notabook

Look fuck for brains, I'm obviously not the one who can't follow a thread. The *ENTIRE* time I've been talking, other then those little interjects now and again, has been about Building #7 and not the WTC. I even admitted throughout the thread that the WTC was probably taken down by the combination of fire + structural damage. Then you come here and start saying ridiculous shit that has nothing to do with Building #7 directly to me. "lol they were hit by PLANES rofl". When I try to explain to your dumbass that I'm not talking about the WTC (and if you?d been following the thread it would have been obvious to anyone with an inkling of intelligence) but instead Building #7, you come back again with your idiotic statements saying something like "lol, don't get all uppity LOL" to which I respond 'At least I can tell buildings apart.'. For some unapparent reason you keep trying to interject useless tidbits of blather into this conversation yet for some reason you can't get it through your thick skull that I am talking about BUILDING #7. Not the WTC....

So to summarize for you buddy since you and a couple others here have a bit of a problem with reading comprehension:

The World Trade Center was hit by two jets. Building #7 was not hit by a jet. The World Trade Center most likely fell due to the structural damage from the jets in combination with the high intense fires caused by jet fuel. Building #7, however, suffered no more or no less damage that the other building closer to the World Trade Center sustained, and as such it should have not fell because of fire w/combination of limited structural damage. Because of this, Building #7 is a highly debated issue and remains a hot topic for conspiracists and non- conspiracists alike.
*Note: Building #7 is NOT the fucking World Trade Center you god damn moron.

__________________