Some simple Tower 7 questions

[Submersible]

I'm sure most if not all of these questions are redundant, but I haven't found where they were asked or answered before so here goes...

What contents would you typically find in an office building that would provide a heat source hot enough to burn through the spray on fireproofing then weaken the structural integrity of the main support beams in tower 7?

Besides the kink or fault show in this image:

the structure appears to fall almost perfectly horizontal.

If there was something in the building that would have reached and maintained a temperature above approx. 2000 degrees for an extended period of time, wouldn't that fuel source have to be located at nearly all of the main support beams for the building to fall "flush" like that?

If there was a fuel source located and burning at the base of most of the main support beams, is it scientifically possible that the steel in all of the beams could have reached a "failure temperature" simultaneously?

According to the image above, what phenomenon could explain the sudden burst of THICK dust and debris from the ground floors of the structure... other than an explosion?

Since the "official" reports state that the collapse of the building was due to the intense fire's in the building, why can't you see any signs of fire in any of the video's that show the building in the seconds prior to it's collapse?

By just looking at that short video clip, would you say that nearly ALL of the main support beams in the structure had to "fail" at the same exact time?

How can people watch the video's of the structure as it falls and not describe an orchestrated or controlled demolition?

I don't know what happened, and I'm not trying to place the blame or point a finger in any direction. But with the specs on the steel used to build the tower, combined with the video and still photographs of the building prior to and as it collapsed, and considering the contents of the building... isn't it scientifically impossible to blame the destruction of this building on the heat from an unfueled FIRE?

Thanks ,
Sub

 

[cloudshipsrule]

Sub,

You are missing one important piece of the puzzle. It was not ONLY fire that brought the building down. The building also suffered damage from two of the world's tallest buildings falling in close proximity. That cannot be ignored, and must be taken into consideration when analyzing the failure mechanism(s) of WTC7.

Numerous fire fighters working building 7 commented that it sounded as though it was about to collapse prior to said collapse. The fire fighters were 'pull'ing everyone out because they thought she was in imminent danger of collapse. Hey, what do ya' know? They were right.

 

[W6102LA]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=69994

I think it would of been pretty obvious to anyone who was there if it was a controlled demolition like the one in the link above, like lots of explosions.

 

[PerryLogan]

I thought the bad guys brought it down just to leave more clues. Conspirators love to leave clues that are really obvious to conspiracy buffs--but invisible to everyone else in the world.

 

[MG1962]

What contents would you typically find in an office building that would provide a heat source hot enough to burn through the spray on fireproofing then weaken the structural integrity of the main support beams in tower 7?

I cant speak for a typical office. But Tower 7 contained some 30,000 gallons of diesel fuel

Also it must be remembered in construction. Fire proofing actually means retarding or slowing the spread of fire. The best building code rating I have seen is 3 hours. Remember the normal assumption is someone will come along at sometime and try to fight the thing. In WTC 7 - This didn't happen

 

[cloudshipsrule]

Yes, but that building in the link above is much larger than building 7!

It's not as if there weren't dozens of people near building 7 through the entire ordeal, right up to the moment of collapse. If it had been a controlled demo it would have been unmistakable to the numerous bystanders. Are any of them crying foul?? The only people claiming controlled demo are idiots analyzing crappy footage from YouTube.

It's already been explained, ad nauseum, how planted explosives would NOT HAVE SURVIVED the fire that raged on numerous floors of building number 7 for a good part of the afternoon.

Drop it!

 

[maccy]

Some Suggested Reading

This is still being investigated by NIST, but there's some good information here:

FEMA's initial report:

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf

NIST's working hypothesis:

http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf

Counterpunch article:

http://www.counterpunch.org/darkfire11282006.html

911 Myths WTC7 page:

http://911myths.com/html/wtc7___silverstein.html

Screwloosechange blog entry on WTC7

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/06/wtc-7.html

Debunking911.com on WTC7

http://www.debunking911.com/WTC72.htm

Gravy's WTC7 Paper (skip part one for the time being)

http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.doc (Microsoft Word version)
http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.pdf (Adobe Acrobat PDF version)

Finally, some threads that are relevant to at least some of your questions

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=70067
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=67656 (gets going once Russell Pickering arrives)
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=66010

 

[MikeW]

What contents would you typically find in an office building that would provide a heat source hot enough to burn through the spray on fireproofing then weaken the structural integrity of the main support beams in tower 7?

I believe most of the fireproofing was rated for only two to three hours: the building burned for considerably longer.

