Castanet

kompili wrote:
Who said it was incorrect, the conspirators, or the media, or both. I guess you people will believe anything if is spun right.

Nebula wrote:Completely ignore reality if you will, but that doesn't change the fact that black smoke can be caused by more than just oxygen starvation.

peaceseeker in black, answer in red wrote:You note only two buildings...what about WTC7? It wasn't hit with a plane...

That is a fact! I cannot disagree, WTC7 was not hit by a plane, it was hit by a building. Someone should start a seperate thread on the destruction caused by buildings that land on other buildings. However, since you and I were discussing the twin towers let's try to act like we don't have some bi-polar issues and stick on the topic we were discussing please.

suffered minimal damage (much less than surrounding buildings' 4, 6 and 6)

Yeah, weird... buildings 4, 6 and uhh.. 6 again? were not hit by a building in the same way as building 7.

, had fires on a few floors but still managed to fall neatly into its own footprint.

Fires were on many floors, the building did not fall into it's footprint.

The majority of fuel (kerosene) burned upon impact and the resulting fires were never hot enough to weaken steel. The fires were being starved of oxygen, evident from the dark plumes of smoke coming from the buildings.

Experts disagree with your opinion. As you are not an expert, I default to the experts theories. Please feel free to write a paper that disproves them. Good luck winning over the publics support with that. In grade school there was a saying, where there is smoke there is fire, please prove there was no fire.

As can be seen in the below photograph, this person was able to stand at the point of impact without fear of being burned.

What you fail to mention is that that person, whom I have enough respect for their memory to at least research her name, was named Edna Cintron. Any thoughts on why she decided to jump to her death? Was it because she was nice and comfy standing there without fear of being burned? I would like to note that to date, none of you have ever bothered to answer this one. I am certain you will do as many others and ignore the question.



Extra! Extra! Read all about it!

I thought you ignored the mainstream media.

No need for the use of controlled demolition to demolish old buildings anymore.

Glad to see you are finally drifting away from that rediculous controlled demolition theory.

Fires will do the trick...no problemo.

I concur, thanks, although I would have to say, it is more than a problemo and lies mostly on the accelerant.

goatboy wrote:

vinnied wrote:One more thing, this is the same van the bomb suits and explosive residue were found in

See, this is where false stories begin. That document does not say they found a bomb suit in the van. It says there were control swabs collected from the bomb suit and the gloves of Special Agent (his name is blanked out). Theses would be needed to ensure no cross contamination from the blanket sample they also took.

kompili wrote:With this picture, and some common sense, you can surely see that there wasn't mush of the fire going on.

kompili wrote:With this picture, and some common sense, you can surely see that there wasn't mush of the fire going on.

zyzzx wrote:
Common sense says there was a fire.


And common sense shows Edna Cintron jumping.



Try using some common sense.

vinnied wrote:yes common sense absolutely tells us there was a fire, but common sense also tells me, there's no way you can tell, by common sense, that that's Edna Citron.

zyzzx wrote:

vinnied wrote:yes common sense absolutely tells us there was a fire, but common sense also tells me, there's no way you can tell, by common sense, that that's Edna Citron.

You most certainly can, if you cared enough to look into it. If you are to base your opinion on a single picture posted in discussion then I guess that is where your opinion will have to sit.

Fancy wrote:The woman in the photo was identified by family members and her name was Edna Cintron.