[Vote] Who did 911?

[Lenore]

... The likeliness of both building falling in the manner that they did is slim....

Not at all.   Given they were hit the same way, why would the structures not react in similar fashions?

You'd have a point if, say, one of the planes had been nearly empty of fuel and the other one nearly full.  But that wasn't the case.

Two planes knocked down three buildings

The third building, which was not hit by a plane, was wtc7.

....so WHAT?

For the quote in bold.

Both building were not identical.  Both planes couldnt have hit at the same angle or have the same mass.  There for the reactions were more then likely to be different.  I am also sure that the fuel levels were not identical either.

The main point being the structures of the buildings themselves.  They were different.  Again. From an engineers standpoint.  It wasn't possible or likely.  The materials used to build these building is also public record.  So you could see tinsel strength and heat tolerance.  Along with a make up o alloy or steel type used in construction.

If you look at what it would take to bring these down you would find these planes are unlikely of doing this even if they were to carry twice the amount of fuel.  These types of buildings are built to withstand a lot more then you think.  And there are building built way before these that have caught fire and had much higher temps and they did not fall.  If you lay all the evidence out on the table and look at it all.  I do not see how anyone could think that there is not something wrong with the picture.  I have only mentioned a few things.  There are many, many, many more.

If you want me to break everything down.  I have no problem.  people who question any of this I am guessing are the ones who believe everything they see on CNN.

[BADecker]

... The likeliness of both building falling in the manner that they did is slim....

Not at all.   Given they were hit the same way, why would the structures not react in similar fashions?

You'd have a point if, say, one of the planes had been nearly empty of fuel and the other one nearly full.  But that wasn't the case.

Two planes knocked down three buildings

The third building, which was not hit by a plane, was wtc7.

....so WHAT?

For the quote in bold.

Both building were not identical.  Both planes couldnt have hit at the same angle or have the same mass.  There for the reactions were more then likely to be different.  I am also sure that the fuel levels were not identical either.

The main point being the structures of the buildings themselves.  They were different.  Again. From an engineers standpoint.  It wasn't possible or likely.  The materials used to build these building is also public record.  So you could see tinsel strength and heat tolerance.  Along with a make up o alloy or steel type used in construction.

If you look at what it would take to bring these down you would find these planes are unlikely of doing this even if they were to carry twice the amount of fuel.  These types of buildings are built to withstand a lot more then you think.  And there are building built way before these that have caught fire and had much higher temps and they did not fall.  If you lay all the evidence out on the table and look at it all.  I do not see how anyone could think that there is not something wrong with the picture.  I have only mentioned a few things.  There are many, many, many more.

If you want me to break everything down.  I have no problem.  people who question any of this I am guessing are the ones who believe everything they see on CNN.

Dump some jet fuel into a coffee can, and try to get it to ignite. If you can, it burns with a smoky, heat well under 1000 degrees F.

You need some form of air blast to make the fuel burn hot enough to do any damage. This kind of thing just doesn't happen automatically. You need to work at it.

There wasn't enough heat in the buildings to do any structural damage whatsoever.

[Spendulus]

... The likeliness of both building falling in the manner that they did is slim....

Not at all.   Given they were hit the same way, why would the structures not react in similar fashions?

You'd have a point if, say, one of the planes had been nearly empty of fuel and the other one nearly full.  But that wasn't the case.

Two planes knocked down three buildings

The third building, which was not hit by a plane, was wtc7.

....so WHAT?

For the quote in bold.

Both building were not identical.  Both planes couldnt have hit at the same angle or have the same mass.  There for the reactions were more then likely to be different.  I am also sure that the fuel levels were not identical either.

The main point being the structures of the buildings themselves.  They were different.  Again. From an engineers standpoint.  It wasn't possible or likely.  The materials used to build these building is also public record.  So you could see tinsel strength and heat tolerance.  Along with a make up o alloy or steel type used in construction.

If you look at what it would take to bring these down you would find these planes are unlikely of doing this even if they were to carry twice the amount of fuel.  These types of buildings are built to withstand a lot more then you think.  And there are building built way before these that have caught fire and had much higher temps and they did not fall.  If you lay all the evidence out on the table and look at it all.  I do not see how anyone could think that there is not something wrong with the picture.  I have only mentioned a few things.  There are many, many, many more.