If there was something in the building that would have reached and maintained a temperature above approx. 2000 degrees for an extended period of time...

What's your basis for choosing 2000 degrees as the minimum temperature where this could happen?

If there was a fuel source located and burning at the base of most of the main support beams, is it scientifically possible that the steel in all of the beams could have reached a "failure temperature" simultaneously?

Only the CTers say every beam needed to fail simultaneously: it's a straw man, nothing more.

According to the image above, what phenomenon could explain the sudden burst of THICK dust and debris from the ground floors of the structure... other than an explosion?

What would you expect to see as a result of the collapse of the penthouses and structures within the building, for instance?

Since the "official" reports state that the collapse of the building was due to the intense fire's in the building, why can't you see any signs of fire in any of the video's that show the building in the seconds prior to it's collapse?

The official reports haven't been completed yet. However, we might speculate what caused the enormous amounts of black smoke seen pouring from WTC7 during the day (see http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_fire.html)?

[qimg]http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fema/wtc-7-small.gif[/qimg] By just looking at that short video clip, would you say that nearly ALL of the main support beams in the structure had to "fail" at the same exact time?

No.

How can people watch the video's of the structure as it falls and not describe an orchestrated or controlled demolition?

Easily.

I don't know what happened, and I'm not trying to place the blame or point a finger in any direction.

Uh-huh.

 

[eeyore1954]

The video you are showing is taken from the back and from a distance you cannot tell what way the building fell on the damaged side

 

[maccy]

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fema/wtc-7-small.gif
By just looking at that short video clip, would you say that nearly ALL of the main support beams in the structure had to "fail" at the same exact time?

This is NIST's most recently published thinking on how the collapse progressed:

Interior columns 79, 80, and 81, were located directly below the east penthouse on the roof and supported large tributary areas. It appears that some sequence of component failures in the region identified in Figs. L–29 and L–30 led to the failure of one or more of these columns, as discussed above. The failure progressed vertically upward within the failed bay to the roof level, based upon observations of window breakage relative to failure of rooftop structures, and was first visible from the exterior when the east penthouse lost support (see Fig. L–26).

The 5 s to 6 s delay between the failure of the east penthouse and the failure of the screenwall and west penthouse (shown in Fig. L–27) approximates the time it would take for the debris pile from the vertical failure progression on the east side of the building to reach Floors 5 to 7 and damage the transfer trusses and girders in this area.

A kink developed in the north facade approximately where column 76 projects to the north face. The kink may have formed in the plane of the north facade or it may represent a displacement in the structure along this line towards the south. The area of this kink correlates to the easternmost cantilever transfer at Floor 7. All of the Floor 7 cantilever transfer girders had back spans supported along the line of the north core columns, of which the easternmost one was supported by truss # 1. This north facade kink also coincides with the girders at the eastern edge of the cooling tower area at Floor 46. When the screenwall and the west penthouse sank into the building, a line of windows broke from Floor 44 down to the bottom of the visible range, which is approximately at Floor 33 on the west side of the structure (see Fig. L–27). This area aligns with column 61, which is supported by the cantilevered end of transfer truss #3 between Floors 5 and 7, as shown in Fig. L–31. This suggests that the observed window breakage may be related to the failure of column 61 or truss #3.

The simultaneous failure of screenwall and west penthouse structures, window breakage on the west side of the north facade, and initiation of global collapse (see Fig. L–28) indicates that the building loads could no longer be supported. Horizontal progression of the collapse appears to have occurred after the vertical collapse on the east side of the building. The greater strength of Floors 5 and 7 relative to the other floors and the transfer trusses between these floors suggests that this region of the building played a key role in destabilizing the remaining core columns, and the global collapse occurred with few external signs prior to the system failure.

All of the photographic and videographic records show the north facade collapsing from below the visible area; the facade appears to sink into the ground without any sign of the other floors in the visible portion of the building collapsing. This may indicate that the collapse of the facade starts below the area visible in the photographic and videographic records.

http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf

I'm sure they will go into more detail as they release the interim and then the final report.

 

[jhunter1163]

Find a post by Gravy, any will do, and click the WTC7 link in his sig. The wisdom you seek is there, grasshopper.

 

[MRC_Hans]

I'm sure most if not all of these questions are redundant, but I haven't found where they were asked or answered before so here goes...

So we must assume this is your very first day on the internet. Well, welcome!

