Collarchat.com

Join Our Community
Collarchat.com

Home  Login  Search 

RE: There was a plane!


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: There was a plane! Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: There was a plane! - 8/9/2011 6:58:37 AM   
Rule


Posts: 10479
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline
I applaud your good intention. Please continue your attempt.

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 81
RE: There was a plane! - 8/9/2011 7:01:38 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
does you have the actual foreskins of the people on the planes that landed safely and didnt crash into the WTC for your proof to us?

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Rule)
Profile   Post #: 82
RE: There was a plane! - 8/9/2011 7:30:24 AM   
Rule


Posts: 10479
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline
You'd better find your own, eh? Besides, I never provide any proof. So the latter you will have to find yourself as well. Good luck!

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 83
RE: There was a plane! - 8/9/2011 7:32:09 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
I am not going to bother with it, it is not only insane at its core as this thread is, but has no redeeming value even to a maggot.  (who are in dire need of redeeming values)  

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Rule)
Profile   Post #: 84
RE: There was a plane! - 8/9/2011 9:28:36 AM   
lockedaway


Posts: 1720
Joined: 3/15/2007
Status: offline
That is incorrect.  I told you to fast forward past Ted Nugent.  Why would you mis-characterize my post that way?  The cite that began with Nugent was Larry Silvertein saying Building 7 was "pulled". 

Look...as far as Ted Nugent is concerned, the 9/11 report is Gospel.  So don't be trashing Ted, he is on YOUR side.  All I'm saying is that no one can explain why Building 7, which was NOT struck by a plane, which had only a few scattered fires in it, collapsed into its own footprint. 

I gave you some things to watch and read.  If they don't raise questions in your mind......they don't.  That's cool.  But it sounds to me like you didn't review what I posted and I think you should.  And if it STILL doesn't raise questions in your mind....fine.  I'm not out to shake your cage.  At least not on this issue. 

As far as your political views go, however, you are the same *&((&  *&#@)+^%$#@  ******** !@#(*&^?  &!@(*  ding*&(#*&$))#_____+++
gutter (*&$#%$%(O  that you have been right along.  Fair enough??

(in reply to rulemylife)
Profile   Post #: 85
RE: There was a plane! - 8/9/2011 11:24:03 AM   
MusicalBoredom


Posts: 620
Joined: 5/8/2007
From: Louisiana/New York
Status: offline
My very best friend in the whole world and several other people I know teach at BMCC.  That's blocks North of the WTC site.  One building was completely destroyed by falling hunks of building and two others were severely damaged.  They have been renting office space in nearby offices since then waiting for new school buildings to be built.  Now while I don't teach at BMCC am am there regularly as I go there almost daily for lunch for the weeks I'm in the city.  No conspiracy, just damage and building.  For the record, the Burlington Coat building was also damaged.  It was for sale ever since then.  Of course that building didn't matter to anyone until it became the proposed site of a mosque.  The Marriott was also completely destroyed by falling objects.  So it just seems logical to me that other nearby buildings would be destroyed as well.  I know that people like to say that everything fell into a nice neat hole but it didn't.  Block after block and building after building had a ton of damage and so much junk on the roofs and roads that you couldn't get around.  Now they cleared the roads first for obvious reasons.

(in reply to lockedaway)
Profile   Post #: 86
RE: There was a plane! - 8/9/2011 11:32:13 AM   
Rule


Posts: 10479
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline
Never mind them buildings. In any case 7 ought to have survived whatever tidbits - about the amount of bird droppings - that fell on it.

What is important is that you testified that you saw a plane fly into a building. Did you really, or were you perchance fooled by distance, mirrors or other deceptions? If you would have had your finger at arm's length, what then would have been the apparent size of the plane that you saw? Larger or smaller than the width of your finger?

(in reply to MusicalBoredom)
Profile   Post #: 87
RE: There was a plane! - 8/9/2011 11:39:11 AM   
Politesub53


Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: lockedaway

LOLOLOLOL God you are soooo stupid.  I'm sorry....really....but ya are.  Simply because there are conspiracy theories that swirl in abundance does not mean that a plane did not crash into Tower 1 and that a plane did not crash into Tower 2.  OK????  Clear enough for the English speaking on this board?