If you want me to break everything down.  I have no problem.  people who question any of this I am guessing are the ones who believe everything they see on CNN.

Before you break everything down, go back in the thread and note where these arguments have already been refuted.  Start from there, otherwise you are just saying things that have already been covered.

[btcusury]

I promote a government of the people, by the people, for the people, not fascist rule like we have in the 9/11 cover-up.

There is no such thing. Please learn to think... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5mZ5FBHg0A

[BADecker]

I promote a government of the people, by the people, for the people, not fascist rule like we have in the 9/11 cover-up.

There is no such thing. Please learn to think... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5mZ5FBHg0A

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_Constitution, the Preamble to the Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

There is nothing within the Preamble, nor withing the Constitution that suggests that the people are placing themselves under the Constitution or the government. In fact, the words say that the Constitution is set in place to "... secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity ... ." The Constitution and government are for US, not we for them.

In addition, the 9th Amendment in the Bill of Rights says (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution):

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

In other words, we have all the rights that we always did. The Cosntitution does NOT deny any rights to the people. The people are over the Constitution individually, and therefore, above all the laws that flow out of it, in every way that they want to be. However, if individuals do not exercise their right to be above the Constitution and laws, then they are accepting a position under it and them. However, the people can always pick up and use their rights to get out from under the laws and government whenever they want.

[btcusury]

Want to see a piece of paper that gives me the RIGHT to rob you? You don't believe there is such a thing? Are you SURE you don't believe it? Please watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngpsJKQR_ZE

[BADecker]

Want to see a piece of paper that gives me the RIGHT to rob you? You don't believe there is such a thing? Are you SURE you don't believe it? Please watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngpsJKQR_ZE

The problem with Larken Rose and most other Americans is this. They can't get it through their heads that stepping into the legal system is not the way to do it. The Preamble, and the 6th, 7th, and 9th Amendments show government that it cannot keep people from moving in the ways that they did before government was around, to get relief from someone who has wronged them.

The paperwork of government, no matter what it is, does nothing other than to warm a person if it is burned. It can't jump up and do anything. Paper simply isn't like that. We are having a hard time making AI robots that can sort of do something on their own. Government paper can't.

When people read government paperwork, and decide to do what the paperwork says, it is people acting, not paperwork. In the foundational government paperwork, as I mentioned above, government people are not allowed to harm any man. If they do, the man is allowed to use all the remedies that he had before the government paperwork came into being. And he is allowed to do it by using government paperwork to limit government people if he wants.

The answer to Larken Rose saying that he is allowed to rob you is, no he is not allowed to rob me. If he does it anyway, I require return of my property, and just and fair compensation for the time that it was forcefully removed from me. If it is damaged, I require more compensation.

I go straight to the man who did it to me. Forget the government office he might hold. I am not part of that. The man did me wrong. The man must pay.

[btcusury]

The problem with Larken Rose and most other Americans is this. They can't get it through their heads that stepping into the legal system is not the way to do it. The Preamble, and the 6th, 7th, and 9th Amendments show government that it cannot keep people from moving in the ways that they did before government was around, to get relief from someone who has wronged them.

What. Are. You. Talking. About?

Do you listen to anyone or anything other than your own thoughts?

(Or are you high? LOL)

[BADecker]

The problem with Larken Rose and most other Americans is this. They can't get it through their heads that stepping into the legal system is not the way to do it. The Preamble, and the 6th, 7th, and 9th Amendments show government that it cannot keep people from moving in the ways that they did before government was around, to get relief from someone who has wronged them.

What. Are. You. Talking. About?

Do you listen to anyone or anything other than your own thoughts?

(Or are you high? LOL)

Now you see. Someone shows you the black and white paperwork of foundational law in America, and all you can say is, What are you talking about?

I know it might be hard for you, a slave, to comprehend freedom, but try, if you want to know what I am talking about.

[Lenore]

... The likeliness of both building falling in the manner that they did is slim....

Not at all.   Given they were hit the same way, why would the structures not react in similar fashions?

You'd have a point if, say, one of the planes had been nearly empty of fuel and the other one nearly full.  But that wasn't the case.

Two planes knocked down three buildings

The third building, which was not hit by a plane, was wtc7.

....so WHAT?

For the quote in bold.

