]

Same old silly YouTubes. Anyone can say anything and upload a video but none of the "witnesses" you quote tested the material ... NONE. Yet no matter how many times that truth is revealed, you continue to post your silliness.

You don't even listen to them.

Once more for the terminally dense: None of those "witnesses" tested the molten liquid for the presence of steel. None. Zilch. Zippo. Nada.

I still do not see the big time "STEEL" issue------but it is certainly true----I can melt some metals on my stove top

you can not melt steel on your stove top loon

But if all you want is to see steel melt, any old blowtorch will do the job. The metal at the end of the process will be useless for pretty much any technical purposes, though.

like you ever worked with metal

 

[eots]

back on topic, jet fuel was not the cause of wtc7 fires..
no traces of thermite other accelerants or explosives were found ...

I certainly BELIEVE that------ a plane crashed into the damn thing-----the event provided a few hundred reasons for fires to start up in a big building with all kinds
of machinery around, and electrical connections and------of course some chick with nail polish remover in her purse ........well ---anyway ----lots of reasons ----OH----the SEVEN building!!!!!!!!!-----that had all kinds of stuff FALL on it-----same thing

a plane did not but wtc 1 did.

right are we still talking about that building? As far as I recall there was
no one in it when it went down

so people can just blow up a 47 floor skyscraper on 9/11 and no one should care ?..the real question is why are you and cronies still talking about it..so why are you

 

[eots]

back on topic, jet fuel was not the cause of wtc7 fires..
no traces of thermite other accelerants or explosives were found ...

I certainly BELIEVE that------ a plane crashed into the damn thing-----the event provided a few hundred reasons for fires to start up in a big building with all kinds
of machinery around, and electrical connections and------of course some chick with nail polish remover in her purse ........well ---anyway ----lots of reasons ----OH----the SEVEN building!!!!!!!!!-----that had all kinds of stuff FALL on it-----same thing

a plane did not but wtc 1 did.

right are we still talking about that building? As far as I recall there was
no one in it when it went down

not a soul ..nothing that couldn't be replaced either as a target is was useless.

yet here is daws everyday ..like it was his job...trying to debwunk it

 

[irosie91]

back on topic, jet fuel was not the cause of wtc7 fires..
no traces of thermite other accelerants or explosives were found ...

I certainly BELIEVE that------ a plane crashed into the damn thing-----the event provided a few hundred reasons for fires to start up in a big building with all kinds
of machinery around, and electrical connections and------of course some chick with nail polish remover in her purse ........well ---anyway ----lots of reasons ----OH----the SEVEN building!!!!!!!!!-----that had all kinds of stuff FALL on it-----same thing

a plane did not but wtc 1 did.

right are we still talking about that building? As far as I recall there was
no one in it when it went down

not a soul ..nothing that couldn't be replaced either as a target is was useless.

yet here is daws everyday ..like it was his job...trying to debwunk it

I am here just about every day too-----what is your point??-----MY GOLDEN YEARS.........well----I do have to admit that a did some sneak up stuff on
computers at work -----during the ungolden years------but now my hours are FREE
and clear to communicate with the good people of US-messageboard
The seven building was clearly NOT the target -----it was just a bonus hit
for you and yours

 

[daws101]

You don't even listen to them.

Once more for the terminally dense: None of those "witnesses" tested the molten liquid for the presence of steel. None. Zilch. Zippo. Nada.

I still do not see the big time "STEEL" issue------but it is certainly true----I can melt some metals on my stove top

you can not melt steel on your stove top loon

But if all you want is to see steel melt, any old blowtorch will do the job. The metal at the end of the process will be useless for pretty much any technical purposes, though.

like you ever worked with metal

matter of fact I have, what you don't know about being on the technical side of show biz would fill a universe.
did you know what fabrication is? prop making?

 

[irosie91]

back on topic, jet fuel was not the cause of wtc7 fires..
no traces of thermite other accelerants or explosives were found ...

I certainly BELIEVE that------ a plane crashed into the damn thing-----the event provided a few hundred reasons for fires to start up in a big building with all kinds
of machinery around, and electrical connections and------of course some chick with nail polish remover in her purse ........well ---anyway ----lots of reasons ----OH----the SEVEN building!!!!!!!!!-----that had all kinds of stuff FALL on it-----same thing

a plane did not but wtc 1 did.

right are we still talking about that building? As far as I recall there was
no one in it when it went down

so people can just blow up a 47 floor skyscraper on 9/11 and no one should care ?..the real question is why are you and cronies still talking about it..so why are you

what makes you think "people BLEW IT UP? " I did not see the first plane hit---
but I saw the second----------the people controlling those planes were, clearly,
VERY MOTIVATED and the people celebrating the event (on Atlantic Avenue, Brooklyn) were very delighted with the event and the motivation of the people who controlled the planes

 

[daws101]

back on topic, jet fuel was not the cause of wtc7 fires..
no traces of thermite other accelerants or explosives were found ...

