Guest Tankfixer Posted April 7, 2007 Posted April 7, 2007 In article <2wIRh.191$Z66.182@trnddc06>, findme@m-a-m-s.comC/Odm mumbled > > "Tankfixer" <paul.carrier@us.army.m> wrote in message... > > > Funny but we watched some ofthe coverage that day live. > > I distinctly remeber seeing the building bulging. > > > You should refrain from taking LSD while on active duty. Someone once said; "Your attacks on the patriotic aspirations of the people you insult here are indicative that you are a poor excuse for an American, and an even poorer excuse for a possible soldier of this once great nation." Were those just words ? -- Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a diet of static text and cascading "threads." Quote
Guest Tankfixer Posted April 7, 2007 Posted April 7, 2007 In article <znIRh.188$Z66.128@trnddc06>, findme@m-a-m-s.comC/Odm mumbled > > "Tankfixer" <paul.carrier@us.army.m> wrote in message. > > > > A guided bomb needs to on site preperation to work. > > Your ARE an idiot after all.... it requires your silly-assed little red dot, doesn't it? No. -- Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a diet of static text and cascading "threads." Quote
Guest Tankfixer Posted April 7, 2007 Posted April 7, 2007 In article <ev871p$i2g$1@panix5.panix.com>, adykes@panix.com mumbled > In article <a9DRh.386$3P3.164@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>, > Tankfixer <paul.carrier@us.army.m> wrote: > >In article <oakRh.7665$i93.525@trnddc05>, findme@m-a-m-s.comC/Odm > >mumbled > >> > >> "Tankfixer" <paul.carrier@us.army.m> wrote in message.... > >> > >> > So far the proponents of the "implosion" theory can't explain why no one > >> > saw any evidence of the building being prepared. > >> > >> > >> No one on the ground saw any evidence before the first smart bomb > >> hit Bagdad, either.... but it damned sure hit now didn't it? > >> > > > >Weak strawman argument. > > > >A guided bomb needs to on site preperation to work. > >Controled demo does. > > > > > With many tons of explosives which nobody happened to notice. Correct. -- Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a diet of static text and cascading "threads." Quote
Guest Tankfixer Posted April 7, 2007 Posted April 7, 2007 In article <4cIRh.183$Z66.117@trnddc06>, findme@m-a-m-s.comC/Odm mumbled > > "Tankfixer" <paul.carrier@us.army.m> wrote in message... > > > Are you accusing him of being responsable ? > > > I thought you had all the answers.... (?) > Smart of you to avoid slander. A man with that much money might just bury you. -- Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a diet of static text and cascading "threads." Quote
Guest Tankfixer Posted April 7, 2007 Posted April 7, 2007 In article <RRHRh.177$Z66.149@trnddc06>, findme@m-a-m-s.comC/Odm mumbled > > "Tankfixer" <paul.carrier@us.army.m> wrote in message... > > > > But that's not what Silverstien & co. were talking about. > > > They were talking about "pulling" the building, not the firefighters. > > > Got an unedited copy of them saying that ? > > Whatsamatta' fixerman.... you selectively going bling while reading this thread? > > Read it quoted : http://www.vestigialconscience.com/PullIt.html > Hear it said : http://www.vestigialconscience.com/PullIt.mp3 > Watch him say it : http://www.vestigialconscience.com/pullit.mpg > Hear the key word again : http://www.vestigialconscience.com/PullIt2.mp3 Did the word "unedited" fly over your head ? -- Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a diet of static text and cascading "threads." Quote
Guest Tankfixer Posted April 7, 2007 Posted April 7, 2007 In article <ev85i9$8uh$1@panix5.panix.com>, adykes@panix.com mumbled > In article <aMDRh.20255$tD2.12296@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, > Tankfixer <paul.carrier@us.army.m> wrote: > >In article <46170109$0$27883$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>, > >iknowitsonlyrocknroll@butilikeit mumbled > >> > >> "Tankfixer" <paul.carrier@us.army.m> wrote in message > >> news:KgDRh.392$3P3.279@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net... > >> > >> <snip> > >> > >> > So lets see an unedited copy ? > >> > >> Read the thread, and follow the links > >> > > > >Are you claiming those are unedited copies ? > > > > No. But a serious investigator can contact them and ask them if that's > what they realy said. > > The idea that 500 very patriotic emergancy workers all get the memo, > and got it the same day before they went home, talked to their > famalirs and the press and follow their bit of the script to the > letter is absurd. It is an insult to those fine people, all of whom > lost friends on that day and want the true story to be told at least > as much as any agitator in the "truth movement". > > If 9/11 is a conspiracy, the memo had to go out prior to 9/11, and to > countless thousands of peole prior to 9/11. Each would have to be > customized for his part. No ad-libbing allowed. > > You are insulting lots of fine people, some of whom I know. Dude, I am insulting to loons who keep pedling this line of crap that there was some huge conspiracy. > > If you, "tankfixer", are really a vet, you should know what I am > talking about. Please check who I have been replying to. I think you are getting my remarks confused with them. -- Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a diet of static text and cascading "threads." Quote
