Cardinal Chunder wrote:
Everyone else has no problem whatsoever believing it happened
more or less as it played out.
Your "everyone else" does not include me. I am a registered
professional engineer and could have signed off on the design drawings
for those buildings. I definitely do not accept the official version
of the collapses. Remember, for example, that the smaller building
(7?) collapsed also even though it was never hit.
.
|
|
| User: "tw" |
|
| Title: Re: How 9/11 was staged |
15 Aug 2005 02:34:26 AM |
|
|
"goozlefotz" <granteer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1124066166.458472.25650@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Cardinal Chunder wrote:
Everyone else has no problem whatsoever believing it happened
more or less as it played out.
Your "everyone else" does not include me. I am a registered
professional engineer and could have signed off on the design drawings
for those buildings.
Uh huh.. then you should know the likely effect of them being hit by large
jetliners and exposed to the subsequent fuel fires.
I definitely do not accept the official version
of the collapses.
That's because you're an idiot who can't understand teh official version.
Remember, for example, that the smaller building
(7?) collapsed also even though it was never hit.
Yet it was damaged by fire and flying masonry and was in the vicinity of two
enormous buildings which collapsed, which may have had something of an
effect of´n them, don't you think? Seeing as the shockwave was comparable to
a fairly major (if localised) earthquake..
.
|
|
|
| User: "goozlefotz" |
|
| Title: Re: How 9/11 was staged |
15 Aug 2005 08:02:46 AM |
|
|
tw wrote:
"goozlefotz" <granteer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1124066166.458472.25650@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Cardinal Chunder wrote:
Everyone else has no problem whatsoever believing it happened
more or less as it played out.
Your "everyone else" does not include me. I am a registered
professional engineer and could have signed off on the design drawings
for those buildings.
Uh huh.. then you should know the likely effect of them being hit by large
jetliners and exposed to the subsequent fuel fires.
I definitely do not accept the official version
of the collapses.
That's because you're an idiot who can't understand teh official version.
Remember, for example, that the smaller building
(7?) collapsed also even though it was never hit.
Yet it was damaged by fire and flying masonry and was in the vicinity of =
two
enormous buildings which collapsed, which may have had something of an
effect of=B4n them, don't you think? Seeing as the shockwave was comparab=
le to
a fairly major (if localised) earthquake..
I'm glad you know everything. That makes it easy for us dummies. We
just come to you for all the answers.
.
|
|
|
| User: "tw" |
|
| Title: Re: How 9/11 was staged |
15 Aug 2005 08:22:58 AM |
|
|
"goozlefotz" <granteer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1124110966.663965.31930@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
tw wrote:
"goozlefotz" <granteer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1124066166.458472.25650@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Cardinal Chunder wrote:
Everyone else has no problem whatsoever believing it happened
more or less as it played out.
Your "everyone else" does not include me. I am a registered
professional engineer and could have signed off on the design drawings
for those buildings.
Uh huh.. then you should know the likely effect of them being hit by large
jetliners and exposed to the subsequent fuel fires.
I definitely do not accept the official version
of the collapses.
That's because you're an idiot who can't understand teh official version.
Remember, for example, that the smaller building
(7?) collapsed also even though it was never hit.
Yet it was damaged by fire and flying masonry and was in the vicinity of
two
enormous buildings which collapsed, which may have had something of an
effect of´n them, don't you think? Seeing as the shockwave was
comparable to
a fairly major (if localised) earthquake..
I'm glad you know everything.
I'm sorry you have to get all sniffy when your unsupported assertions are
challenged. I certainly don't regard myself as knowing anything near
everything on any subject.
That makes it easy for us dummies. We
just come to you for all the answers.
Well, seeing as you are apparently incapable of coming up with any
yourself.. or are you?
Let's see:
1) Why do you feel the WTC towers could not have been brought down by impact
from a wide-bodied commerical aircraft and subsquent prolonged fuel fire?
2) Why do you feel WTC7 shoudl have survived intact after it was weakened by
fire, flying debirs and teh seismic shock of several hundred thousand tons
of metal an dconcrete hitting the earth nearby?
How come you, as a " a registered professional engineer" who "could have
signed off on the design drawings for those buildings." are pretty much
alone among your profession in your appraisal of the WTC incident?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "goozlefotz" |
|
| Title: Re: How 9/11 was staged |
23 Aug 2005 05:48:27 PM |
|
|
tw wrote:
"goozlefotz" <granteer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1124066166.458472.25650@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Cardinal Chunder wrote:
Everyone else has no problem whatsoever believing it happened
more or less as it played out.
Your "everyone else" does not include me. I am a registered
professional engineer and could have signed off on the design drawings
for those buildings.
Uh huh.. then you should know the likely effect of them being hit by large
jetliners and exposed to the subsequent fuel fires.