I certainly BELIEVE that------ a plane crashed into the damn thing-----the event provided a few hundred reasons for fires to start up in a big building with all kinds
of machinery around, and electrical connections and------of course some chick with nail polish remover in her purse ........well ---anyway ----lots of reasons ----OH----the SEVEN building!!!!!!!!!-----that had all kinds of stuff FALL on it-----same thing

a plane did not but wtc 1 did.

right are we still talking about that building? As far as I recall there was
no one in it when it went down

so people can just blow up a 47 floor skyscraper on 9/11 and no one should care ?..the real question is why are you and cronies still talking about it..so why are you

since nobody blew up anything your statement is nonsense.

 

[eots]

Once more for the terminally dense: None of those "witnesses" tested the molten liquid for the presence of steel. None. Zilch. Zippo. Nada.

I still do not see the big time "STEEL" issue------but it is certainly true----I can melt some metals on my stove top

you can not melt steel on your stove top loon

But if all you want is to see steel melt, any old blowtorch will do the job. The metal at the end of the process will be useless for pretty much any technical purposes, though.

there is something called "metal fatigue" <<< so poetic. Hubby depends on a STEEL BRACE-----that itself depends on a nice solid steel ---really strong---well made SWISS craftsmanship-----screw------it happens----now and then-----
the screw breaks and he is on the floor BANG!!!!!!. <<<< all simply because a 150lb male walks on this brace. (he does not even play soccer anymore)
Somehow the CT nuts imagine they are going to convince me that a plane crash
onto a steel frame building-----a fire burning for more than an hour thruout and stuff falling all over the place is not going to bother a few steel beams?

funny thing about it is it's a red herring.
the steel beams did not need to melt and did not .
all that was required was for them to be weakened and to bend shifting the load and gravity did the rest.
the amount of melted "metal" is so small it's inconsequential.

funny thing is there was molten metal and fire would not weaken a concrete a steel hi -rise to the point of collapse never has before 9/`11 or after

 

[daws101]

back on topic, jet fuel was not the cause of wtc7 fires..
no traces of thermite other accelerants or explosives were found ...

I certainly BELIEVE that------ a plane crashed into the damn thing-----the event provided a few hundred reasons for fires to start up in a big building with all kinds
of machinery around, and electrical connections and------of course some chick with nail polish remover in her purse ........well ---anyway ----lots of reasons ----OH----the SEVEN building!!!!!!!!!-----that had all kinds of stuff FALL on it-----same thing

a plane did not but wtc 1 did.

right are we still talking about that building? As far as I recall there was
no one in it when it went down

not a soul ..nothing that couldn't be replaced either as a target is was useless.

yet here is daws everyday ..like it was his job...trying to debwunk it

false I hadn't been here hardly at all until you came out of hiding.
and that's have successfully debunked it.

 

[irosie91]

Once more for the terminally dense: None of those "witnesses" tested the molten liquid for the presence of steel. None. Zilch. Zippo. Nada.

I still do not see the big time "STEEL" issue------but it is certainly true----I can melt some metals on my stove top

you can not melt steel on your stove top loon

But if all you want is to see steel melt, any old blowtorch will do the job. The metal at the end of the process will be useless for pretty much any technical purposes, though.

like you ever worked with metal

matter of fact I have, what you don't know about being on the technical side of show biz would fill a universe.
did you know what fabrication is? prop making?

can I add my side of fabrication? -------for me "fabrication" consisted for years-----of some criminal stating "I can't go back to jail----my left arm is paralyzed because the cop hit me" and the other fabrication was "I have no idea why I did
not come back to the navy base on Monday------I do not even remember my name"

 

[daws101]

I still do not see the big time "STEEL" issue------but it is certainly true----I can melt some metals on my stove top

you can not melt steel on your stove top loon

But if all you want is to see steel melt, any old blowtorch will do the job. The metal at the end of the process will be useless for pretty much any technical purposes, though.

there is something called "metal fatigue" <<< so poetic. Hubby depends on a STEEL BRACE-----that itself depends on a nice solid steel ---really strong---well made SWISS craftsmanship-----screw------it happens----now and then-----
the screw breaks and he is on the floor BANG!!!!!!. <<<< all simply because a 150lb male walks on this brace. (he does not even play soccer anymore)
Somehow the CT nuts imagine they are going to convince me that a plane crash
onto a steel frame building-----a fire burning for more than an hour thruout and stuff falling all over the place is not going to bother a few steel beams?

funny thing about it is it's a red herring.
the steel beams did not need to melt and did not .
all that was required was for them to be weakened and to bend shifting the load and gravity did the rest.
the amount of melted "metal" is so small it's inconsequential.

funny thing is there was molten metal and fire would not weaken a concrete a steel hi -rise to the point of collapse never has before 9/`11 or afterView attachment 40559

only because the same condition are not present....next!