Guest Tankfixer Posted April 7, 2007 Posted April 7, 2007 In article <MPHRh.176$Z66.120@trnddc06>, findme@m-a-m-s.comC/Odm mumbled > > "Tankfixer" <paul.carrier@us.army.m> wrote in message... > > > The delta in distance from a known point to the building would tell the > > firefighters that the building was sagging and begining to come down. > > WRONG !!!! > > > NO STEEL CORED, STEEL FRAMED BUILDING EVER .... IN ALL OF > HISTORY BEFORE 911, AND EVER SINCE, HAS FALLEN FROM FIRES. > Dude, you are frothing at the mouth. > You don't seem to get the most basic of points out of this. NO ONE could, > under ANY set of circumastances what-so-ever, have EVER made the idiotic > assumption that such a thing would happen.... it was absolutely, totally, and > COMPLETELY unprecedented in all of history. NO ONE could EVER have > envisioned, let alone predicted that such a thing could happen. What ? That an airplane might run into a tall building ? Or that a tall building might have a fire ? Or that debris might strike a burning building and weaken its structure? Seems those are all resoanble things to at least consider when engineering a tall building. > > Your assumption is BULLSHIT. And your's is any more likely to be true ? -- Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a diet of static text and cascading "threads." Quote
Guest Tankfixer Posted April 7, 2007 Posted April 7, 2007 In article <Z6IRh.181$Z66.140@trnddc06>, findme@m-a-m-s.comC/Odm mumbled > > "Tankfixer" <paul.carrier@us.army.m> wrote in message news:%9DRh.388$3P3.245@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net... > > In article <4615de3d$0$9774$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>, > > iknowitsonlyrocknroll@butilikeit mumbled > > > > > > "David Morgan (MAMS)" <findme@m-a-m-s.comC/Odm> wrote in message > > > news:ObkRh.7666$i93.4319@trnddc05... > > > > > > > > "Ned Flanders" <iknowitsonlyrocknroll@butilikeit> wrote in message... > > > > > > > > Thanks for stepping in and taking up some slack. > > > > > > Thank you David for doing such a fine job yourself. > > > > shills > > Your place in this thread is easily observable. You should remember > that no one is really anonymous on Usenet.... that's why I don't bother > trying to be. I dislike shills pushing a theory for the sole purpose to sell books and video tapes > > If you have nothing to add to either side of the discussion but personal > attacks, you are soon headed for the bozo-bin, for you have no value. You mean I refuse to cow to your repeated insults and slanders that I accept your evidence and yours alone as the truth. -- Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a diet of static text and cascading "threads." Quote
Guest Tankfixer Posted April 7, 2007 Posted April 7, 2007 In article <_8IRh.182$Z66.64@trnddc06>, findme@m-a-m-s.comC/Odm mumbled > > "Tankfixer" <paul.carrier@us.army.m> wrote in message... > > > Why are you afraid of the truth ? > > > You haven't said anything that rings of truth what-so-ever. > I would be in good company here then. -- Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a diet of static text and cascading "threads." Quote
Guest Al Dykes Posted April 7, 2007 Posted April 7, 2007 In article <F3QRh.20408$tD2.12855@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, Tankfixer <paul.carrier@us.army.m> wrote: >In article <ev849g$s7g$1@panix5.panix.com>, adykes@panix.com mumbled >> In article <86DRh.383$3P3.281@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>, >> Tankfixer <paul.carrier@us.army.m> wrote: >> >In article <4615da0d$0$5743$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>, >> >iknowitsonlyrocknroll@butilikeit mumbled >> >> >> >> "Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> wrote in message >> >> news:ev4jii$7hj$1@panix5.panix.com... >> >> >> >> <snip> >> >> >> >> > Did you ever try to tell a tenured professor what to think? >> >> > >> >> > Your parania is showing, and you are insulting the intellectual >> >> > honesty and patriotism of hundreds if not a few thousand people that >> >> > contributed to the NIST reports in some way. >> >> > >> >> > And many thousands to a few million people, worldwide with expertise >> >> > look at these NIST reports from their own professional