What contents would you typically find in an office building that would provide a heat source hot enough to burn through the spray on fireproofing then weaken the structural integrity of the main support beams in tower 7?

Anything that would burn for more than the 3 hours that the best fire-retardant is rated for. In a normal office building, paper, furniture, in WTC7 add a large diesel storage (for the UPS system).

Besides the kink or fault show in this image:
(Picture snipped, for space considerations)
the structure appears to fall almost perfectly horizontal.

Yes, apart from the fact that it didn't fall horizontally (that kink is several storeys deep), it almost fell horizontally.

If there was something in the building that would have reached and maintained a temperature above approx. 2000 degrees for an extended period of time, wouldn't that fuel source have to be located at nearly all of the main support beams for the building to fall "flush" like that?

A steel beam softens much before (50% loss of strenght at appr. 900 deg C), and only enough supports need to fail to overload the rest. Then the failure avalanches.

If there was a fuel source located and burning at the base of most of the main support beams, is it scientifically possible that the steel in all of the beams could have reached a "failure temperature" simultaneously?

Possible, but unlikely. And not necessary.

According to the image above, what phenomenon could explain the sudden burst of THICK dust and debris from the ground floors of the structure... other than an explosion?

A building like that is 80-90% air. Once the building collapses, that air has to go out. Since lots of dust is created in the collapse, it is blown out with the air. An explosion does not create a dust cloud, it creates a shockwave.

Since the "official" reports state that the collapse of the building was due to the intense fire's in the building, why can't you see any signs of fire in any of the video's that show the building in the seconds prior to it's collapse?

No signs of fire? What would YOU call a 500ft wide column of black smoke? A sign of fire, perhaps?

By just looking at that short video clip, would you say that nearly ALL of the main support beams in the structure had to "fail" at the same exact time?

No, they could fail one by one over hours, up to the point when the load on the remaining supports exceeded their strenght. Then, the rest will fail in very rapid succession.

How can people watch the video's of the structure as it falls and not describe an orchestrated or controlled demolition?

- Lack of evidence for any explosions.
- Lack of evidence for anybody planting explosives.
- Presense of evidence for collapse due to damages.

I don't know what happened, and I'm not trying to place the blame or point a finger in any direction. But with the specs on the steel used to build the tower, combined with the video and still photographs of the building prior to and as it collapsed, and considering the contents of the building... isn't it scientifically impossible to blame the destruction of this building on the heat from an unfueled FIRE?

From an unfueled fire? Certainly! Such things don't even exist, afaik. But there was plenty of fuel in WTC7.

Thanks ,
Sub

My pleasure.

Hans

 

[The Doc]

Man I gotta get me some of these explosives!

1) Totally resistant to fire. I could put them in fire for 6 hours and nothing would happen to them!

2) Invisible! No one can see them sticking out of a column all wired up.

And I should hire one of those demolition teams that can place nearly 50 floors worth of explosives - TOTALLY UN-NOTICED!

In 24 days, CDI's 12 person loading crew placed 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on 9 levels of the structure. Over 36,000 ft. of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay devices were installed in CDI's implosion initiation system. As the implosion required the detonation of a total of 2,728 lb. of explosives, CDI implemented 36 "primary delays" and an additional 216 “micro-delays" in the implosion initiation sequence in an attempt to keep detonation overpressure to a minimum.
http://www.controlled-demolition.com/default.asp?reqLocId=6&reqItemId=20020304145120

That's a 9 storey building demolished by CDI. That's the work it took to bring down 9 storeys. 1/5th the height of WTC7.

So assuming that WTC7 was demolished (which it clearly wasn't), how do you explain:

1)

Either
a) Hundreds of Demolition workers working in an extremely short amount of time. All of them go un-noticed. NONE speak out.

b) Few demolition workers working in the building over a LOOONG period of time. Over their whole work period no one notices them and none of them speak out.

2)

Seeing as WTC7 was 50 storeys, I will re-evaluate standard proceedure to suit this WTC7 situation.

"In 24 days, A 60 person loading crew placed 20,590 separate charges in 5,500 locations on 49 levels of the structure. Over 180,000 ft. of detonating cord and 22,560 non-electric delay devices were installed in the implosion initiation system."

So if we take the example from the 9 storey building and roughly alter it to suit a 50 storey building. We have an utterly ridiculous scenario.

(I stress roughly, but I'm not trying to be 100% accurate - I'm making a point. These figures would be pretty close to what would be needed to bring down WTC7):

So you're telling us that roughly -

60 Demolition Workers
20,590 Explosive Charges*
180,000ft of detonating cord
22,560 delay devices

ALL went undetected during detonation* and beforehand?