 

[eots]

back on topic, jet fuel was not the cause of wtc7 fires..
no traces of thermite other accelerants or explosives were found ...

I certainly BELIEVE that------ a plane crashed into the damn thing-----the event provided a few hundred reasons for fires to start up in a big building with all kinds
of machinery around, and electrical connections and------of course some chick with nail polish remover in her purse ........well ---anyway ----lots of reasons ----OH----the SEVEN building!!!!!!!!!-----that had all kinds of stuff FALL on it-----same thing

a plane did not but wtc 1 did.

right are we still talking about that building? As far as I recall there was
no one in it when it went down

so people can just blow up a 47 floor skyscraper on 9/11 and no one should care ?..the real question is why are you and cronies still talking about it..so why are you

what makes you think "people BLEW IT UP? " I did not see the first plane hit---
but I saw the second----------the people controlling those planes were, clearly,
VERY MOTIVATED and the people celebrating the event (on Atlantic Avenue, Brooklyn) were very delighted with the event and the motivation of the people who controlled the planes

no plane wtc 7 dumbass

 

[eots]

you can not melt steel on your stove top loon

But if all you want is to see steel melt, any old blowtorch will do the job. The metal at the end of the process will be useless for pretty much any technical purposes, though.

there is something called "metal fatigue" <<< so poetic. Hubby depends on a STEEL BRACE-----that itself depends on a nice solid steel ---really strong---well made SWISS craftsmanship-----screw------it happens----now and then-----
the screw breaks and he is on the floor BANG!!!!!!. <<<< all simply because a 150lb male walks on this brace. (he does not even play soccer anymore)
Somehow the CT nuts imagine they are going to convince me that a plane crash
onto a steel frame building-----a fire burning for more than an hour thruout and stuff falling all over the place is not going to bother a few steel beams?

funny thing about it is it's a red herring.
the steel beams did not need to melt and did not .
all that was required was for them to be weakened and to bend shifting the load and gravity did the rest.
the amount of melted "metal" is so small it's inconsequential.

funny thing is there was molten metal and fire would not weaken a concrete a steel hi -rise to the point of collapse never has before 9/`11 or afterView attachment 40559

only because the same condition are not present....next!

liar...next

 

[irosie91]

I still do not see the big time "STEEL" issue------but it is certainly true----I can melt some metals on my stove top

you can not melt steel on your stove top loon

But if all you want is to see steel melt, any old blowtorch will do the job. The metal at the end of the process will be useless for pretty much any technical purposes, though.

there is something called "metal fatigue" <<< so poetic. Hubby depends on a STEEL BRACE-----that itself depends on a nice solid steel ---really strong---well made SWISS craftsmanship-----screw------it happens----now and then-----
the screw breaks and he is on the floor BANG!!!!!!. <<<< all simply because a 150lb male walks on this brace. (he does not even play soccer anymore)
Somehow the CT nuts imagine they are going to convince me that a plane crash
onto a steel frame building-----a fire burning for more than an hour thruout and stuff falling all over the place is not going to bother a few steel beams?

funny thing about it is it's a red herring.
the steel beams did not need to melt and did not .
all that was required was for them to be weakened and to bend shifting the load and gravity did the rest.
the amount of melted "metal" is so small it's inconsequential.

funny thing is there was molten metal and fire would not weaken a concrete a steel hi -rise to the point of collapse never has before 9/`11 or afterView attachment 40559

I do not think you are right about that ------ intense heat and intense SHAKE UP-----can weaken steel-------just a 150 lb man walking on a finely crafted swiss steel
brace--------ends up breaking now and then-----best steel and best craftsmanship.
Steel is just a crystal structure-------I can throw some ice against the wall and it
breaks. I once had a little diamond in a necklace and it CHIPPED

 

[daws101]

I certainly BELIEVE that------ a plane crashed into the damn thing-----the event provided a few hundred reasons for fires to start up in a big building with all kinds
of machinery around, and electrical connections and------of course some chick with nail polish remover in her purse ........well ---anyway ----lots of reasons ----OH----the SEVEN building!!!!!!!!!-----that had all kinds of stuff FALL on it-----same thing

a plane did not but wtc 1 did.

right are we still talking about that building? As far as I recall there was
no one in it when it went down

so people can just blow up a 47 floor skyscraper on 9/11 and no one should care ?..the real question is why are you and cronies still talking about it..so why are you

what makes you think "people BLEW IT UP? " I did not see the first plane hit---
but I saw the second----------the people controlling those planes were, clearly,
VERY MOTIVATED and the people celebrating the event (on Atlantic Avenue, Brooklyn) were very delighted with the event and the motivation of the people who controlled the planes

no plane wtc 7 dumbass

she knows that .