Author Topic: WTC #7's collapse (Read 4535 times)

Furious · « **Reply #135 on:** January 30, 2004, 03:04:53 PM »

Conspiracies are fun!!

If this was done for monetary reasons, please tell me the value of all equipment and furniture inside wtc7 upon its collapse?

Gunslinger · « **Reply #136 on:** January 30, 2004, 03:06:52 PM »

Why dont you guys answer kappas question about #7 and leave the conspiracy crap out the door. He does raise a very good question......WHY DID BLDG 7 FALL?

With all the black helicopter crap aside I have yet to find a good enough reason for it.

I'm not saying they knew about 9/11 i'm not saying it was rigged to go boom I'm not bringing bush in the equation....

What cause #7 to fall.....it didnt get hit by an airplane....it wasnt smoking all that much. And it certainly looks like it was demoed.

Conscpiracy crap aside can somone give ME....NOT KAPPA....a good answer?

NUKE · « **Reply #137 on:** January 30, 2004, 03:13:03 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by kappa
Nuke, you for certian are too ignorant to read then since you wish for me to point them out.. Between maslo and myself they are all prolly listed at least twice..

Nuke, you can add nothing constructive to this thread.. please leave.. I do not wish to argue with you.. Do us both a favor and leave...

So you have posted proof that #7 was demolished?? That's outstanding kappa!! Why should this "proof" be "hidden in plain sight" while the whole world cannot see it?? LOL

Maybe I'll leave this thread when you have a good point to make.

NUKE · « **Reply #138 on:** January 30, 2004, 03:19:18 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gunslinger
Why dont you guys answer kappas question about #7 and leave the conspiracy crap out the door. He does raise a very good question......WHY DID BLDG 7 FALL?

B]

for one, kappa's question? He thinks the building was demolished.....what was his question?

He points to a link of some moron explaining how "we know 1 and 2 had charges" based on the "experts" and then takes whatever that moron says as fact.

What was his question?

Chairboy · « **Reply #139 on:** January 30, 2004, 03:19:32 PM »

Wow, Kappa, I don't think you understand what 'I'm out' means. You sure post a lot for a guy who has pledged to leave this thread.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #140 on:** January 30, 2004, 03:21:46 PM »

I dont think the building was demolished because It is way to far fetched and not too logical. But what braught it down is my question?

Kieran · « **Reply #141 on:** January 30, 2004, 03:23:53 PM »

Let's start with an easy one...

1. What's the kinetic energy of 1,000,000 lbs. of debris falling at an initial acceleration of 32 feet/second?

kappa · « **Reply #142 on:** January 30, 2004, 03:25:07 PM »

Saying i tucked tail to run was enough merit to bring me back.. 8)

Gee chair.. excellent post of substance there.. Never miss a chance to dig on someone.. !! NEVER!!

Kieran · « **Reply #143 on:** January 30, 2004, 03:27:15 PM »

Gunslinger-

Maslo has flat out said our government did it. Kappa has tap-danced around it, but hinted at it several times.

I always love it when some self-proclaimed expert sets himself up as the sole arbiter of what is valid and what isn't. If Kappa can so easily dimiss arguments concerning physics and the structural strength of office buildings, one can only conclude he is an engineer. Otherwise why should I allow him to be the last word in what is valid or isn't?

kappa · « **Reply #144 on:** January 30, 2004, 03:27:19 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kieran
Let's start with an easy one...

1. What's the kinetic energy of 1,000,000 lbs. of debris falling at an initial acceleration of 32 feet/second?

That argument leads nowhere kieran becuase your pull 1 million lbs of debri outta your arss... Besides it doesnt fall at 32ft/sec.. or 9.8m/sec... Acceleration of gravity is 32ft/sec squard... or meters squard..

WTC #7 PLEASE....................... ............................

NUKE · « **Reply #145 on:** January 30, 2004, 03:27:48 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gunslinger
I dont think the building was demolished because It is way to far fetched and not too logical. But what braught it down is my question?

Thats fine, but kappa is saying it was demolished and that he posted proof of it.

kappa would rather believe the conspiracy angle with no proof rather than say he doesn't know anything about what he is talking about.

kappa · « **Reply #146 on:** January 30, 2004, 03:29:32 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kieran
Gunslinger-

Maslo has flat out said our government did it. Kappa has tap-danced around it, but hinted at it several times.

I always love it when some self-proclaimed expert sets himself up as the sole arbiter of what is valid and what isn't. If Kappa can so easily dimiss arguments concerning physics and the structural strength of office buildings, one can only conclude he is an engineer. Otherwise why should I allow him to be the last word in what is valid or isn't?

I have dismissed no factual arguments of physics or structual strenght because I have yet to have any presented infront of me.. None logical that is...

kappa · « **Reply #147 on:** January 30, 2004, 03:30:58 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by NUKE
Thats fine, but kappa is saying it was demolished and that he posted proof of it.

kappa would rather believe the conspiracy angle with no proof rather than say he doesn't know anything about what he is talking about.

And you'd rather believe there is no conspiracy with no proof.. Now go away......

kappa · « **Reply #148 on:** January 30, 2004, 03:32:18 PM »

I'm really leaving this time.. Perhaps I will check the boards later... I'm sure to only find mockery and nonsense... But who knows..

Kieran · « **Reply #149 on:** January 30, 2004, 03:37:08 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by kappa
I have dismissed no factual arguments of physics or structual strenght because I have yet to have any presented infront of me.. None logical that is...

Right... you've ignored the arguments, then later in the thread posted no one has bothered to refute what you posted. In short, you aren't paying attention to viewpoints that oppose your predetermined concepts. You've said no one has the balls to post refuting arguments based on fact, when in fact people have given you very plausible and reasonable avenues of discussion- which you ignored. You aren't discussing, you're lecturing, big difference.

Now to be honest, it was easy from the moment you started the thread to see where you were going with it. That's why I tried to cut to the chase and get a straight "yes" or "no"- which by the way you have avoided. So... do you believe our government was involved in setting up 9/11, yes or no- or do you not have the balls to say. No wishy-washy "I don't know" either.