Both building were not identical.  Both planes couldnt have hit at the same angle or have the same mass.  There for the reactions were more then likely to be different.  I am also sure that the fuel levels were not identical either.

The main point being the structures of the buildings themselves.  They were different.  Again. From an engineers standpoint.  It wasn't possible or likely.  The materials used to build these building is also public record.  So you could see tinsel strength and heat tolerance.  Along with a make up o alloy or steel type used in construction.

If you look at what it would take to bring these down you would find these planes are unlikely of doing this even if they were to carry twice the amount of fuel.  These types of buildings are built to withstand a lot more then you think.  And there are building built way before these that have caught fire and had much higher temps and they did not fall.  If you lay all the evidence out on the table and look at it all.  I do not see how anyone could think that there is not something wrong with the picture.  I have only mentioned a few things.  There are many, many, many more.

If you want me to break everything down.  I have no problem.  people who question any of this I am guessing are the ones who believe everything they see on CNN.

Dump some jet fuel into a coffee can, and try to get it to ignite. If you can, it burns with a smoky, heat well under 1000 degrees F.

You need some form of air blast to make the fuel burn hot enough to do any damage. This kind of thing just doesn't happen automatically. You need to work at it.

There wasn't enough heat in the buildings to do any structural damage whatsoever.

You are correct.   I do have to say that it would have burned over 1000 degrees. 

Even if these buildings are totally square and have equal sides.  Elevator shafts placed in identical areas on all sides of the building making every side of the towers identical. The fuel would have not been distributed evenly.  One side would have received more fuel then the other.  Therefor theoretically you would of had one side hotter then another and a longer burn.  Which you would think would in turn make one side weaker then the other causing the building to topple.  Ever play Jenga?  You ever make it drop straight down?  No it always fall to one side or the other.  Anyone who has seen or delt with demolition would have to agree that these towers were in one way or another controlled.  You may have been lucky and had one drop in a fashion that looks like it dropped straight down like a controlled demolition but the likeness of both doing so is extremely slim. With the reports of secondary explosions and what was witnessed and reported.   There is no way it was not at least semi controlled.

[BADecker]

Dump some jet fuel into a coffee can, and try to get it to ignite. If you can, it burns with a smoky, heat well under 1000 degrees F.

You need some form of air blast to make the fuel burn hot enough to do any damage. This kind of thing just doesn't happen automatically. You need to work at it.

There wasn't enough heat in the buildings to do any structural damage whatsoever.

You are correct.   I do have to say that it would have burned over 1000 degrees. 

Even if these buildings are totally square and have equal sides.  Elevator shafts placed in identical areas on all sides of the building making every side of the towers identical. The fuel would have not been distributed evenly.  One side would have received more fuel then the other.  Therefor theoretically you would of had one side hotter then another and a longer burn.  Which you would think would in turn make one side weaker then the other causing the building to topple.  Ever play Jenga?  You ever make it drop straight down?  No it always fall to one side or the other.  Anyone who has seen or delt with demolition would have to agree that these towers were in one way or another controlled.  You may have been lucky and had one drop in a fashion that looks like it dropped straight down like a controlled demolition but the likeness of both doing so is extremely slim. With the reports of secondary explosions and what was witnessed and reported.   There is no way it was not at least semi controlled.

In addition, the third building didn't have any problems whatsoever. But it came down in the same way.

The whole 9/11 official story is full of so many holes that it is by itself proving that 9/11 was an inside job, just by the holes in it.

[btcusury]

The problem with Larken Rose and most other Americans is this. They can't get it through their heads that stepping into the legal system is not the way to do it. The Preamble, and the 6th, 7th, and 9th Amendments show government that it cannot keep people from moving in the ways that they did before government was around, to get relief from someone who has wronged them.

What. Are. You. Talking. About?

Do you listen to anyone or anything other than your own thoughts?

(Or are you high? LOL)

Now you see. Someone shows you the black and white paperwork of foundational law in America, and all you can say is, What are you talking about?

I know it might be hard for you, a slave, to comprehend freedom, but try, if you want to know what I am talking about.

Alright, so please walk me through it again... how does a piece of paper somewhere, written by some slave-owning men some centuries ago, somehow have anything at all to do with the idea of "foundational law" (which, btw, is Natural Law)?