Ok...now someone tell me, what caused the collapse, into its own footprint, of Building 7.  The landlord said that the building was "pulled" nomenclature for razed.  Ok.  He said and I believe him. 

But for some of you, that isn't enough.  So simply tell me when...in all history...has a steel building collapsed into its own foot print due to a fire.  Any takers?  The Deep Water Horizon platform burned for 3 days and it didn't melt.  Building 7, which was not struck by a plane, came down in approximately 6.5 hours. 

Ok...what if it was "pulled" i.e. razed via a controlled demolition?  It was a 44 story building that was "over engineered".  It was the command center for the Mayor, had a N.A.S.D. office in it and either an F.B.I or a C.I.A. headquarters in it as well and some other sensitive shit that you good people can Google.  How did it collapse so perfectly into its own footprint??

If it was demolished, it had to be imploded.  A 44 story building would take some time to wire and notch the beams and do all of the other things necessary......yes?  Could it have been done in 6.5 hours?  I don't know but I think it would have taken a shit load of people.  Was it pre-wired for demolition?  If it was...when was it?  How many buildings are there in NYC that YOU might walk into that are pre-wired for demolition? 

Just some questions.  Questions that have never been answered to the satisfaction of many people.




Rule myriad of posts on the topic must have all gone over your head. He even states on this thread there were no planes. You are so busy calling others stupid that you cant even follow whats being said.

(in reply to lockedaway)
Profile   Post #: 88
RE: There was a plane! - 8/9/2011 1:37:53 PM   
lockedaway


Posts: 1720
Joined: 3/15/2007
Status: offline
POLITE.....I don't give a fuck what Rule posted.  I couldn't care less about his thread?  There were hundreds of bystanders.  Do you think Rule governs what I talk about????

I posted some things.  Did you look at it?  If you want to talk about something that truly is a bit curious, the perfect collapse of three buildings especially one that wasn't struck by a plane, I'm up for that conversation.  I'm not going to engage in whether planes struck the towers although I will certainly engage in a discussion regarding whether a plane struck the Pentagon. 

Ok?

(in reply to Politesub53)
Profile   Post #: 89
RE: There was a plane! - 8/9/2011 1:58:57 PM   
MusicalBoredom


Posts: 620
Joined: 5/8/2007
From: Louisiana/New York
Status: offline
It wasn't a perfect collapse. Blocks and blocks of debris as my previous post mentioned.  Now that it wasn't knocked over makes sense given physics.  A rocket wouldn't even be able to knock it over.  It would go through or into a building and weaken the structure.  A weakened structure will simply collapse in on itself given the cage design which is what's been used for quite some time now.

And Rule, response #75 has what I secretly saw.

(in reply to lockedaway)
Profile   Post #: 90
RE: There was a plane! - 8/9/2011 2:16:52 PM   
Anaxagoras


Posts: 3086
Joined: 5/9/2009
From: Eire
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: lockedaway
quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
quote:

ORIGINAL: littlewonder
I really hope all of this is just a joke. Otherwise this is the biggest disrespect  and insult I have ever seen on this site to date.

Sadly Rule is serious. He and a few others on here are convinced 9/11 was all a conspiracy.

LOLOLOLOL God you are soooo stupid.  I'm sorry....really....but ya are.  Simply because there are conspiracy theories that swirl in abundance does not mean that a plane did not crash into Tower 1 and that a plane did not crash into Tower 2.  OK????  Clear enough for the English speaking on this board?

Ok...now someone tell me, what caused the collapse, into its own footprint, of Building 7.  The landlord said that the building was "pulled" nomenclature for razed.  Ok.  He said and I believe him. 

But for some of you, that isn't enough.  So simply tell me when...in all history...has a steel building collapsed into its own foot print due to a fire.  Any takers?  The Deep Water Horizon platform burned for 3 days and it didn't melt.  Building 7, which was not struck by a plane, came down in approximately 6.5 hours. 