perspectives >> >> > and speak out if they see something. >> >> > >> >> > They frequently do, but don't conflate professioanl disagreements with >> >> > the idea that any of them think that explosives/thermate/thermite is >> >> > needed to explain the events of 9/11. >> >> > >> >> > There are millions of people, worldwide, with relevent expertise that >> >> > take an interest in the collapse of WTC1/2/7 for professional reasons. >> >> > They work for other governments, academia, and private industry. None >> >> > of them have said that explosives were needed to explian WTC1/2/7. >> >> >> >> And yet the firemen who were eye witnesses saw and >> >> heard explosions. And the guy/company who supplied the >> >> structural steel for the WTC got fired when he claimed that >> >> there was no way that fires caused the collapse. >> > >> >They heard loud booms. >> >And the guy who got fired ? >> >Who was he ? >> >> >> Any time the "Truth Movement" quotes a NY fireman or EMS person, you >> can look in the offical transcripts of the debreifing of about 500 of >> them, here. Make sure the Truthie uses the entire entire relevent >> quote. They frequently leave out parts that make it clear that the >> guy/gal's use of "explosion", etc was followed by text that makes it >> clear that it was just 500,000 tons of stuff falling around him. >> >> http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html >> >> >> Tankie; Please tell us who the "steel guy" is. > > >Dude, I'm the guy asking the same thing ! > Since I posted this I came to realize that. Sorry. -- a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001 Quote
Guest Al Dykes Posted April 7, 2007 Posted April 7, 2007 In article <8fQRh.20415$tD2.228@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, Tankfixer <paul.carrier@us.army.m> wrote: >In article <ev85i9$8uh$1@panix5.panix.com>, adykes@panix.com mumbled >> In article <aMDRh.20255$tD2.12296@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, >> Tankfixer <paul.carrier@us.army.m> wrote: >> >In article <46170109$0$27883$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>, >> >iknowitsonlyrocknroll@butilikeit mumbled >> >> >> >> "Tankfixer" <paul.carrier@us.army.m> wrote in message >> >> news:KgDRh.392$3P3.279@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net... >> >> >> >> <snip> >> >> >> >> > So lets see an unedited copy ? >> >> >> >> Read the thread, and follow the links >> >> >> > >> >Are you claiming those are unedited copies ? >> > >> >> No. But a serious investigator can contact them and ask them if that's >> what they realy said. >> >> The idea that 500 very patriotic emergancy workers all get the memo, >> and got it the same day before they went home, talked to their >> famalirs and the press and follow their bit of the script to the >> letter is absurd. It is an insult to those fine people, all of whom >> lost friends on that day and want the true story to be told at least >> as much as any agitator in the "truth movement". >> >> If 9/11 is a conspiracy, the memo had to go out prior to 9/11, and to >> countless thousands of peole prior to 9/11. Each would have to be >> customized for his part. No ad-libbing allowed. >> >> You are insulting lots of fine people, some of whom I know. > >Dude, I am insulting to loons who keep pedling this line of crap that >there was some huge conspiracy. > >> >> If you, "tankfixer", are really a vet, you should know what I am >> talking about. > >Please check who I have been replying to. >I think you are getting my remarks confused with them. > > > Sorry. You are right. -- a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001 Quote
wolvesslasher Posted April 7, 2007 Posted April 7, 2007 Ned Flanders wrote: > "Vandar" <vandar69@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:gGmRh.6297$ya1.4556@news02.roc.ny... > >>What Silverstein said was: >>"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling >>me that they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the >>fire. and I said 'you know, we've such a terrible loss of life, maybe >>the smartest thing to do is pull it', and they made that decision to >>pull, and we watched the building collapse." > > > > Right on que! > From fully erect to pancake-flat in a few seconds. > Must have been majik fires! > > > >>They have since explained it further: > > > They have since explained everything. > There is nothing that a lie wont explain to those who > love lies. > > > >>"In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire >>Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander >>told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the >>building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his >>view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those >>firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the >>building. >>Later in the day, the Fire Commander ordered his firefighters out of the >>building and at 5:20 p.m. the building collapsed. No lives were lost at >>Seven World Trade Center on September 11, 2001." - Silverstein >>Properties spokesman Dara McQuillan on September 9, 2005 > > > > Unlike the thousands sacrificed in the other buildings. > Should Silverstein be congratulated for not murdering any more > people? > > > <remove stinky official version of events> peee oooww! Disingenousness, deceit, lies, cover up, fear, and paranoia. Yup, you're a Christian alright. Ignorant, full of hate, a Bigot, paranoid, trembling with fear, and a hypocrite. Yup, you're an Atheist extremist alright. No better than Religious extremists. Quote
Guest Tankfixer Posted April 7, 2007 Posted April 7, 2007 In article <ev8kuu$kmq$1@panix5.panix.com>, adykes@panix.com mumbled > In article <F3QRh.20408$tD2.12855@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, > Tankfixer <paul.carrier@us.army.m> wrote: > >In article <ev849g$s7g$1@panix5.panix.com>, adykes@panix.com mumbled > >> In article <86DRh.383$3P3.281@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>, > >> Tankfixer <paul.carrier@us.army.m> wrote: > >> >In article <4615da0d$0$5743$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>, > >> >iknowitsonlyrocknroll@butilikeit mumbled > >> >> > >> >> "Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> wrote in message > >> >> news:ev4jii$7hj$1@panix5.panix.com... > >> >> > >> >> <snip> > >> >> > >> >> > Did you ever try to tell a tenured professor what to think? > >> >> > > >> >> > Your parania is showing, and you are insulting the intellectual > >> >> > honesty and patriotism of hundreds if not a few thousand people that > >> >> > contributed to the NIST reports in some way. > >> >> > > >> >> > And many thousands to a few million people, worldwide with expertise > >> >> > look at these NIST reports from their own professional perspectives > >> >> > and speak out if they see something. > >> >> > > >> >> > They frequently do, but don't conflate professioanl disagreements with > >> >> > the idea that any of them think that explosives/thermate/thermite is > >> >> > needed to explain the events of 9/11. > >> >> > > >> >> > There are millions of people, worldwide, with relevent expertise that > >> >> > take an interest in the collapse of WTC1/2/7 for professional reasons. > >> >> > They work for other governments, academia, and private industry. None > >> >> > of them have said that explosives were needed to explian WTC1/2/7. > >> >> > >> >> And yet the firemen who were eye witnesses saw and > >> >> heard explosions. And the guy/company who supplied the > >> >> structural steel for the WTC got fired when he claimed that > >> >> there was no way that fires caused the collapse. > >> > > >> >They heard loud booms. > >> >And the guy who got fired ? > >> >Who was he ? > >> > >> > >> Any time the "Truth Movement" quotes a NY fireman or EMS person, you > >> can look in the offical transcripts of the debreifing of about 500 of > >> them, here. Make sure the Truthie uses the entire entire relevent > >> quote. They frequently leave out parts that make it clear that the > >> guy/gal's use of "explosion", etc was followed by text that makes it > >> clear that it was just 500,000 tons of stuff falling around him. > >> > >> http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html > >> > >> > >> Tankie; Please tell us who the "steel guy" is. > > > > > >Dude, I'm the guy asking the same thing ! > > > > Since I posted this I came to realize that. Sorry. No problem. -- Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a diet of static text and cascading "threads." Quote
Guest Ned Flanders Posted April 7, 2007 Posted April 7, 2007 "Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> wrote in message news:ev86jm$326$1@panix5.panix.com... <snip> > That's a fine sentiment, but start from the fact, true so far, that > there is nobody in the world with appropriate expertise that says that > explosives/thermite/thermate explain who WTC1/2/7 collapsed and that a > 757 hit the Pentagon. > > Feel free to indict and impeach the Bush administration for their lies > and war, but base the case on what they did, and the public record, > not bullshit. Agreed. But there are way too many anomalies concerning 9/11 to ignore. Please feel free to dismiss them all, and believe whatever you want. Your government is famous for lying, and it comes as no surprise that many of the victims of 9/11 are leading-the-charge for truth. These people will not be satisfied with the crap you swallow for truth because it has cost them everything. Carnival barkers like yourself just parrot the lies your government imposes on the masses. Quote