It took over 4,000 charges to bring down a 9 storey building. They problem with YOUR story is that you can't now say that the fire attributed because you've denied it existed. You've ruled out the possibility of structural failure so you can't now claim that damage attributed to the collapse. The only thing that could have brought this building down, according to you, is a controlled demolition.

So tell me in the name of christ how could such an operation go un-noticed!

Nice hole you've dug yourself into.

 

[pagan]

That WTC 7 came down using controlled demolition is so totally obvoius, from looking at the videoclips.

You don't have to be an expert of any kind to realize that. You only need your every day common sense.

End of discussion.

 

[maccy]

So we must assume this is your very first day on the internet. Well, welcome!

I think that Submersible is being somewhat disingenuous, here are some of his previous posts (spoiler tagged because there are a lot of them):

I can't believe it.
It's just hard to imagine that after they blew the basement out of WTC 1&2 by crashing jets into the 75-80th floors of the structure, that they still had enough pixie dust left to turn FEMA into the world's fastest I-BEAM recovery , shipping, and REcycling machine.

I'm brand new here and only read the first and last pages of this thread,
but it sounds like the majority of you believe that God/Allah was willing to give those 19 "martyrs" ... THAT much pixie dust.

Flight 93 = Little or NO evidence remains after everything including the passenger's TEETH "vaporized" at the scene.

The Pentagon = Not one single image showing evidence of a 757 on approach, inside or outside of the building as it burned nor in the debris. This 757 supposedly "vaporized" also.

WTC 2 = A firechief was on the 78th floor calling for 2 engine companies and 2 hose lines on the floor where the plane crashed, the same place where the inferno raged that blew the basement out of the superstructure. You will hear him just like many other fireman report "explosions" between the time the towers were struck by the planes, and one group of them reported a series of explosions as the structure literally FELL down.

WTC 1 = Over 150 of the 346 FDNY men and women that died that day, did so because they could not hear the evacuation orders after the basement blew out of WTC 2, but the repeater worked because it picked up the radio traffic from tower 2. The FDNY fire commissioner has not asked any questions or shown any interest into the tapes released by the Port Authority that basically blew him and the mayor's signed "closed case" out of the water.

Regardless, if you want to blame the 8 or 9 biggest MIRACLES of our lifetime on the Muslim people that flew the planes on 9-11...
just remember that THEY are going to get the credit and recognition for having THAT MUCH POWER.

Unfortunately FEMA removed and destroyed all of the evidence before we could broadside the two most devout groups of people and inject our all powerful war MACHINE into their somewhat peaceful 1400yr. old Holy war, so it will be 50 or 60 years until we are able to teach our children what part of this 'history' to learn and believe.

Maybe you believe that Osama Bin Laden is the one who handed out all of that special pixie dust, and it doesn't matter how many women and children get in OUR way of hunting him down and "smoking him out of his hole".
speakng of a hole,
I just can't believe that the top portion of the towers that came crumbling down could turn three or four sub-level floors into DUST and blow all of that material out of the ground.
Since I can't post images yet, google this... (washington gndzero) ..
there is only one result if you want to SEE what I'm talking about.
The images suggest a massive web of conspiracies. FEMA removed everything from Ground Zero to protect the REAL terrorist by destroying all of the structural evidence.

unless your still going with the pixie dust theory.

Maybe you could scarfe up a few of those pictures that have body parts in them? The images results that I've seen show a group of men in slicker suits standing around scratching their watches and winding their assess.
Why would it be necessary for me to seek out and interview those men?
Wouldn't it be much more realistic for them or the coroner to report their findings to the government or the people?
Unfortunately for the moment I can't give you any of my cartoonish expectations of what supposedly happened when Flight 93 crashed, but I'm sure your familiar with the image containing ONE PUFF of smoke rising over a red barn in Shanksville ? ?
Beavis and Butthead wouldn't fall for this Mickey Mouse is a magic Muslim story as far as I can see.

And yes, it usually is wise to read more and talk less around a strange group of people.




Not to be morbid, but do you have any photographs that show evidence of bodies recovered at or around the crash site of flight 93.



"They" recovered videotape from the convience store and a hotel and the DMV... supposedly, according to the Loose Change video. And if none of those exist, how could the only footage they let us see NOT contain a clear image of a 757 as it approached the pentagon. What was it, about 3 months ago when they finally released ONE more clip from their video tapes and it had nothing on it that resembled a 757.
Like it or not, I demand more peace of mind for my family than what is being offered by the USG.