[Lenore]

Dump some jet fuel into a coffee can, and try to get it to ignite. If you can, it burns with a smoky, heat well under 1000 degrees F.

You need some form of air blast to make the fuel burn hot enough to do any damage. This kind of thing just doesn't happen automatically. You need to work at it.

There wasn't enough heat in the buildings to do any structural damage whatsoever.

You are correct.   I do have to say that it would have burned over 1000 degrees. 

Even if these buildings are totally square and have equal sides.  Elevator shafts placed in identical areas on all sides of the building making every side of the towers identical. The fuel would have not been distributed evenly.  One side would have received more fuel then the other.  Therefor theoretically you would of had one side hotter then another and a longer burn.  Which you would think would in turn make one side weaker then the other causing the building to topple.  Ever play Jenga?  You ever make it drop straight down?  No it always fall to one side or the other.  Anyone who has seen or delt with demolition would have to agree that these towers were in one way or another controlled.  You may have been lucky and had one drop in a fashion that looks like it dropped straight down like a controlled demolition but the likeness of both doing so is extremely slim. With the reports of secondary explosions and what was witnessed and reported.   There is no way it was not at least semi controlled.

In addition, the third building didn't have any problems whatsoever. But it came down in the same way.

The whole 9/11 official story is full of so many holes that it is by itself proving that 9/11 was an inside job, just by the holes in it.

Yes it did.  There were stores of them moving gold threw out the buildings.  Away from the troubled area.  This however I have no idea if it is true or not. But could be but I dont think it was ever confirmed.

But yes way to many holes for people not to think something is wrong with the entire picture.

Seems like we are following each other on here BADecker.  Think there is a debate on religion aswell as this.   lol

[BADecker]

The problem with Larken Rose and most other Americans is this. They can't get it through their heads that stepping into the legal system is not the way to do it. The Preamble, and the 6th, 7th, and 9th Amendments show government that it cannot keep people from moving in the ways that they did before government was around, to get relief from someone who has wronged them.

What. Are. You. Talking. About?

Do you listen to anyone or anything other than your own thoughts?

(Or are you high? LOL)

Now you see. Someone shows you the black and white paperwork of foundational law in America, and all you can say is, What are you talking about?

I know it might be hard for you, a slave, to comprehend freedom, but try, if you want to know what I am talking about.

Alright, so please walk me through it again... how does a piece of paper somewhere, written by some slave-owning men some centuries ago, somehow have anything at all to do with the idea of "foundational law" (which, btw, is Natural Law)?

You are right. It doesn't have anything to do with anything. However, if some government people adhere to it, then it does for them. It is your job, should they think that you are also a member of that paperwork, show them that you are not. It is so much easier to do when you can show them that their paperwork even says that you don't have to be a member of their paperwork.

Here is the trick why Larken lost. Larken told them that he wasn't a member of their paperwork. But he told them from what appeared to be a position of membership within their paperwork. And he didn't rebut that membership when they presumed it against him. So, even though he may not have been a member of their paperwork, he lost, because he looked and acted like he was a member even though he was saying that he wasn't a member.

It will be work, but if you are serious about this, make Karl's stuff your way of life.

http://www.myprivateaudio.com/Karl-Lentz.html = Angela Stark's Talkshoe.

http://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5duR4OvEHHxOSdEZhANETw = TrustInAllLaw snippets of Karl's audios.

http://www.broadmind.org/ = Karl's main page.

http://www.unkommonlaw.co.uk/ = Karl's United Kingdom page.

http://www.youtube.com/user/765736/videos?view=0&live_view=500&flow=grid&sort=da = Craig Lynch's snippets page.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOkAHRzuiOA&list=PLHrkQxgz0mg6kUBciD-HIvTXByqjcIZ-D = Ten great Youtube videos, might be the best introduction to Karl.

http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=127469&cmd=tc = Karl's Talkshoe site.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iua56K4Mysk = Karl Lentz - The Brian Bonar Incident - YouTube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdHLHWS4gPE = Lentz-Sense - don't be a More~On - YouTube.


Other Info

http://voidjudgments.com/ = The Secret is most judgments are Void on their face and not merely voidable.

http://educationcenter2000.com/Trinsey-v-Paglario.htm = Trinsey v. Pagliaro - Attorneys cannot "speak" in common law trials if the one who is bringing the suit orders it. Holding from Trinsey v. Pagliaro: "An attorney for the plaintiff cannot admit evidence into the court. He is either an attorney or a witness."