I definitely do not accept the official version
of the collapses.
That's because you're an idiot who can't understand teh official version.
Remember, for example, that the smaller building
(7?) collapsed also even though it was never hit.
Yet it was damaged by fire and flying masonry and was in the vicinity of =
two
enormous buildings which collapsed, which may have had something of an
effect of=B4n them, don't you think? Seeing as the shockwave was comparab=
le to
a fairly major (if localised) earthquake..
I do not respond to those who can't tell a discussion from an attack.
Believe what you will.
.
|
|
|
| User: "tw" |
|
| Title: Re: How 9/11 was staged |
24 Aug 2005 03:08:27 AM |
|
|
"goozlefotz" <granteer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1124837306.961238.299750@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
tw wrote:
"goozlefotz" <granteer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1124066166.458472.25650@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Cardinal Chunder wrote:
Everyone else has no problem whatsoever believing it happened
more or less as it played out.
Your "everyone else" does not include me. I am a registered
professional engineer and could have signed off on the design drawings
for those buildings.
Uh huh.. then you should know the likely effect of them being hit by large
jetliners and exposed to the subsequent fuel fires.
I definitely do not accept the official version
of the collapses.
That's because you're an idiot who can't understand teh official version.
Remember, for example, that the smaller building
(7?) collapsed also even though it was never hit.
Yet it was damaged by fire and flying masonry and was in the vicinity of
two
enormous buildings which collapsed, which may have had something of an
effect of´n them, don't you think? Seeing as the shockwave was comparable
to
a fairly major (if localised) earthquake..
Googleputz wrote:
I do not respond to those who can't tell a discussion from an attack.
Believe what you will.
TW writes:
In other words, you have been called on your ***** and are unable to
defend it. What an enormous surprise!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: How 9/11 was staged |
15 Aug 2005 10:44:45 AM |
|
|
On 14 Aug 2005 17:36:06 -0700, "goozlefotz" <granteer@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Cardinal Chunder wrote:
Everyone else has no problem whatsoever believing it happened
more or less as it played out.
Your "everyone else" does not include me. I am a registered
professional engineer and could have signed off on the design drawings
for those buildings. I definitely do not accept the official version
of the collapses. Remember, for example, that the smaller building
(7?) collapsed also even though it was never hit.
There seem to be quite a few in this group that believe the official
report. I never believed it from the moment the first plane hit.I mean
come on, they actually found passports of the alleged "terrorists",
Hahahahahah, give me a break.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cardinal Chunder" |
|
| Title: Re: How 9/11 was staged |
15 Aug 2005 03:47:31 AM |
|
|
goozlefotz wrote:
Cardinal Chunder wrote:
Everyone else has no problem whatsoever believing it happened
more or less as it played out.
Your "everyone else" does not include me. I am a registered
professional engineer and could have signed off on the design drawings
for those buildings. I definitely do not accept the official version
of the collapses. Remember, for example, that the smaller building
(7?) collapsed also even though it was never hit.
Sure thing, whatever you say.
So what don't you accept about WTC 1 & 2 being hit by fuel laden planes,
blowing out drywalls, starting immense fires, their trusses sagging
under immense heat and stress and the whole lot coming down?
What don't you accept about WTC7, severely damaged by large chunks of
debris including burning material, igniting an internal fuel tank, and
consequently burning uncontrolled for hours also coming down?
What evidence do you have support an alternative explanation?
What evidence do you have that even if WTC7 was demolished (which you
must prove), that it somehow proves some overarching neocon konspiracy
to go to afghanistan?
Evidence by the way, is not the merry go-round of visiting one kook site
after another following a trail of incestuous links which offer up
nothing more than supposition, incredulity and heavily artifacted
pictures / clips with pointy arrows.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: How 9/11 was staged |
15 Aug 2005 10:46:14 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 09:47:31 +0100, Cardinal Chunder
<cc@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote:
What evidence do you have support an alternative explanation?
What evidence do you have of the reported version?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cardinal Chunder" |
|
| Title: Re: How 9/11 was staged |
15 Aug 2005 09:01:00 AM |
|
|
wrote:
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 09:47:31 +0100, Cardinal Chunder
<cc@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote:
What evidence do you have support an alternative explanation?
What evidence do you have of the reported version?
Just all the news footage, eye witness accounts, FBI investigation, 9/11
commission investigations, security camera footage, emergency
transcripts, forensic evidence, expert analysis and everything else from
many independent sources which makes the cause of the attack quite obvious.
.
|
|
|
| User: "tw" |
|
| Title: Re: How 9/11 was staged |
15 Aug 2005 09:27:00 AM |
|
|
"Cardinal Chunder" <cc@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in message
news:ddq76m02j64@news2.newsguy.com...
