Message-ID: <df8ba96d0605181049j53fc3e37n9ecfa251385f4449@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu May 18 18:49:53 2006
From: c0ntexb at gmail.com (c0ntex)
Subject: **LosseChange::Debunk it??**

WTC 7 was demolished at 5pm or there abouts by controlled demolition.
The owner of the building admits that they decided to "pull it" and
the reason "because so many people had been killed in the other 2
towers". Odd reason, considering what information was stored there.

Check it out at http://www.911revisited.com/video.html

On 18/05/06, Ducki3 <duckhacks@...il.com> wrote:
>
>
> >Apparently so, since we'll swallow any cockamamie conspiracy theory that
> comes along.
>
>
>
> Paul, I am not saying I believe all the "conspiracy" Theories or that the
> government was behind it. I don't really know. But I do know from reading
> the government Northwood documents that it isn't beyond the governments
> thoughts to attempt something like this. I know it doesn't mean they did but
> it does mean they have thought of doing this.
>
>
>
> All I am saying is that it is a possibility and while the counter evidence
> you provided is plausible on why the towers collapsed. Sure, I understand
> that the amount of Jet fuel spread so quickly on the whole floor caused
> structural failure of the trusses causing the building to collapse. But I am
> trying to dig up why WTC 7 collapsed when it didn't have raging jet fuel
> fire burning through it. The document didn't explain that part.
>
>
>
> Val's comment was that many buildings have collapsed from neighboring fires
> like the Chicago fire of 1871. As for Chicago Fire of 1871, yes most of the
> buildings were gutted out from fire. These are buildings that are pre 20th
> century. Made with what? Wood, brick, some steel? I am trying to find a more
> modern case of a building collapsing (not gutted) of structural fire
> (besides the obvious two towers which a plausible case was already made).
>
>
>
> The eye witness accounts of the Pentagon crash. There are indeed numerous
> accounts all of which contradict each other. Some people saw American
> Airlines, some people saw a commuter looking plane in the area, some a C-130
> overhead. Control towers say the plane was maneuvering too fast to be an
> airliner.  So I don't buy into any of the eye witness accounts of either
> side, I wasn't there. I do know that it's possibly on tape somewhere that
> government will not release for whatever security reasons. They did release
> a 4 frame clip from the parking lot camera that shows no plane in it. That
> does no good.
>
>
>
> There are too many things to debate and piece together (WTC 7, Cell phones
> at high altitudes, Pre warning messages, Northwood, Pentagon Holes, Collapse
> rates, etc.) and some of the conspiracy is utter bull and some seems
> plausible to me. I guess it's up to every individual to make that conclusion
> on their own by looking at "BOTH" sides, not one. And I'm not applying this
> to you Paul but in general because I don't know what you have read and what
> you haven't but when people haven't examine both sides and all of the
> theories then you have ceased to be a free thinker. Because there isn't just
> 1 or 2 subjects in this conspiracy theory. There is more than a few dozen.
>
>
> Peace,
>
>
> Ducki3
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter:
> http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
>
>


-- 

regards
c0ntex

Powered by blists - more mailing lists