Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Pleasurepays
all i have been doing is fucking with you and you are the one blowing a gasket. your behavior speaks volumes for your limited ability for rational thought and when looked at in the wider context of your moronic conspiracy theories, offers some insight into the potential worth of your deductions.
|
I think I liked your useless drivel that you got from your random text generator more. Maybe you should use it again, it sure the fuck made you sound more intelligent that the shit you just spit out right now. If you have something of serious substance to add, then by means do it. YOU can NOT ignore this simple fact: Prior to 9-11, not ONE modern skyscraper has fell to fire damage. Not one. That number again for you is ZERO. Zip, Nada, ZILCH. Structural engineers, even the ones commissioned by FEMA also state that the chance of a steel skyscraper falling to fire damage alone is nothing.
Now again for ya buddy since your brain may revert and think I?m talking about the WTC? I?M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE WTC. Building #7 simply wasn?t damaged enough from the falling debris to be affected by the intense fire. Where I disagree with FEMA?s report, however, is their assertion that the falling debris from the WTC somehow did enough structural damage to Building #7, in combination with the fire, to make it collapse. Yet 97% of the evidence had already been removed by the time they got to examine the remains? for them to make that claim is, in words you can understand, RETARDED. Couple that with the fact that the buildings closer to WTC received similar if not identical conditions and were still structurally sound support the conspiracists claim that Building #7?s collapse was planned in advance.