Everyone must watch this video..

Ron Webb wrote: I don't know of another high-rise fire that resulted in total building collapse, but then I don't know of a similar building that was left to burn for six hours either.  The situation was literally unprecedented.  One shouldn't be surprised not to find similar examples.

I would add to that... a fire that burned with the heat fed by fuel.
(There's a technical term for that I believe... ugh, so frustrating that I can't remember it right now.)

[edit:  the word is accelerant, or incendiary]


Edited by Caringheart - 09 October 2012 at 4:49pm

honeto wrote: [qoute=Ron Webb] You also seem to be refusing to hear my question: given that the planes were crashed into the Twin Towers, why would the conspirators plant explosives in Building 7?  What was the point in furnishing this (according to you) clear evidence that there was a conspiracy going on?  Even worse, what if Building 7 hadn't caught fire?  Surely they couldn't have planned exactly where burning debris from the impact would fall.  Wouldn't the sudden collapse of a totally undamaged building have been a dead giveaway?

Ron,
I know you have posted answers, but they are mare official statements. There needs to be independent investigations into this event that brought changes to the whole world. Our freedoms and the way we live.

Only a dumb person will believe that some religious fanatics and cave dwellers can all of a sudden learn to fly these complicated machines, drive around with their copies of the Qurans in their cars, go to nude bars before high jacking planes, and then precisely slam them into towers that probably require more accuracy then a perfect landing.
That does not make sense, but that's how we were told.
The rest of your answers only make sense to you, not to me. I still think that those experts and engineers do need a chance to question official theories.
I am done with you, as you and those like you have a belief and you don't like questioning your beliefs.
My questions have not been answered by you, what you did is just repeat what the official statement were. I am not interested in them, I would like to hear scientific explanations.
Hasan
[/QUOTE]

Greetings Hasan,

I am having a similar conversation elsewhere.

I do think Ron raises some valid questions... those similar to ones that I would raise.

First I want to say that your comment about Saudi's not being able to learn to fly these planes is completely off base.  They are more than intelligent enough.  I went to college with quite a few people from the mid-east and most were studying to be engineers... a highly intelligent field.  It is no far stretch for them to have been in the U.S. training to be pilots.  For a very long time people have been sending their children to the U.S. from the mid-east, to get an education.  It just goes to show how trusting the U.S. was prior to 9/11, content in their belief that other nations would like to emulate them, not destroy them.

There is no question about who hi-jacked those planes... all 4 of them.

As far as the collapse of the twin towers and bldg. 7...
I can agree... it seems to be obvious that there was more to the collapse of the buildings in New York than merely the planes that hit the towers.

So what do you think happened?

Caringheart




Edited by Caringheart - 17 October 2012 at 4:44pm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html

Edited by abuayisha - 10 October 2012 at 9:24pm

Greetings Hasan,

Did you miss what I had written to you?
Go up two or three posts.

I took flying lessons at one point.  it is not inconceivable that these very intelligent men could learn to fly.  I personally do not doubt their ability to learn... not at all.  I elaborate in my other post.

Blessings to you,
Caringheart