Ok...what if it was "pulled" i.e. razed via a controlled demolition?  It was a 44 story building that was "over engineered".  It was the command center for the Mayor, had a N.A.S.D. office in it and either an F.B.I or a C.I.A. headquarters in it as well and some other sensitive shit that you good people can Google.  How did it collapse so perfectly into its own footprint??

If it was demolished, it had to be imploded.  A 44 story building would take some time to wire and notch the beams and do all of the other things necessary......yes?  Could it have been done in 6.5 hours?  I don't know but I think it would have taken a shit load of people.  Was it pre-wired for demolition?  If it was...when was it?  How many buildings are there in NYC that YOU might walk into that are pre-wired for demolition? 

Just some questions.  Questions that have never been answered to the satisfaction of many people.

Locked, I don't think it can be said to have collapsed into its own footprint. It did a lot of damage to several surrounding buildings such as the Verzon causing millions in damage. A perfect demolition is designed not to damage surrounding buildings. WTC7 was hit by a lot of debris from Tower Two which cut an approximate twenty story gash into its side. The other four smaller towers collapsed, were in a state of partial collapse or damaged beyond repair from WTC1 and 2 debris.

Larry Silverstein, the owner of Tower Seven, did use the word pull but it was in a different context. He was describing a conversation on the phone with a senior fireman, and the context was one of pulling the firemen out of the environs of the building, as hundreds had died already and the building had become visibly unsafe due to severe cracking at one side. You should check this article out before giving the conspiracy sites a lot of creedence http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

(in reply to lockedaway)
Profile   Post #: 91
RE: There was a plane! - 8/9/2011 2:19:39 PM   
lockedaway


Posts: 1720
Joined: 3/15/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MusicalBoredom

It wasn't a perfect collapse. Blocks and blocks of debris as my previous post mentioned.  Now that it wasn't knocked over makes sense given physics.  A rocket wouldn't even be able to knock it over.  It would go through or into a building and weaken the structure.  A weakened structure will simply collapse in on itself given the cage design which is what's been used for quite some time now.

And Rule, response #75 has what I secretly saw.



I disagree, it was a perfect wedge shaped implosion and was reported as such when it went down.  Now...what weakened Building 7?  Because it wasn't simply a "fire".  What caused the collapse.  Did you review what I posted here?  Do you have any thoughts on what you read or saw?  Any comment to Silverstein saying that they made the decision to "pull" the building?

(in reply to MusicalBoredom)
Profile   Post #: 92
RE: There was a plane! - 8/9/2011 2:24:25 PM   
lockedaway


Posts: 1720
Joined: 3/15/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras

quote:

ORIGINAL: lockedaway
quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
quote:

ORIGINAL: littlewonder
I really hope all of this is just a joke. Otherwise this is the biggest disrespect  and insult I have ever seen on this site to date.

Sadly Rule is serious. He and a few others on here are convinced 9/11 was all a conspiracy.

LOLOLOLOL God you are soooo stupid.  I'm sorry....really....but ya are.  Simply because there are conspiracy theories that swirl in abundance does not mean that a plane did not crash into Tower 1 and that a plane did not crash into Tower 2.  OK????  Clear enough for the English speaking on this board?

Ok...now someone tell me, what caused the collapse, into its own footprint, of Building 7.  The landlord said that the building was "pulled" nomenclature for razed.  Ok.  He said and I believe him. 

But for some of you, that isn't enough.  So simply tell me when...in all history...has a steel building collapsed into its own foot print due to a fire.  Any takers?  The Deep Water Horizon platform burned for 3 days and it didn't melt.  Building 7, which was not struck by a plane, came down in approximately 6.5 hours. 

Ok...what if it was "pulled" i.e. razed via a controlled demolition?  It was a 44 story building that was "over engineered".  It was the command center for the Mayor, had a N.A.S.D. office in it and either an F.B.I or a C.I.A. headquarters in it as well and some other sensitive shit that you good people can Google.  How did it collapse so perfectly into its own footprint??

If it was demolished, it had to be imploded.  A 44 story building would take some time to wire and notch the beams and do all of the other things necessary......yes?  Could it have been done in 6.5 hours?  I don't know but I think it would have taken a shit load of people.  Was it pre-wired for demolition?  If it was...when was it?  How many buildings are there in NYC that YOU might walk into that are pre-wired for demolition? 