According to the Port Authority tapes this fireman was on the floor where the plane entered the building. For some reason his voice and his request for help overrule the NIST work. Just like I'm a big fan of the images that have been offered from all angles of this spectrum compared to the massive amount of bovine excrement offered in writing by the so called "experts".


It's been about 4 months since I listened to the tapes, I do know that the fire commissioner has not questioned or re-opened the investigation into the death of 346 fireman, even after the P.O. tapes proved that the repeater was not to blame for the high amount of deaths.


Because 'they' haven't touched us since, and our military has been tromping wide open through their women children and homeland not long after FEMA got finished recycling all of the incriminating evidence against them.


Watch the video agaon but this time put it on mute.
The FDA can find scientist from around the world to say that aspartame is safe for human consumption, when it contains a healthy dose of methanol and formaldehyde. fact.

"We the people" are not on the same team as the USG anymore , that's all I'm trying to say.

What did ya'll come up with on tower 7 ?
It's foundation just got tired of holding the building up after it watched tower 1 & 2 fall out of the sky? Was it sad or depressed that it's next door neighbors dropped out of the sky like a sack of hammers?

Pardon me for not going back through this thread and seeing if anybody showed you guys the before and during images of tower 7 as the basement flew out from underneath it.

Bye bye tower 7, bye bye CIA.

Somebody here please explain when and how the CIA was 'born' and I'll shut up and go the other way., please !

Most of those links didn't work but it did change my perception some, thanks Gravy.



They did have people inside the building didn't they ?



How can he pretend as if the Port Authority tapes that were released in 11-04 didn't make him and the mayor both appear to be part of the cover-up ?


I've had that job, not on such a large scale, but I've had that job.
It's not as if our media protects U.S. from the gore of war and life that takes place around the world and in this country, so why are there no, or very few images of human remains on these two crash scenes ?

If one body remained intact inside of the pentagon then the rest of them couldn't have burned away.



did you google that image of Ground Zero?
How could the foundation fail to support the falling debris ?

Who did they gather ?



That image you have posted in your blog showing the damage to tower 7 is FAR from realistic.



It was all a dream.

wow! this thread finally made it off the front page.

I just wanted to post this link here since this thread was so popular and it goes along with the rest of the warnings and help I was trying to offer you.

http://www.parkc.org/GeneticEngCancer.htm

I'm not saying that I KNOW what and how this happened either, but if you are interested in reading some non-controversial and incriminating evidence against the USG, or one that contains evidence that the ARE intentionally destroying our health on purpose...
walla !

http://www.mindfully.org/Farm/Green-Revolution-Revolving.htm

for you wise guys, this should read like a quick "howdy doody" episode, and it appears to be almost as simple for most people to understand.

http://www.mindfully.org/GE/GE3/rBGH-Got-Pus.htm

food for thought ?

What pisses you off the most about the "truthers" ?

Is it that they have a voice, or that they are working to establish one?

Maybe it's not all about 9/11.... maybe the MEXICAN's inspired them to get off of their assess and DO something about the direction our future is headed in this commode some of you still cherish as the "american way".

I'd be willing to bet that I'm not the only fireman in the world embarrased by the fact that the FDNY was unable to touch this fire.
http://www.rense.com/general65/WTC7firesnorthface.jpg

http://www.rense.com/general65/wtc7_louvers_fire.jpg

Compare those images to the one's you saw today and ask yourself a simple question...
Why didn't the FDNY even TRY to put out the fires in tower 7 ?
Because it damn sure isn't as if they couldn't do it!

http://italy.indymedia.org/uploads/2005/04/wtc7-fires-close.jpg

Fires this size can be knocked down with ONE 2 1/2 inch hand line and 4 men.
ONE hose team could have been sent to each floor where these relatively small fires were burning,
and I was repeatedly insulted in the LC 4 thread because I KNOW that being a firefighter does not in any way resemble a SPECTATOR SPORT.


Maybe now some of you can see that, since you have such a fine example to compare the two fires, and the FDNY's response to a similar structure.

Thanks, but I'm not having a truth "movement"... simply refreshing the images of tower 7 in this thread since most of you here believe that the collapse of the building wasn't planned.

