Rosie O'Donnell Opens 9/11 Conspiracy 'View' Debate YouTube

[240 is Back]

Am I missing something, here?
Isn't thing whole discussion about the building being BROUGHT down?
If it couldn't have been set up after, it had to be setup before.
There are no other options.

The discussion is - why did it fall.

Official NIST report is that fire did it.  Fire melted the steel into those pools of molten steel, and fire converted all the concrete to very fine powder.

We can believe this report, or not believe it.

If you don't believe it, you can start to hypothesize about who did what and when.  Or, you can start investigating.  That would include putting the owner on teh stand and ask him about his comments on "pull it".  That would include testing the metal to see if explosives residue is found and if so, which nation the residue signature points to.  They're all unique.  

Before you can do any of this, you have to choose whether you believe fire did it, or something else did it.

[Thin Lizzy]

If the wrong type of cement was used (some are designed to be subject to fires) and poor construction techniques were used (lack of consolidation for instance) and the size of aggregate used was either to small, or not plentiful enough....then an area of the building could fail. Once it started to fall then yes it could work similiar to a jackhammer on the way down "pulverizing" (for lack of better terms) concrete around it.

From what I understand, that building had undergone massive STRUCTURAL renovation to accomodate Salomon Brothers, a brokerage house, moving in.

[240 is Back]

If the wrong type of cement was used (some are designed to be subject to fires) and poor construction techniques were used (lack of consolidation for instance) and the size of aggregate used was either to small, or not plentiful enough....then an area of the building could fail. Once it started to fall then yes it could work similiar to a jackhammer on the way down "pulverizing" (for lack of better terms) concrete around it.

interesting.  what is your opinion on this one:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8403741864603265979&q=wtc+7+new&hl=en

(8 seconds long)

[Thin Lizzy]

The discussion is - why did it fall.

No it's not.

Did you watch the tape of Rosie? If not, do so. She doesn't mince her words. She says bldg #7 was brought down by explosives. That's the discussion.

[militarymuscle69]

interesting.  what is your opinion on this one:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8403741864603265979&q=wtc+7+new&hl=en

(8 seconds long)

I'll have to watch it at home and get back to you, that site and youtube are blocked at work

[240 is Back]

From what I understand, that building had undergone massive STRUCTURAL renovation to accomodate Salomon Brothers, a brokerage house, moving in.

It was a very asymmetrical building on the inside.  The fact that is fell in a completely symmetrical and perfectly level way, that bothers some folks:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8403741864603265979&q=wtc+7+new&hl=en

Historically, when buildings collapse, they NEVER powderize.  There is dust.  But when it clears, every floor is stacked, broken, fuccked up, but still THERE.  It might look like a 28 story pile of rubble.  But 2 stories of molten steel?  Some energy was present to powderize the concrete and send it hurling into the sea, and I'm not sure gravity and the weight of the building was anywhere near the amount of energy needed.

And the molten steel - nothing explains that away...

[240 is Back]

No it's not.
Did you watch the tape of Rosie? If not, do so. She doesn't mince her words. She says bldg #7 was brought down by explosives. That's the discussion.

That is her opinion.  The other woman believed it was fire.  It is a debate, and the viewer makes up his own mind. 

She first wants to have physics minds on to talk about how it fell.  Because the moment we take away fire as the cause and agree it was explosives, a few things happen:

1) The entire story goes under scrutiny.
2) We realize Osama didn't wire building 7 and we suddenly realize there were more than 19 terrorists
3) We ask why the investigation never looked at wtc7
4) we ask when and who wired it.
5) we ask why the many govt offices in that building let themselves be wired.
6) we ask about why silverstein took $480 mil for fire collapse insurance on it.
7) we ask why the same company that *managed* the scene also *managed towers 1/2, and the oklahoma city collapse.
we ask many more questions.

And, this will lead to indictments, fingerpointing among traitors, and a serious undermining for the 'war on terror' when it turns out some of the terorrists are white guys in ties.

Once you walk away from the fire explanation, everything changes.