[J. J. Phillips]

I think you're getting off the topic of "Who did 911"? I mean, obviously Muslim terrorists did it, but for the sake of getting the thread back on topic, here are some other possible options to discuss:

1. Charlie Lee and Mike Hearn did it. Think about it. This was 2001, Google was relatively new and on the rise. Mike Hearn knew he had to get into Google and Google knew it had to get into China. Who's Chinese? Charlie Lee. (Probably, I haven't checked this, so I might have gotten some disinformation here.) So Charlie Lee and Mike Hearn team up to commit 9/11 so that Google will come into China and Mike Hearn can get into Google. This is all a prelude to the real plan, of course: Charlie Lee creates Litecoin and Mike Hearn creating XT in order to scare Bitcoiners into buying Litecoin. (LiteCoinGuy can confirm all this.) Obviously that's way more believable than Muslim extremists and jet fuel causing steel beams to lose their structural integrity.

2. no-rice-peas did it. This whole thread was posted by her to distract attention away from the fact that she was responsible for the whole thing. Why did she do it? Why else: she had no rice or peas. Victim of poverty striking a blow against capitalist oppression.

3. I did it. Come on, you've all been thinking it all along. I'll let you figure out how and why. And I would've gotten away with it too, if it weren't for you meddling kids.

4. No one did it. It was all staged. The towers are actually still standing and no one died. The Afghanistan and Iraq invasions were also staged -- neither happened. Why the elaborate ruse? Oil. Greedy oil-craving oilers.

[BADecker]

I think you're getting off the topic of "Who did 911"? I mean, obviously Muslim terrorists did it, but for the sake of getting the thread back on topic, here are some other possible options to discuss:

1. Charlie Lee and Mike Hearn did it. Think about it. This was 2001, Google was relatively new and on the rise. Mike Hearn knew he had to get into Google and Google knew it had to get into China. Who's Chinese? Charlie Lee. (Probably, I haven't checked this, so I might have gotten some disinformation here.) So Charlie Lee and Mike Hearn team up to commit 9/11 so that Google will come into China and Mike Hearn can get into Google. This is all a prelude to the real plan, of course: Charlie Lee creates Litecoin and Mike Hearn creating XT in order to scare Bitcoiners into buying Litecoin. (LiteCoinGuy can confirm all this.) Obviously that's way more believable than Muslim extremists and jet fuel causing steel beams to lose their structural integrity.

2. no-rice-peas did it. This whole thread was posted by her to distract attention away from the fact that she was responsible for the whole thing. Why did she do it? Why else: she had no rice or peas. Victim of poverty striking a blow against capitalist oppression.

3. I did it. Come on, you've all been thinking it all along. I'll let you figure out how and why. And I would've gotten away with it too, if it weren't for you meddling kids.

4. No one did it. It was all staged. The towers are actually still standing and no one died. The Afghanistan and Iraq invasions were also staged -- neither happened. Why the elaborate ruse? Oil. Greedy oil-craving oilers.

Muslims did it? That's hearsay.   

[Lenore]

I think you're getting off the topic of "Who did 911"? I mean, obviously Muslim terrorists did it, but for the sake of getting the thread back on topic, here are some other possible options to discuss:

1. Charlie Lee and Mike Hearn did it. Think about it. This was 2001, Google was relatively new and on the rise. Mike Hearn knew he had to get into Google and Google knew it had to get into China. Who's Chinese? Charlie Lee. (Probably, I haven't checked this, so I might have gotten some disinformation here.) So Charlie Lee and Mike Hearn team up to commit 9/11 so that Google will come into China and Mike Hearn can get into Google. This is all a prelude to the real plan, of course: Charlie Lee creates Litecoin and Mike Hearn creating XT in order to scare Bitcoiners into buying Litecoin. (LiteCoinGuy can confirm all this.) Obviously that's way more believable than Muslim extremists and jet fuel causing steel beams to lose their structural integrity.

2. no-rice-peas did it. This whole thread was posted by her to distract attention away from the fact that she was responsible for the whole thing. Why did she do it? Why else: she had no rice or peas. Victim of poverty striking a blow against capitalist oppression.

