News from downunder - the mystery of the falling tower on 9/11

by ozziepost 93 Replies latest social current

• 

  What-A-Coincidence

  What's your excuse?

  Stick with the topic ;-)

  Maybe you can post some of the tons of emails you've been getting from JWD members about this topic.

  Why? You are not embarrassed enough? What??? You calling me out on my "e-mails of mass destruction" ... you don't trust me? You think I would conspire against you? Why would I do that? I have nothing to gain. Are you questioning me??? How dare you!!!

  - nice attempt at diversion

  Topic: 9/11 was an inside job unless proved otherwise. You can't have the criminals investigate their own crimes. Hello??? Anyone home?
• 

  shamus100

  Why don't you stick to the subject. I quoted you both times.

  I'm waaaiting....
• 

  What-A-Coincidence

  Why don't you stick to the subject. I quoted you both times.

  I'm waaaiting....

  Sorry shamus ... I didn't get approval from the 'tons' of emails I got. You will just have to believe it just like the official story. Heehee.

  Secondly, how old are you? I had asked you before and I am waiting now. ;-)
• 

  shamus100

  I think someone should be emberassed allright.
• 

  What-A-Coincidence

  I think someone should be emberassed allright.

  Nice trick at double diversion. You would want me to post on something unrelated to the theme and divert my attention at your statement which you state someone would be "emberrased" ... which in in of itself is embarrassing cause of the atrocious spelling mistake (on purpose or by accident ... I dunno). Not going to work. I won't fall for your propaganda.
• 

  shamus100

  I must be an idiot; I didn't hit spell check. Thanks for pointing that out.

  I say again. Someone should be very emberassed. (sic)
• 

  Shawn10538

  Here's some good questions for you building 7 denyers. I can't wait for the responses:
  
  1. If Building 7 were really demolitioned as you say it was NOT, how would it have looked different than it does falling completely uncontrolled and unplanned, as you say it WAS?
  
  2. Could the world's best structural engineers have made the building fall even more straight down on top of itself than it actually did?
  
  3. How would it look different had it been planned and executed by the world's finest demolition experts?
  
  4. Has any building in the history of human kind ever fallen so magnificently straight down due to a small fire?
  
  5. Should we now expect other buildings to fall similarly?
  
  6. Would you sue your contractor if the building he built fell like Tower 7 after a few small fires?
  
  7. Do we have the technology to build buildings that do not totally collapse when on fire?
  
  8. Have there ever been towers that have been practically completely engulfed in fire and yet did not fall?
  
  9. In light of the fact that buildings are now known to completely collapse when they experience a small fire, do you still venture into high rises?
  
  10. Should contractors and engineers be expected to build structures that can stay standing inspite of being totally engulfed with flames? Is that kind of technology anailable?
  
  11. Are the engineers and archetects of Bldg. 7 now totally revamping their approach to building thigh rises? What lessons did they learn from the collapse of bldg. 7?
  
  12. Would you hire the builders or designers of building 7?
  
  13. Are there other buildings that are similar to bldg. 7 (in size, shape, materials used to build it) still standing? Other buildings built by the same firm that built building 7 still standing? Should we then investigate these other structures lest a small fire bring them down as well?
  
  14. Would you feel safe entering into a building that is similar to building 7, built by the same contractors and designers and around the same age, knowing that their other work failed so easily during a small fire?
  
  15. Does anyone know if the firm that built bldg. 7 is being sued right now? What do these builders say in their defense? Was their product a good one?
• 

  John Doe

  How can any of you explain that the collision into the Pentagon left not one skidmark on the grass in front of the building, just a big hole, no damage from the wings, zip? If you consider yourself a logical person and don't find that odd, good luck to you. The fact that they found passports of the terrorists yet no bodies whatsoever could be recovered? Are you kidding me? LMAO

  Uh, airborne planes don't usually leave skidmarks in the grass sweetbluff. Did you misspeak?
• 

  freedomfighter

  I love this site! Hav'nt been here for sometime though, have a new life now... anyway. My 2 cents worth : I'm not very scientific, however i don't believe everything people tell me. For me - 911 has too many questions that are desperately trying to be answered by the U.S government with big, fancy "Scientific" words.I have a to say it's all Bullsh*t! The more they talk, the more stupid they sound. For questioning " The Truth" - you may be surprised at the conclusion. My "free-thinking" helped me get out of a religion that appeared to be correct to me for years. It's personal and it's great! FF
• 

  drwtsn32

  Here's some good questions for you building 7 denyers.

  Most of your questions seem to indicate you believe only "small fires" were present in bldg 7. The fires were by no means small. They were raging. But those alone probably wouldn't cause a building to collapse. I'm not a structural engineer so I don't know, and I bet you're not one either. But on top of the fires, there was massive damage done to the side of the building that faced the main WTC buildings. Those two things combined brought the building down.