Just some questions.  Questions that have never been answered to the satisfaction of many people.

Locked, I don't think it can be said to have collapsed into its own footprint. It did a lot of damage to several surrounding buildings such as the Verzon causing millions in damage. A perfect demolition is designed not to damage surrounding buildings. WTC7 was hit by a lot of debris from Tower Two which cut an approximate twenty story gash into its side. The other four smaller towers collapsed, were in a state of partial collapse or damaged beyond repair from WTC1 and 2 debris.

Larry Silverstein, the owner of Tower Seven, did use the word pull but it was in a different context. He was describing a conversation on the phone with a senior fireman, and the context was one of pulling the firemen out of the environs of the building, as hundreds had died already and the building had become visibly unsafe due to severe cracking at one side. You should check this article out before giving the conspiracy sites a lot of creedence http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm


Are you talking Building 7 or Towers 1 and 2?  I don't think you could have had a more "luck" collapse of the towers, do you?  It didn't shear off, didn't leave a spire, didn't topple over.  Floors that were perfectly in tact, dozens of them to be exact, were beautifully pulverized. 

And you can say "hey, the impact from the floors collapsing onto each other pulverized it."  That's fine except one of the planes impacted below the 80th floor on one of the towers leaving 30-40 floors above it intact.  What happened to the "literally" hundreds of desks?  Thousands of chairs?  The filing cabinets??  Filing cabinets are metal too, I'm sure those didn't "melt". 

And then, again, what caused 7 to collapse.  Metal buildings don't melt.  Metal buildings don't collapse due to a fire....I'm sorry, it just doesn't happen.

You said that "pull it" had a different context and the context you are giving it is that Larry Silverstein referred to dozens of firemen as "it".  So instead of saying "pull them out" he said "pull it"?  Which is nomenclature for implode the building.  Is that what you are saying?  I can't go there with you, to me it sounds far too implausible and something "thought up" after the fact.


< Message edited by lockedaway -- 8/9/2011 2:27:14 PM >

(in reply to Anaxagoras)
Profile   Post #: 93
RE: There was a plane! - 8/9/2011 2:45:44 PM   
Anaxagoras


Posts: 3086
Joined: 5/9/2009
From: Eire
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: lockedaway
quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
Locked, I don't think it can be said to have collapsed into its own footprint. It did a lot of damage to several surrounding buildings such as the Verzon causing millions in damage. A perfect demolition is designed not to damage surrounding buildings. WTC7 was hit by a lot of debris from Tower Two which cut an approximate twenty story gash into its side. The other four smaller towers collapsed, were in a state of partial collapse or damaged beyond repair from WTC1 and 2 debris.

Larry Silverstein, the owner of Tower Seven, did use the word pull but it was in a different context. He was describing a conversation on the phone with a senior fireman, and the context was one of pulling the firemen out of the environs of the building, as hundreds had died already and the building had become visibly unsafe due to severe cracking at one side. You should check this article out before giving the conspiracy sites a lot of creedence http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

Are you talking Building 7 or Towers 1 and 2?  I don't think you could have had a more "luck" collapse of the towers, do you?  It didn't shear off, didn't leave a spire, didn't topple over.  Floors that were perfectly in tact, dozens of them to be exact, were beautifully pulverized. 

I'm talking about all the towers but particularly 7 which was the focus of your point. As Musical said, it wasn't a tidy collapse. Numerous buildings were severely damaged or completely destroyed so it is wrong to call this a controlled demolition as keeps being repeated on conspiracist sites.

quote:


And you can say "hey, the impact from the floors collapsing onto each other pulverized it."  That's fine except one of the planes impacted below the 80th floor on one of the towers leaving 30-40 floors above it intact.  What happened to the "literally" hundreds of desks?  Thousands of chairs?  The filing cabinets??  Filing cabinets are metal too, I'm sure those didn't "melt". 

And then, again, what caused 7 to collapse.  Metal buildings don't melt.  Metal buildings don't collapse due to a fire....I'm sorry, it just doesn't happen.