I had some trouble opening Gravy's toilet paper, maybe that's why I'm not trying to share a real truth movement with you.
And Bell, from the pictures I posted it would appear as if I know that there were small fires on multiple floors, and the reason I posted the images was to point out the fact that they WERE uncontrolled.
Apparently it still doesn't raise the question with this forum as to WHY those fires were left to burn unattended.



I irk you?
that's funny.

Will you look at the fire from today and compare it to the fires that burned in tower 7 prior to it's collapse? It's far from being considered as a complex task.


one more thing, Bell... the hole in tower 7 was not on fire.

maybe your right.

http://www.sname.org/newsletter/fireboat.pdf#search="fdny fireboats 9/11"

I guess the FDNY had a good reason to waste the available water that was provided by the fire boats on the collapsed buildings instead of the one that was still standing, with relatively small fires throughout the structure.
As much respect as they deserve, apparently some of the people in charge of the scene responded as if they were stupid. Much like the Commissioner who has not responded to the Port Authority tapes that were released proving that the reason so many firemen died in tower 1, was NOT due to a repeater failure.

It might have been classified as a 12 alarm fire one minute before it fell out of the sky, but it damn sure didn't start that way.

http://www.evesmag.com/firefighters.htm




http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/

Oh really, were you there?

How do you KNOW?




Ole' Gravy
Please, bear with us, it's just not that easy for everybody to be as perfect as you. And since so many of you have determined that he is a child, it's impossible for him to be a child molester isn't it?
So I guess your wrong about that unimportant tid bit , right?

Right.




Either you are independently wealthy or the government must pay you well for your work here if you have the time to waste doing a background search on someone you disagree with online. This person's lack of education and poor spelling have nothing to do with the video presented in this thread, look at it punk, watch it again.
Metal structures don't fall down.
If you pay attention to the smoke before it collapses you will see that it is dark and light grey instead of black, do you know what that means boy?
Also if you pay attention to the building before it collapses you will see that there is NO sign of fire on the side most commonly captured by the different video's. Do you know what that means ?

Explain.



The men and women of the FDNY are not structure experts.
Hmm, wrong again.


You are a USG, NIST, FEMA suck a$$ who is apparently planted behind your little keyboard as well.
Are you comfortable enough in this forum? Enjoy it while it last buddy.



http://www.gatago.com/alt/military/5340739.html

Rumsfeld referred to him as the "New Hitler".



Are you that blind or just unable to perceive the obvious for what it is?
Who do you think is benefitting from this bull shiit "war of terror" that our government has continued to pursue when there is no enemy to defeat.
This nations leaders have inserted our military into a war against "radical Islam", because they keep killing their "radical Islamic" religious brothers.

It's like we are engaged in a war with an enemy, because they are killing our other enemy. But it all goes back to 9/11 and the 19 Muslims who made Houdini look like Alfred E. Newman.
So that makes this war O.K., because you all agree with your toilet paper and have been SOLD on the story that Muslims caused three metal superstructures to collapse, therefore their people must continue to pay.
Dumfuk.



Yeah, you are all quite comfortable with your opinion and state of mind here.
Too bad you all seem to overlook the fact that over 100,000 Muslim civilian PEOPLE have been murdered as a result of the "event" that you claim to KNOW everything about.
Some of you are going to wake up one morning and swear that a train hit you.

Watch it.
http://www.peacetakescourage.com/wwjd.html

Watch this too.
http://www.peacetakescourage.com/easiertolie.html

Here's hoping that submersible has turned over a new leaf since then...

 

[uk_dave]

You don't have to be an expert of any kind to realize that. You only need your every day common sense.

End of discussion.

Tell that to your doctor next time you go for a consultation.

 

[W6102LA]

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=3271662324445998224&q=wtc7

This is an interview with Dutch CD-Pro Danny Jowenko. http://www.jowenko.nl/

The CT'ist love this one

 

[Bell]

That WTC 7 came down using controlled demolition is so totally obvoius, from looking at the videoclips.

You don't have to be an expert of any kind to realize that. You only need your every day common sense.

End of discussion.

Maybe your common sense one day will get you past watching video's on YouTube. Allthough I doubt it.

 

[The Doc]

That WTC 7 came down using controlled demolition is so totally obvoius, from looking at the videoclips.

You don't have to be an expert of any kind to realize that. You only need your every day common sense.

End of discussion.

Typical of a truther

"Screw facts! We saw it all on YouTube!"

 

[pagan]

Tell that to your doctor next time you go for a consultation.

Well, if I see a sceleton on the ground. I don't need a doctors opinion to determine if that person is dead or not.