Building 7 was the most obvious example of the 3 that fell

Oh..you mean the parts assisted by the demolition process.

 

they are just like the Moon Landing Deniers, the Sandy Hook Shooting Deniers, the Boston Marathon Bombing Deniers....they check their logic, common sense and their ability to reason when they turn their computer on.

 

When was the last time you saw a controlled demolition begin at the top?

 

Cowards link to sites that claim 'no one died on 9/11' and then hide when challenged on it.

 

What the hell does that mean? If you're claim is correct then everything is "assisted by the demolition process." The fact remains that if everything is falling without any resistance, then everything would fall at the same speed. None of this "free fall" crap that you guys come up with. The fact is that the towers slowed down a little more after every floor, when they were met by the resistance of the floor below it.

This has been explained to you several times 'Fraud.

 

Not too mention...the videos don't show the entire collapse due to the dust/debris cloud rising up and around the WTC. The Twoofers just think when the top of the WTC goes out of site, that's the end.

 

Well, you worship the dollar, and I'll worship God. We'll see what happens.

 

..........

 

Fraud believes in God? That explains a lot..

 

... But doesn't believe in things like love and compassion, or truth. Go figure.

 

Shocker...another believer in a mythical sky fairy. That would explain your inability to think critically and your low threshold for evidence.

 

I don't worship money. I don't think I worship anything.

 

Just the fundies trying to label people...makes it easier for their simple, little minds.

 

Chastising someone for labeling people. You're doing it wrong.

 

LoL....on a serious note, what's a fundie? A fundamentalist? Am I getting that right?

 

On a more personal note, I don't really like to harp on people that adhere to religion. In this case, Fraud obviously doesn't know anything about how "God" runs things.

I feel if they really follow the base of what religion stands for then I compliment them. Things like don't cheat, steal, lie, murder, and so on. I, personally, don't need an intangible father figure that will smite me if I don't listen to him, in order prevent myself from doing those things. I don't cheat because I love my wife, I don't steal because I can afford the things I want, I don't lie because I want my word to mean something, and I don't kill because I don't want to go to jail. However, my 10 year old daughter hasn't started dating yet, so, give it time.

That being said, there are worse things people can believe in than religion...like that 9/11 was a conspiracy.

 

We're hypocrites. So?

- - - Updated - - -

Atheist? That helps explain much as well.

 

Your inability to comprehend any possibility except what YOU can personally prove to yourself, is noted. That explains your belief in the "official" fairy tale, as well. Strange that you take anything "official" on faith, but reject God, or the possibility that he exists at all. Whatever floats your boat though, bro. You only believe in the "official" fairy. I get it.

 

Folks with large portfolios generally find it very difficult to believe in God. Folks that reject BS like buildings falling at the speed of no resistance, or in the middle of the afternoon for no good reason, aren't very difficult to understand. Believing in God is inconsistent with "official" evil. I get it.

 

"Near" free fall speed. This has been pointed out to you folks several times, as well. They all fell MOSTLY straight down and quite uniformly (especially building 7, that wasn't even hit by any plane). That's obvious to anybody with a brain and a stopwatch.

 

Uhh ohh. RWF is arguing with himself again. Must have been hacked.

 

What, that atheists require evidence rather than believing things on blind faith? Sure.

Btw, I'm not atheist.

 

First, I wouldn't say I have a "large" portfolio, not that it should make a difference. I worked very hard when I was young, and at this point I am comfortable with where I am at. That has nothing to do with my belief in any religion, and implying as much is ridiculous. Look at all of the rich, powerful people that believe in God. Look at some of the rich people that believe in scientology. Money =/= atheism. You're building a strawman. Secondly, for your other strawmen. The buildings didn't fall at the "speed of no resistance", we've gone over this. The fact that there is debris falling faster than the speed of the building collapse, proves that the collapse is meeting resistance while the debris is not. Lastly, building 7 might not have been hit by a plane, but the plane isn't the only thing that brought down the Twins, and building 7 was hit by debris.

 

Why are you making "mostly straight down" sound suspicious? Of course that's where they'd fall, that's where gravity pulls everything, with no exceptions. Plus, how can you say "they all fell....quite uniformly"? The collapses don't even look alike, how can they both be the same thing? Also, get rid of the "building 7 wasn't hit by a plane" fallacy. It's not getting you anywhere because anyone with a brain has already researched this and discovered it was hit by massive falling debris, that started fires, weaking the structure of the building.

 

Fraud,

First, I have no reason to reject what I saw with my own eyes, on the ground at Johns St., NYC that morning. NONE. I didn't see the first plane but I did see the second...Me along with thousands of other people on the ground that morning.

Second, my opinions are based on what I know and what I understand as supported by proof, evidence and data. There is absolutely no proof of any controlled demolitions, any thermite/thermate...or any of the other Nutter bull s h i t. NONE.

Last, I don't reject god because there is no proof of any god.

You choolse to live your life believing things with no proof, have at ...it just makes you look like an idiot.