Yeah Tower 7 had a metal frame but it was carrying a seriously heavy load and if the structure was undermined then its certainly not a given the metal would keep it up. You should realise the collapse of a 110 story building would release immense energy. A penny dropped from a tallish building will split a person's head open. Contents wouldn't stand a chance.

quote:


You said that "pull it" had a different context and the context you are giving it is that Larry Silverstein referred to dozens of firemen as "it".  So instead of saying "pull them out" he said "pull it"?  Which is nomenclature for implode the building.  Is that what you are saying?  I can't go there with you, to me it sounds far too implausible and something "thought up" after the fact.

Pull as a word has numerous meanings besides demolition. Other uses of "pull" include the context of an article from a magazine, pull a project etc. He did use "it" but he was talking to one of the senior fire chiefs about pulling his men out as in pulling the plug on the effort to check the environs of the building. That was the context of how he said it:
quote:

I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."

(in reply to lockedaway)
Profile   Post #: 94
RE: There was a plane! - 8/9/2011 3:21:01 PM   
lockedaway


Posts: 1720
Joined: 3/15/2007
Status: offline
So you are saying that the collapse of the twin towers created such pressure that 7 hours later, Building 7 collapsed.  Is that right?  If that is your point of view, that's fine.  I have no come back to that except that the Millennium Hilton Hotel was just as closed to Ground Zero as Building 7 as well as a half dozen other buildings that are still standing.  But I'm done with the thread, I have my questions and they have yet to be answered.  You have the things you are certain of and nothing changes them.  

(in reply to Anaxagoras)
Profile   Post #: 95
RE: There was a plane! - 8/9/2011 3:28:31 PM   
jlf1961


Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: lockedaway

So you are saying that the collapse of the twin towers created such pressure that 7 hours later, Building 7 collapsed.  Is that right?  If that is your point of view, that's fine.  I have no come back to that except that the Millennium Hilton Hotel was just as closed to Ground Zero as Building 7 as well as a half dozen other buildings that are still standing.  But I'm done with the thread, I have my questions and they have yet to be answered.  You have the things you are certain of and nothing changes them.  


There was a 20 story gash in building 7 from debris from the tower that collapsed OUTSIDE of its foot print.

Hell the history channel specials on 9/11, not to mention National Geographic specials on the collapse of the twin towers AND building seven made this point abundantly clear, as did statements of firemen fighting the fires, the fire division commander in charge of fighting the fires, AND building 7's emergency response director who made sure the damn building was evacuated after the collapse of the tower.

I really hope the mods jerk this thread like they have every other 9/11 conspiracy bullshit thread.


_____________________________

Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?

You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.

Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI

(in reply to lockedaway)
Profile   Post #: 96
RE: There was a plane! - 8/9/2011 3:31:10 PM   
Kaliko


Posts: 3381
Joined: 9/25/2010
Status: offline
I've seen a similar show on History Channel or something, in which it was explained just how the buildings collapsed and why it took some time after impact and how the pressure and heat built up to that point. It was pretty clearly and thoroughly explained, as I recall.

ETA - I don't recall mention of Building 7. May have been....it was awhile ago. But as far as the towers, I felt it was explained well.

< Message edited by Kaliko -- 8/9/2011 3:42:29 PM >

(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 97
RE: There was a plane! - 8/9/2011 4:26:25 PM   
Owner59


Posts: 17033
Joined: 3/14/2006
From: Dirty Jersey
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kaliko

I've seen a similar show on History Channel or something, in which it was explained just how the buildings collapsed and why it took some time after impact and how the pressure and heat built up to that point. It was pretty clearly and thoroughly explained, as I recall.


Building 7`s collapse was ironically caused by Rudy Guliannis`s stupid decision to place the disaster command center, in building 7.

Going against the advice of most experts and the FDNY heads,Gulliani placed the command center in the very spot that was previously attacked by bin-laden.He was advised to put it across the river in a nondescript location, underground.

He said he wanted to be able to walk to it from Gracie Mansion in the event of a problem.

So,when the towers were attacked,again,his command center became useless.

That`s the reason he was walking around outside like a clown with a dust mask on,with no real means of communication besides hand radios and cell phones,which weren`t working or not working well.

