Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.astronomy > #276009
| From | "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | alt.astronomy, alt.conspiracy, sci.physics |
| Subject | Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? 9/11 |
| Date | 2015-09-15 11:31 -0400 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <mt9dgp$h64$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | <ILGdnRwlMeY3MmjInZ2dnUU7-WGdnZ2d@giganews.com> <mt4e1b$7f1$1@dont-email.me> <fchbvah52s1r15rtddoscut1cbc3fk3h92@4ax.com> <mt4kku$2j6$1@dont-email.me> <MPG.3060a38a3656f08898c29f@news.giganews.com> |
Cross-posted to 3 groups.
BDK wrote: > In article <mt4kku$2j6$1@dont-email.me>, fakename@nomail.invalid says... >> >> K Wills (Shill #3) wrote: >>> On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 14:09:23 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Rocky wrote: >>>>> If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they >>>>> stay burning afterwards? >>>>> >>>>> Hell, normal office fires keep burning strong even after a building >>>>> collapses because of fire but that was not the case with WTC1, WTC2 >>>>> or WTC7. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Point of clarification: >>>> WORLDWIDE. No other steel framed building in history has ever >>>> completely collapsed because of fire. >>>> Only those 3 in NYC on 9/11. >>>> >>> >>> No one is claiming fire alone did it. >> >> >> >> >> Well, the official fairytale says it did. >> Especially when it comes to WTC 7 >> >> >> >> >> >>>> And of course after an hour, most of the fires had already burned >>>> out, and were only smouldering, as witnessed by the black smoke. >>>> So hardly capable of THEN being able to melt steel >>>> >>> >>> Which is why no one is claiming fire alone brought them down. >> >> >> >> >> >> AGAIN,...the official fairytale says fire caused the beams and floors >> to melt >> In ALL THREE TOWERS >> >> >> > No sane person claimed beams and floors melted, You poor fuckwit, > >> > > >> >> >>> >>>> Yet flowing molten steel was seen that day, and for weeks after in >>>> the rubble of ALL THREE TOWERS >>> >>> Where is the evidence of this? I've seen one picture of red hot >>> metal, but nothing molten. >>> Will you proved the evidence of this, or continue to prove you're >>> mentally ill? >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> How many times will you keep ignoring these videos. >> Do you work for NIST ? >> >> WTC2 South Tower on 9/11 Molten Metal North-East Corner >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmuzyWC60eE >> >> >> 9/11: Molten Metal at Ground Zero >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCdRA09pztM >> >> >> 9/11: South Tower Molten Metal & Collapse >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPu9IqBfMIw >> >> >> Scientists Examine the Molten Steel that Lingered for Weeks Underneath >> WTC 1, 2 & 7 on 9/11 - Many Surprises Found >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTa_XL_k8fY >> >> >> Are you calling Mayor Giuliani a LIAR ??? >> >> > > Are you claiming he saw it? I hope not. > > > If there was something molten, it was not steel. There are a lot of > materials that it could have possibly been, but steel is not one of > them. Either that day or "weeks later". Steel needs a LOT of heat to > melt and stay melted. > >> >> >> >> >> >>>> >>>> ...That doesn't happen without other help >>>> >>> >>> And a heat source, that was not present, to keep the metal >>> molten. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> How did it even become molten is the question you should have asked. >> Since the whole fairytale depends of blindness that it ever existed at >> all. > > Yes, please explain how it melted, since we sane people don't think it > did. <ROTFLMAO> You don't think it did,......are you really going to use THAT for your argument ???? <sigh> There is just no debating logic like that.
Back to alt.astronomy | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-13 12:16 -0500
Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-13 14:09 -0400
Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-13 13:38 -0500
Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 13:51 -0500
Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? ( Kid is caught in 4 BIG LIES ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-13 14:31 -0500
Re: Rocky's legal woes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-13 19:57 +0000
Re: Rocky's legal woes "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-13 16:16 -0400
Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-13 15:40 -0500
Re: Rocky the stalker jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-13 23:27 +0000
Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? ( Kid is caught in 4 BIG LIES ) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 04:21 -0500
Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? ( Kid is caught in 4 BIG LIES + more on his BIG LIES) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-14 08:09 -0500
Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? ( Kid is caught in 4 BIG LIES + more on his BIG LIES) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 18:38 -0500
Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? ( Kid is caught in 4 BIG LIES ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-14 15:34 -0500
Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? ( Kid is caught in 4 BIG LIES ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-14 15:39 -0500
Re: More Rocky delusions jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-14 21:17 +0000
Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? ( Dealing with Michael's BIG LIES ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-14 21:05 -0500
Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? ( Dealing with Michael's BIG LIES ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-18 14:05 -0500
Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? ( Dealing with Michael's BIG LIES ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-21 10:51 -0500
Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? 9/11 "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-13 16:02 -0400
Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? 9/11 "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-13 15:05 -0500
Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? 9/11 "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 04:25 -0500
Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? 9/11 BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-09-14 10:28 -0400
Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? 9/11 "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-15 11:31 -0400
Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? 9/11 "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 13:14 -0500
Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? 9/11 "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-15 17:47 -0400
Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? 9/11 "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 22:04 -0500
Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? 9/11 BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-09-15 23:46 -0400
Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? 9/11 "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-17 05:01 -0400
Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-09-14 10:19 -0400
Re: smoke and fire jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-13 19:29 +0000
Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? burfordtjustice <burford@uk.mo> - 2015-09-13 14:27 -0400
Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? Hägar <hsahm@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-13 11:34 -0700
Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-13 13:43 -0500
Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-09-13 19:52 -0500
Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-13 22:43 -0400
Re: Rocky doesn't understand fire jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-13 19:26 +0000
9/11 debunkers, debunked - Re: Rocky doesn't understand fire "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-13 16:35 -0400
Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-13 16:00 -0500
Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-13 23:29 +0100
Re: Rocky denies reality jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-13 23:39 +0000
Re: How fire works for the ignorant jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-13 23:36 +0000
Re: How fire works for the ignorant "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-14 09:11 -0400
Re: How fire works for the ignorant jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-14 16:03 +0000
Re: How fire works for the ignorant "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-14 12:48 -0400
Re: How fire works for the ignorant "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-14 12:50 -0400
Re: How fire works for the ignorant jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-14 17:05 +0000
Re: How fire works for the ignorant "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-14 20:43 -0400
Re: How fire works for the ignorant BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-09-14 21:15 -0400
Re: How fire works for the ignorant "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-15 09:47 -0400
Re: How fire works for the ignorant "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 13:13 -0500
Re: How fire works for the ignorant BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-09-15 18:24 -0400
Re: How fire works for the ignorant Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-15 15:32 -0700
Re: How fire works for the ignorant BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-09-15 20:42 -0400
Re: How fire works for the ignorant jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-15 22:36 +0000
Re: How fire works for the ignorant "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-15 19:57 -0400
Re: How fire works for the ignorant jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-16 00:13 +0000
Re: How fire works for the ignorant BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-09-15 20:43 -0400
Re: How fire works for the ignorant jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-15 01:20 +0000
Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-13 15:21 -0500
Re: Rocky's delusions jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-13 23:29 +0000
Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? ( Kid Wills is FULL OF SHIT ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-14 09:35 -0500
Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? Arc Michael <abookoflife@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-15 15:46 -0700
Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? Saul Levy <saullevy1@cox.net> - 2015-09-16 09:59 -0700
csiph-web