9/11 VIDEO: Professional engineer Jonathan H. Coles demonstrates that steel subjected to fire does not produce the effects seen at Ground Zero

You're still persistent with this crap that's already been debunked hundreds of times over?

dwarn will be talking about this shit when for 40 more years

They should have some scientists look into what happened.

Originally posted by: squanto

They should have some scientists look into what happened.

http://www.ae911truth.org/

everything's been debunked, and people are less interested now than they used to be. this will become another kennedy assassination type deal where a lot of people believe something dodgy went down but nobody really knows or cares anyway.

Everything has been debunked? Is that what you have been told? Good little sheep, sleep well..

Everything has been debunked. You haven't looked for it apparently. 911myths.com is a good start. Find an example and tell us how the debunking is wrong.

324908234098 engineers agree that the buildings could easily fall that way...but 2 or 3 do not believe it, make a video and 348092384 morons believe them.

Originally posted by: Sharplimbed

Everything has been debunked. You haven't looked for it apparently. 911myths.com is a good start. Find an example and tell us how the debunking is wrong.

Originally posted by: Sharplimbed

Everything has been debunked. You haven't looked for it apparently. 911myths.com is a good start. Find an example and tell us how the debunking is wrong.

Ok, I looked at your site. Topic here is building 7 right? Anyway, they debunked the claim that building 7 did not have a lot of fired in, and seemed to be minimal as far as fire by showing a picture that has a lot of smoke coming from the side of the building..WOW! Yea, every floor must have had hell like fires, after all, look at that smoke. The fires could not just be on floors 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 19, 27 and 28. Such an idiotic argument! Yea, there is mad smoke, but we don't even see a glow, or flames behind the smoke. Come on kid. NEXT!

Silverstein lost money? Did not profit?

Weighing in at $3.2 billion, the acquisition of the 99-year leasehold of the World Trade Center was the largest of the year. "Notwithstanding the emotional difficulty of celebrating anything related to the World Trade Center is the fact that upon completion of its acquisition by Larry Silverstein, it was clearly the deal of the year for the industry, and now more than ever, a deal of

Six months before the 9/11 attacks the World Trade Center was "privatized" by being leased to a private sector developer. The lease was purchased by the Silverstein Group for $3.2 billion. "This is a dream come true," Larry Silverstein said. "We will be in control of a prized asset, and we will seek to develop its potential, raising it to new heights."

Instead of renovation, Silverstein is rebuilding, funded by the insurance coverage on the property which 'fortuitously' covered acts of terrorism. Even better, Silverstein filed TWO insurance claims for the maximum amount of the policy, based on the two, in Silverstein's view, separate attacks. The total potential payout is $7.1 billion, more than enough to build a fabulous new complex and leave a hefty profit for the Silverstein Group, including Larry Silverstein himself.

As reported in The Washington Post, the insurance company, Swiss Re, has gone to court to argue that the 9/11 disaster was only one attack, not two and that therefore the insurance payout should be limited to $3.55 billion, still enough to rebuild the complex.

A federal jury on Monday ruled that the assault on the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center was in fact two occurrences for insurance purposes. The finding in U.S. District Court in Manhattan means leaseholder Larry Silverstein may collect up to $4.6 billion, according to reports. [Forbes.com 12/06/04]

A lot is still pending in courts, but your wack ass website acts like Larry lost on his early 2001 purchase (which many saw as a bad investment, luckily the push to get the incredible terrorist insurance worked out. Larry didn't lose.

And your website doesn't even mention so much about building 7, like BBC and other false reports about it falling to the ground way before the event even occurred.

Then they go on to "debunk" the possibility of it being controlled demo by mentioning enhanced video should not be counted on...Thats fine, don't count on it, and controlled demo doesnt needs balls of fire or explosions coming out of the side of the building, just compare to many other video taped controlled demo's and check it it.

Its fine to wonder, and question, but for you to boldly and arrogantly come on here and say "EVERYTHING HAS BEEN DEBUNKED" Please..I would never be so bold to say things are concrete and factual, and these conspiracy theorist proved their case, case is closed. I'm sure some shit has been debunked, and trust me, some shit will never even be touched. Open your mind young brother..get off the kool-aid and get on the H20

Originally posted by: sidney

324908234098 engineers agree that the buildings could easily fall that way...but 2 or 3 do not believe it, make a video and 348092384 morons believe them.

Your a fucking retard..Before you fucking talk, you should research ya dick

Sharplimbed..I dont know why my shit is all underlined..haha, sorry.

the answers to all your questions are available. every single claim can be explained in a way which does not require any conspiracy. i don't really think you're too bothered about the actual truth so i can't really be bothered to do the work for you.

but as for fires in building 7, i don't see how it can be a conspiracy without the firemen being somehow in on it?