People were saying how brave he was to be walking around outside.That was all he could do,lol,now that the command center was buried in rubble.

Now the command center was a multi floor,multi room set-up.There were living quarters and food/water/supplies for a number of people.There were rooms for the communication equipment,the best money could buy.There were meeting places and storage.

And there were huge diesel generators and huge tanks of stored diesel fuel.Thousands and thousands of gallons.

It was that fuel,placed there by stupid rudy,that feed fires already started by the collapse.

For days the diesel leaked,feeding a fire that otherwise might not have done much.There was so much smoke,steam,dust and vapor rising that it went un-noticed.

The fire doesn`t have to melt the steel to make it fail.The only thing the fire needs to cause failure is to "anneal" the metal,taking away the steal`s heat tempering and it`s strength.

This is a big point for truthers,the claim that a diesel fire couldn`t melt steel,or jet fuel(which is like diesel fuel).Which is true.But is didn`t have to melt the steal,just cause it to lose it`s tempering.A deisel fire set under steal for days,will eventually turn the steel red hot.

The steal during prouction, is treated with heat or stress to create a tempered steal.

Untempered steal is softer and more maliable than tempered metal.Easier to form and work with but to weak to support much weight.By tempering the steal(with heat, then cold) it makes the steal much stronger than without heat treating.

Car chasis are tempered.Without that added step in productio,cars would fold in half under normal use.

If you build a structure with tempered steal and load a lot of weight on top of it,then heat the steal to the point where the steal is annealed,the weight of the loads will cause the steal to bend.

It doesn`t have to be very hot to turn metal red hot,you can do it with a knife in a stove flame.That`s all it takes to anneal tempered steal.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annealing_(metallurgy)

It was this series of events that led to building 7`s collapse.

The new command center was moved off of Manhattan, across the river, under a plain low-key building,like it should have been before 9/11.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hBDXB6cifo



< Message edited by Owner59 -- 8/9/2011 4:33:49 PM >


_____________________________

"As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals"

President Obama

(in reply to Kaliko)
Profile   Post #: 98
RE: There was a plane! - 8/9/2011 5:09:33 PM   
Politesub53


Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: lockedaway

POLITE.....I don't give a fuck what Rule posted.  I couldn't care less about his thread?  There were hundreds of bystanders.  Do you think Rule governs what I talk about????

I posted some things.  Did you look at it?  If you want to talk about something that truly is a bit curious, the perfect collapse of three buildings especially one that wasn't struck by a plane, I'm up for that conversation.  I'm not going to engage in whether planes struck the towers although I will certainly engage in a discussion regarding whether a plane struck the Pentagon. 

Ok?



Hey brains......You started by calling me stupid after I had mentioned Rule thought 9/11 was a conspiracy. If you are so stupid that you cant even understand your own posts, you have little chance of understand mine.

(in reply to lockedaway)
Profile   Post #: 99
RE: There was a plane! - 8/9/2011 5:40:00 PM   
Anaxagoras


Posts: 3086
Joined: 5/9/2009
From: Eire
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: lockedaway
So you are saying that the collapse of the twin towers created such pressure that 7 hours later, Building 7 collapsed.  Is that right?  If that is your point of view, that's fine.  I have no come back to that except that the Millennium Hilton Hotel was just as closed to Ground Zero as Building 7 as well as a half dozen other buildings that are still standing. 

No I didn't say that. I made that point in relation to the destructive power of a collapse completely destroying the contents within if you look back at the quote of your's I was responding to in post 94. I seem to recall the Millennium Hilton Hotel suffered extensive damage and was closed for a long time, two years or so.

quote:


But I'm done with the thread, I have my questions and they have yet to be answered.  You have the things you are certain of and nothing changes them.  

Locked, I understand you have questions but you should understand most conspiracists spread this stuff with an obvious far-right agenda as all you have to do is look at the other content on many of their sites. I suggest you have a look at the article I posted a link to and a few other anti-conspiracy sites to at least weigh the plausibility of their explanations.

(in reply to lockedaway)
Profile   Post #: 100
Page:   <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: There was a plane! Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2024
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.110