3. I did it. Come on, you've all been thinking it all along. I'll let you figure out how and why. And I would've gotten away with it too, if it weren't for you meddling kids.

4. No one did it. It was all staged. The towers are actually still standing and no one died. The Afghanistan and Iraq invasions were also staged -- neither happened. Why the elaborate ruse? Oil. Greedy oil-craving oilers.

Muslims did it? That's hearsay.   

This turned out to be an interesting thread and convo.

[btvGainer]

Us government did it

[Spendulus]

... The likeliness of both building falling in the manner that they did is slim....

Not at all.   Given they were hit the same way, why would the structures not react in similar fashions?

You'd have a point if, say, one of the planes had been nearly empty of fuel and the other one nearly full.  But that wasn't the case.

Two planes knocked down three buildings

The third building, which was not hit by a plane, was wtc7.

....so WHAT?

For the quote in bold.

Both building were not identical.  Both planes couldnt have hit at the same angle or have the same mass.  There for the reactions were more then likely to be different.  I am also sure that the fuel levels were not identical either.

The main point being the structures of the buildings themselves.  They were different.  Again. From an engineers standpoint.  It wasn't possible or likely.  The materials used to build these building is also public record.  So you could see tinsel strength and heat tolerance.  Along with a make up o alloy or steel type used in construction.

If you look at what it would take to bring these down you would find these planes are unlikely of doing this even if they were to carry twice the amount of fuel.  These types of buildings are built to withstand a lot more then you think.  And there are building built way before these that have caught fire and had much higher temps and they did not fall.  If you lay all the evidence out on the table and look at it all.  I do not see how anyone could think that there is not something wrong with the picture.  I have only mentioned a few things.  There are many, many, many more.

If you want me to break everything down.  I have no problem.  people who question any of this I am guessing are the ones who believe everything they see on CNN.

Dump some jet fuel into a coffee can, and try to get it to ignite. If you can, it burns with a smoky, heat well under 1000 degrees F.

You need some form of air blast to make the fuel burn hot enough to do any damage. This kind of thing just doesn't happen automatically. You need to work at it.

There wasn't enough heat in the buildings to do any structural damage whatsoever.

You are correct.   I do have to say that it would have burned over 1000 degrees. 

Even if these buildings are totally square and have equal sides.  Elevator shafts placed in identical areas on all sides of the building making every side of the towers identical. The fuel would have not been distributed evenly.  One side would have received more fuel then the other.  Therefor theoretically you would of had one side hotter then another and a longer burn.  Which you would think would in turn make one side weaker then the other causing the building to topple.  Ever play Jenga?  You ever make it drop straight down?  No it always fall to one side or the other.  Anyone who has seen or delt with demolition would have to agree that these towers were in one way or another controlled.  You may have been lucky and had one drop in a fashion that looks like it dropped straight down like a controlled demolition but the likeness of both doing so is extremely slim. With the reports of secondary explosions and what was witnessed and reported.   There is no way it was not at least semi controlled.

"Semi controlled," nonsense.  That's replacing a simple explanation with a far, far more complex one.  Box structures certainly can fail straight downwards.

[Lenore]

... The likeliness of both building falling in the manner that they did is slim....

Not at all.   Given they were hit the same way, why would the structures not react in similar fashions?

You'd have a point if, say, one of the planes had been nearly empty of fuel and the other one nearly full.  But that wasn't the case.

Two planes knocked down three buildings

The third building, which was not hit by a plane, was wtc7.

....so WHAT?

For the quote in bold.

Both building were not identical.  Both planes couldnt have hit at the same angle or have the same mass.  There for the reactions were more then likely to be different.  I am also sure that the fuel levels were not identical either.

The main point being the structures of the buildings themselves.  They were different.  Again. From an engineers standpoint.  It wasn't possible or likely.  The materials used to build these building is also public record.  So you could see tinsel strength and heat tolerance.  Along with a make up o alloy or steel type used in construction.

If you look at what it would take to bring these down you would find these planes are unlikely of doing this even if they were to carry twice the amount of fuel.  These types of buildings are built to withstand a lot more then you think.  And there are building built way before these that have caught fire and had much higher temps and they did not fall.  If you lay all the evidence out on the table and look at it all.  I do not see how anyone could think that there is not something wrong with the picture.  I have only mentioned a few things.  There are many, many, many more.