Guest David Morgan \(MAMS\) Posted April 8, 2007 Posted April 8, 2007 "Steve" <stevencanyon@lefties.suk.net> wrote in message... > >They frequently leave out parts that make it clear that the > >guy/gal's use of "explosion", etc was followed by text that makes it > >clear that it was just 500,000 tons of stuff falling around him. Wow... is this ever a shill, bullsh t, assertion. 2 Buildings fell in 11 seconds each. Anyone that was able to discerne within that time period that 500,000 tons of debris was actually falling ON them (not around them), is long since dead and certainly wasn't around afterward to make any statements. 110 stories.... 11 seconds. Quote
Guest Steve Posted April 8, 2007 Posted April 8, 2007 On Sun, 08 Apr 2007 02:22:20 GMT, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)" <findme@m-a-m-s.comC/Odm> wrote: > >"Steve" <stevencanyon@lefties.suk.net> wrote in message... > >> >They frequently leave out parts that make it clear that the >> >guy/gal's use of "explosion", etc was followed by text that makes it >> >clear that it was just 500,000 tons of stuff falling around him. > >Wow... is this ever a shill, bullsh t, assertion. > >2 Buildings fell in 11 seconds each. Anyone that was able to discerne >within that time period that 500,000 tons of debris was actually falling >ON them (not around them), is long since dead and certainly wasn't >around afterward to make any statements. > >110 stories.... 11 seconds. > > > Hey, learn how to read headers and get the quotes right. Quote
Guest Steve Posted April 8, 2007 Posted April 8, 2007 On Sun, 08 Apr 2007 02:22:20 GMT, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)" <findme@m-a-m-s.comC/Odm> wrote: > >"Steve" <stevencanyon@lefties.suk.net> wrote in message... > >> >They frequently leave out parts that make it clear that the >> >guy/gal's use of "explosion", etc was followed by text that makes it >> >clear that it was just 500,000 tons of stuff falling around him. > >Wow... is this ever a shill, bullsh t, assertion. > >2 Buildings fell in 11 seconds each. Anyone that was able to discerne >within that time period that 500,000 tons of debris was actually falling >ON them (not around them), is long since dead and certainly wasn't >around afterward to make any statements. > >110 stories.... 11 seconds. > > > Quote
Guest David Morgan \(MAMS\) Posted April 8, 2007 Posted April 8, 2007 "Steve" <stevencanyon@lefties.suk.net> ... > Hey, learn how to read headers and get the quotes right. Sorry Steve... I don't see a number of people's posts due to the filtering of brain-dead shill. I was responding to Dykes via your quote of him, and I cut the wrong attribution... my bad. Quote
Guest Steve Posted April 8, 2007 Posted April 8, 2007 On Sun, 08 Apr 2007 02:55:58 GMT, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)" <findme@m-a-m-s.comC/Odm> wrote: > >"Steve" <stevencanyon@lefties.suk.net> ... > >> Hey, learn how to read headers and get the quotes right. > > >Sorry Steve... I don't see a number of people's posts due to >the filtering of brain-dead shill. I was responding to Dykes via >your quote of him, and I cut the wrong attribution... my bad. > > Forgiven... Quote
Guest Ned Flanders Posted April 8, 2007 Posted April 8, 2007 "Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> wrote in message news:ev5a03$c8c$1@panix5.panix.com... <chomp> >> Cite for the steel guy. Kevin Ryan was the guy I am referring to. I understand that his company were responsible for certifying the steel used in the twin towers, possibly not the case for WTC 7. However building regulations require the same/similar regulations and WTC7 would have had the same or similar high tensile structural steel. Quote
Guest Ned Flanders Posted April 8, 2007 Posted April 8, 2007 "Tankfixer" <paul.carrier@us.army.m> wrote in message news:86DRh.383$3P3.281@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net... > And the guy who got fired ? > Who was he ? Kevin Ryan was the guy I am referring to. I understand that his company were responsible for certifying the steel used in the twin towers, possibly not the case for WTC 7. However building regulations require the same/similar regulations and WTC7 would have had the same or similar high tensile structural steel. Quote
