dixonmassey
Valued Senior Member
"Anti-conspiracists insist that, unlike the rest of us, the rich
and powerful do not act with deliberate intent." Michael Parenti
and powerful do not act with deliberate intent." Michael Parenti
WTC7 is virtually meaningless to 911 event in general. At leas as far as how it came down, even if it was a controlled demo initiated afterwards. Why would that matter much?
"Anti-conspiracists insist that, unlike the rest of us, the rich
and powerful do not act with deliberate intent." Michael Parenti
String, in this system that we call Government. Everything is guided and controlled to ensure a predictable result.
Hmm ... so I'm supposed to believe that a few office fires made an enormous steel structure collapse like a house of cards in a suspiciously similar fashion to controlled demolition projects? Riiight. Anyway, I thoroughly enjoyed nietzchefan's analysis on building seven in an alternate thread (which I can't locate at the moment): "I don't know about the twin towers, but anybody with a pair of eyes could tell that building seven was a controlled demolition". I must say, that was merely what I remembered of the quote; obviously, it's only a sketchy paraphrase. However, the point still stands: it was a great post, and it outlined in a very blunt (yet concise) manner the ridiculously ostensible explanation for building seven's destruction.
Kadark the Superior
Ah yes the old molten metal scam, do you know how long metal remains molten after the heat source is removed?
Well the answer is not for very long, once the heat energy is removed steel starts to freeze, and in less that 8 hours it becomes solid, and that is with insulated pots, aluminum takes even less time, and as it freezes it expands and breaks the pots, or if it occurs in the furnace it wrecks the furnace, a rather expensive occurrence.
On of my part time jobs is as a night watchman, for a electrical manufacturing company, that cast their own motor cases, shafts and mounting.
They had their own foundry to provide the metals, steel and aluminum, they melt 10 to 30 tons at a time, then they start molding, if a pot isn't used before the end of a shift the metal freezes, it's still hot as hell but it is no longer molten, so any suggestion that there was molten metal under the WTC is just ludicrous.
Steel melts becomes molten at 1600 c. aluminum become molten at 684.9 c. and catches fire at well below the point of Molten Steel, as low as:
If there had been temperatures high enough to create molten steel in the WTC, a massive fire would have been created, and nothing would have been left, the only things that might have survived would have been ceramics.
Another Kennedy nutter. Ok ...
Can we really just stop with all these threads? I mean, seriously. Did the stores everywhere suddenly run out of zoloft or something?
If Bush and Cheney would of went on the record about 911 then you'd have a leg to stand on. By them refusing to go on the record is definitely an indication of guilt or deception of some sort. If you believe he refused to go on the record because he was innocent, then you're the one in need of zoloft!
It isn't ? He has a lot more self doubt than he lets on.ganymede said:Count, whenever you doubt your own theories, I've noticed you resorted to name calling. Which isn't your style when you know you're right
Not the whole story.neitzschefan said:If they lie about WTC 7, it puts the whole 9/11 official story into mulligan mode.
Count, whenever you doubt your own theories, I've noticed you resorted to name calling. Which isn't your style when you know you're right![]()
It isn't ? He has a lot more self doubt than he lets on.
Is that supposed to be my analysis ?ashura said:So when someone disagrees with you and mocks you, it's not because he honestly disagrees but because he's doubting himself thanks to the undoubtable truth of your arguments? Interesting expert analysis there gentlemen.
Okay so you believe that becuase someone refuses to address something as inanely stupid as these suggestions that it indicates guilt?[ Man, I am so glad you are not in charge of anything
So when someone disagrees with you and mocks you, it's not because he honestly disagrees but because he's doubting himself thanks to the undoubtable truth of your arguments? Interesting expert analysis there gentlemen.
Is that supposed to be my analysis ?
I wasn't refering to what he said to me. I was referring to what he said to Nietz. So this invalidates your entire rant.
Count, whenever you doubt your own theories, I've noticed you resorted to name calling. Which isn't your style when you know you're right![]()