If you want me to break everything down.  I have no problem.  people who question any of this I am guessing are the ones who believe everything they see on CNN.

Dump some jet fuel into a coffee can, and try to get it to ignite. If you can, it burns with a smoky, heat well under 1000 degrees F.

You need some form of air blast to make the fuel burn hot enough to do any damage. This kind of thing just doesn't happen automatically. You need to work at it.

There wasn't enough heat in the buildings to do any structural damage whatsoever.

You are correct.   I do have to say that it would have burned over 1000 degrees. 

Even if these buildings are totally square and have equal sides.  Elevator shafts placed in identical areas on all sides of the building making every side of the towers identical. The fuel would have not been distributed evenly.  One side would have received more fuel then the other.  Therefor theoretically you would of had one side hotter then another and a longer burn.  Which you would think would in turn make one side weaker then the other causing the building to topple.  Ever play Jenga?  You ever make it drop straight down?  No it always fall to one side or the other.  Anyone who has seen or delt with demolition would have to agree that these towers were in one way or another controlled.  You may have been lucky and had one drop in a fashion that looks like it dropped straight down like a controlled demolition but the likeness of both doing so is extremely slim. With the reports of secondary explosions and what was witnessed and reported.   There is no way it was not at least semi controlled.

"Semi controlled," nonsense.  That's replacing a simple explanation with a far, far more complex one.  Box structures certainly can fail straight downwards.

Whats your simple explanation?

Would love to hear it.  Besides box structures can fall straight down.
Some simple things to think of.  Is weigh of building and design. Angle and direction the air craft entered. Was the fuel distributed evenly throughout the building.  Which side gave out first? Under what conditions would a cube collapse on its self?  What winds were pushing in what direction at what speed? What winds were generated inward from the burn?  There are really alot of factors that would have to be considered before you can rule out the possibility of a semi or fully controlled demolition.
It would be very simple to say the planes made them fall.  As that is the way it looks.  But not everything always looks as it seems.  People need to understand this.   History should be proof of this. We may never know what brought these down.  Simply because we aren't meant to.  But saying it simply happened the way it did with so many holes in the story and the contradictions that were issued.  Either no one knows or someone does and they aren't talking. Some people may know more then others because they were there.  They seen and heard what was happening.  While others sat back waiting for it to happen.  Some people know more then they should.  Not all things are a conspiracy theory nor a theory at all.  But facts that aren't meant to be know.

We can sit and debate all day everyday.  It wont mean a thing.  People need to be open to the possibility that what people say is possible.  But there are people who are in a position that they only want to believe what they want to believe.  Are not really open to less main stream ways or thoughts.  I know many who only believe what they see on the news.  When what you see on the news is not always correct or the full story.  There are always things that are left out.   And they are left out for a reason.  You can not say that the towers weren't a controlled demo or that they weren't.  Or that all out air craft were on training scenarios in another area and unable to intercept.  Which our USCG was flying the coast during the attack (or whatever it was) That the debris found at the pentagon was debris from the corresponding plane.   and That a fiberglass nose cone was able to penetrate concrete at a depth of a cruise missile.  That the planes were off course and no contact was made for several minutes before anyone thought anything of it.  There is a long list of things that were off that day.  Normal procedures that are put in place were not followed on a magnitude that people shrug off as a coincidence.  Is this really the way our government, military, and FAA work?  You know it isn't.  People need to open their eyes and look around them.  See what they dont usually see taking place around them.  Everyone sees things they shouldn't but dont relize what they are seeing because they simply dont pay attention.  Take some time every once and a while and look around where you are.  Work, street, coffee shop.  Pay attention to other people and there reactions.  You will see things you normally wouldn't.  Simply because people are so hung up on there everyday lives that they fail to see instances of things around them.  You will be surprised at what you see when you pay attention to thing your normally do not.  Try it sometime and you will see what I am talking about.  People see what they want not what they should.

Its haunting to know what we could know if we simply payed more attention.  Most do not.  And the ones who do always seem to be called a strange, odd, not all there, a conspiracy theorist, or anything else people tend to want to call them.  But doesnt mean anything they say isnt true.  Just depends on who wants to believe them.