Guest Defendario Posted April 8, 2007 Posted April 8, 2007 Ned Flanders wrote: > "Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> wrote in message > news:ev5a03$c8c$1@panix5.panix.com... > > <chomp> > >>> Cite for the steel guy. > > > Kevin Ryan was the guy I am referring to. I listened to him speak today. It was very enlightening. > I understand that his company were responsible for > certifying the steel used in the twin towers, possibly > not the case for WTC 7. The collapse of WTC 7 is far more problematical though. The building was designed to be considerably sturdier than the overdesigned Towers. No one has yet offered an explanation/model for its mysterious demise. > However building regulations require > the same/similar regulations and WTC7 would have had the > same or similar high tensile structural steel. > Just so. The gymnastics of the fire theory are prodigious, and strain credulity. Despite all the handwaving about a diesel fuel leak and fire, there is no evidence to prove that this actually happened, not to mention the fact that the collapse began on the opposite side of the building, nearly a block away. Frankly, after the presentation, which included the testimony of janitor William Rodriguez, the last man to escape the doomed WTC 1, I was shaken. It's time to demand the truth, let the chips fall where they may. 9/11 = INSIDE JOB > > Quote
Guest Ned Flanders Posted April 8, 2007 Posted April 8, 2007 "Defendario" <Defendario@netscape.com> wrote in message news:57r6olF2e8lsnU1@mid.individual.net... <chomp> > > Kevin Ryan was the guy I am referring to. > > I listened to him speak today. It was very enlightening. > > > I understand that his company were responsible for > > certifying the steel used in the twin towers, possibly > > not the case for WTC 7. > > The collapse of WTC 7 is far more problematical though. The building > was designed to be considerably sturdier than the overdesigned Towers. > > No one has yet offered an explanation/model for its mysterious demise. There are plenty of usenet shills that have ~all~ the answers. Despite the fact that diesel fires wont melt high tensile steel. > > However building regulations require > > the same/similar regulations and WTC7 would have had the > > same or similar high tensile structural steel. > > > > Just so. The gymnastics of the fire theory are prodigious, and strain > credulity. Despite all the handwaving about a diesel fuel leak and > fire, there is no evidence to prove that this actually happened, not to > mention the fact that the collapse began on the opposite side of the > building, nearly a block away. > > Frankly, after the presentation, which included the testimony of janitor > William Rodriguez, the last man to escape the doomed WTC 1, I was > shaken. It's time to demand the truth, let the chips fall where they may. > > 9/11 = INSIDE JOB Well said. Quote
Guest Ned Flanders Posted April 8, 2007 Posted April 8, 2007 <cut n paste from http://wtc7.net/ > Building 7 was the third skyscraper to be reduced to rubble on September 11, 2001. According to the government, fires, primarily, leveled this building, but fires have never before or since destroyed a steel skyscraper. The team that investigated the collapse were kept away from the crime scene. By the time they published their inconclusive report in May, 2002, the evidence had been destroyed. Why did the government rapidly recycle the steel from the largest and most mysterious engineering failure in world history, and why has the media remained silent? Quote
Guest Tankfixer Posted April 8, 2007 Posted April 8, 2007 In article <46186757$0$16554$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>, iknowitsonlyrocknroll@butilikeit mumbled > > "Defendario" <Defendario@netscape.com> wrote in message > news:57r6olF2e8lsnU1@mid.individual.net... > > > <chomp> > > > > > Kevin Ryan was the guy I am referring to. > > > > I listened to him speak today. It was very enlightening. > > > > > I understand that his company were responsible for > > > certifying the steel used in the twin towers, possibly > > > not the case for WTC 7. > > > > The collapse of WTC 7 is far more problematical though. The building > > was designed to be considerably sturdier than the overdesigned Towers. > > > > No one has yet offered an explanation/model for its mysterious demise. > > > There are plenty of usenet shills that have ~all~ the answers. > Despite the fact that diesel fires wont melt high tensile steel. talking about yourself again shill ? > > > > > However building regulations require > > > the same/similar regulations and WTC7 would have had the > > > same or similar high tensile structural steel. > > > > > > > Just so. The gymnastics of the fire theory are prodigious, and strain > > credulity. Despite all the handwaving about a diesel fuel leak and > > fire, there is no evidence to prove that this actually happened, not to > > mention the fact that the collapse began on the opposite side of the > > building, nearly a block away. > > > > Frankly, after the presentation, which included the testimony of janitor > > William Rodriguez, the last man to escape the doomed WTC 1, I was > > shaken. It's time to demand the truth, let the chips fall where they may. > > > > 9/11 = INSIDE JOB > > Well said. So much for the search for truth. -- Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a diet of static text and cascading "threads." Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.