Zak@home.com wrote:
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 09:47:31 +0100, Cardinal Chunder
<cc@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote:
What evidence do you have support an alternative explanation?
What evidence do you have of the reported version?
Just all the news footage, eye witness accounts, FBI investigation, 9/11
commission investigations, security camera footage, emergency
transcripts, forensic evidence, expert analysis and everything else from
many independent sources which makes the cause of the attack quite
obvious.
Now now CC, it's not up to him to PROVE his outlandish claims, it's up to
you to DISPROVE them, of course.
But seeing as Zak could never disporve my hypothesis that it was giant
invisible gay space pygmies than took out the WTC I don't think he really
deservse the time or effort...
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: How 9/11 was staged |
16 Aug 2005 10:20:47 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 16:27:00 +0200, "tw" <no@no.com> wrote:
"Cardinal Chunder" <cc@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in message
news:ddq76m02j64@news2.newsguy.com...
Zak@home.com wrote:
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 09:47:31 +0100, Cardinal Chunder
<cc@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote:
What evidence do you have support an alternative explanation?
What evidence do you have of the reported version?
Just all the news footage, eye witness accounts, FBI investigation, 9/11
commission investigations, security camera footage, emergency
transcripts, forensic evidence, expert analysis and everything else from
many independent sources which makes the cause of the attack quite
obvious.
Now now CC, it's not up to him to PROVE his outlandish claims, it's up to
you to DISPROVE them, of course.
But seeing as Zak could never disporve my hypothesis that it was giant
invisible gay space pygmies than took out the WTC I don't think he really
deservse the time or effort...
Still the idiot I see eh twIT. We will see who gets the last laugh in
the real near future.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cardinal Chunder" |
|
| Title: Re: How 9/11 was staged |
15 Aug 2005 10:27:51 AM |
|
|
tw wrote:
"Cardinal Chunder" <cc@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in message
news:ddq76m02j64@news2.newsguy.com...
Zak@home.com wrote:
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 09:47:31 +0100, Cardinal Chunder
<cc@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote:
What evidence do you have support an alternative explanation?
What evidence do you have of the reported version?
Just all the news footage, eye witness accounts, FBI investigation, 9/11
commission investigations, security camera footage, emergency
transcripts, forensic evidence, expert analysis and everything else from
many independent sources which makes the cause of the attack quite
obvious.
Now now CC, it's not up to him to PROVE his outlandish claims, it's up to
you to DISPROVE them, of course.
But seeing as Zak could never disporve my hypothesis that it was giant
invisible gay space pygmies than took out the WTC I don't think he really
deservse the time or effort...
I think you have something there!
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: How 9/11 was staged |
16 Aug 2005 10:22:36 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 16:27:51 +0100, Cardinal Chunder
<cc@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote:
tw wrote:
"Cardinal Chunder" <cc@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in message
news:ddq76m02j64@news2.newsguy.com...
Zak@home.com wrote:
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 09:47:31 +0100, Cardinal Chunder
<cc@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote:
What evidence do you have support an alternative explanation?
What evidence do you have of the reported version?
Just all the news footage, eye witness accounts, FBI investigation, 9/11
commission investigations, security camera footage, emergency
transcripts, forensic evidence, expert analysis and everything else from
many independent sources which makes the cause of the attack quite
obvious.
Now now CC, it's not up to him to PROVE his outlandish claims, it's up to
you to DISPROVE them, of course.
But seeing as Zak could never disporve my hypothesis that it was giant
invisible gay space pygmies than took out the WTC I don't think he really
deservse the time or effort...
I think you have something there!
I don't have to prove or disprove anything, Time will show who is
right and who isin't. You assholes just keep sucking butcher Bush's
*****, he will protect you. Hahahahaha
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cardinal Chunder" |
|
| Title: Re: How 9/11 was staged |
16 Aug 2005 07:40:08 AM |
|
|
wrote:
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 16:27:51 +0100, Cardinal Chunder
<cc@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote:
tw wrote:
"Cardinal Chunder" <cc@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in message
news:ddq76m02j64@news2.newsguy.com...
Now now CC, it's not up to him to PROVE his outlandish claims, it's up to
you to DISPROVE them, of course.
But seeing as Zak could never disporve my hypothesis that it was giant
invisible gay space pygmies than took out the WTC I don't think he really
deservse the time or effort...
I think you have something there!
I don't have to prove or disprove anything, Time will show who is
right and who isin't. You assholes just keep sucking butcher Bush's
*****, he will protect you. Hahahahaha
Yes you do if you expect to be taken seriously. At the moment, your
reputation needle is stuck between kook and konspiracy kook.
You can start off by explaining how we "[suck] butcher Bush's" *****. I
think if you bothered to rub some braincells together (and the evidence
so far is against you having many) by doing some research that neither
myself or tw could be called pro-Bush by any stretch.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
