Collegiate Times

At the same time you just can't build whatever you want on your property. I can't just decide to build a church in my backyard. If the city doesn't want the mosque there they're within their rights to prevent it's construction. Of course now all the protesters are within their rights to speak out against the mosque construction that's freedom of speech.

"

At the same time you just can't build whatever you want on your property. I can't just decide to build a church in my backyard. If the city doesn't want the mosque there they're within their rights to prevent it's construction. Of course now all the protesters are within their rights to speak out against the mosque construction that's freedom of speech."

If the city doesn't have a valid reason for denying the mosque being built, like missing permits or code violations, (and they don't) then no they aren't within their rights to prevent ITS construction.

cave dwelling billionaire muslims that brought down the two main towers whose debris brought down tower 7

You obviously didn't watch the video, and don't have a clue about Tower 7. Twice the government has changed its official story on why Tower 7 fell, but never has the government said falling debris brought it down.

I don't need to watch your video I saw 9/11 happen I'm not as young as you Mary. Debris from the north tower hit tower 7 which weakened it and set it on fire. It collapsed due to fire a few hours later.

Please show me a photograph of Tower 7 damaged by debris. I want to see the damage, or pictures of the fires, that caused this building to fall 8 hours after Towers 1 & 2. Please provide a link to the pictures. Thanks.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/cm/popularmechanics/images/9P/911-tower-collapse.jpg

The fine folks at popular mechanics have a nice photo. They also have a detailed article about the damage to the building.

http://www.rense.com/general65/WTC7firesnorthface.jpg

Here's a photo of the building on fire.

ROFL. Mr. Annon,

Please step back and look at this objectively. I asked you for photos of structural damage or fire and you showed me 1 photo with zero damage, and 1 photo with a few TINY fires. NEVER in history has a steel/concrete building collapsed because of fire. NEVER. NOT ONCE. And I'm supposed to believe that Towers 1, 2 and 7 did? Go to YouTube and type in "skyscraper fire" and watch dozens upon dozens of skyscrapers on fire, in literal towering infernos that take up 10-40 floors of fire. None of them collapse. Yet, I'm supposed to believe that the tiny pictures in the picture you threw up made that building collapse demolition style?

Sorry. Again. Please post pictures.

HUGE fires that engulfed buildings, without them collapsing.
China - www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hSPFL2Zlpg
Spain - www.youtube.com/watch?v=th2bnG_7UyY
Los Angeles - www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-TtEIBtH6M
Venezuela - www.youtube.com/watch?v=84keaVG3zQY

P.S. I find it ironic that the 2nd picture you posted is from Rense.com. They do not believe the official story of 9/11.
www.rense.com/Datapages/WTC7.htm

Seeing as you like Youtube videos so much here's one for you to watch. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afb7eUHr64U&feature=player_embedded Structural damage plus several hours of fire was what it took to bring down that tower.

I watched the video and saw ZERO structural damage and a small fire that spread over 3 floors over the course of 8 hours. It is impossible for fires to bring down steel/concrete buildings. Watch the videos I posted. Thousands of engineers and architects have come forth stating that fire did not bring down tower 7. www.ae911truth.org/

If you didn't see the damage on Tower 7 then you are blind, it's blatantly obvious. That's okay stick your head in the sand and close your mind to the truth of 9/11. Neither of you sees it the Zionists are responsible for 9/11. The Israelis brought down the towers disguised as a Muslims. You think some simple donkey farmers from a cave could have hijacked those planes with box cutters. Israeli commandos with their expert hand to hand combat skills took over those planes and flew them into the towers. Why you ask because America wasn't taking the threat of terrorism seriously and was questioning it's funding of Israel. Who's benefited the most sense the towers have fallen?, Israel they became America's number 1 ally. They sat back and watched America take care of their problems for them. The Zionists deeply entrenched in the media try hard to cover it up but the truth is out there and more and more Americans are seeing the truth about 9/11. You honestly think that the same government that couldn't get water to the stadium during Katrina masterminded something as complex as 9/11? It was obviously Israel and their expert special forces, only a group as focused as them could have done this.

Chip,

Because you do not buy government/media propaganda, I applaud you. However, you need to hone your reading skills Jedi. Read every comment that I've made: not once did I say that the American government nor Muslims brought down the buildings.

Please don't give me that Jessie Ventura I'm only asking bull. We both know what your saying don't waste my time denying it. Stop being a gatekeeper Mary and tie this discussion up with mere semantics.

Chip,
For two years I've been trying to get people to reexamine their position on 9/11. It is nearly impossible to get people to question what the government and media says (heh, even though people claim they don't trust either). What little success I've had has been from raising questions so that people go out and Google 9/11 or look into things like WTC7. Running around blaming Israel will only make people call you anti-semitic, before they immediately start watching MTV or American Idol.

Stop being a gatekeeper Mary and open your eyes to the truth. If you don't believe in your position enough to state it then that speaks more about your claims than the websites and videos. Either proclaim your position or stop commenting you look ridiculous right now.

"A fire has never brought down a skyscraper"

Yet none of those towering infernos you posted had also had major internal structural damage from being hit by a high speed Jet.

And don't bring up the Empire state building, that was a much small plane, with much slower speed, and a concrete structure.

How many died when tower 7 went? I believe none (please correct if i'm wrong) so even if the big bad govt. did bring it down, what would have been the point?

"It has never happened before therefore it can't possibly have happened this time" is a hasty generalization. http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/hasty-generalisation/

Read up on those there are more that your arguments fit into.

To put it more in laymens.
1)Fire has never brought down a skyscraper.
2)Fire could not have brought down this one.

Lets equivocate that to this
1)A 1AA team has never beaten a top 10 program.
2)Appalachian State could not have beaten Michigan.

You can also check out weak analogy that works against you as well.
1)Tower 7 and the Venezuela Tower are both Skyscrapers
2)Fire can't bring down the Venezuela Tower
Therefore
3)Fire can't bring down Tower 7

Obviously this is not something to provide evidence that you are wrong only to show you that no matter how much you believe your argument is 100% sound, you are very wrong.

Chris,
There was no structural damage to Tower 7, which is why thousands of architects and engineers are calling for a new investigation.

Annon,
I am not very wrong. Comparing sports teams to the laws of science is ludicrous. I don't waste my time watching grown men in tight pants throw around a dead pig, so I will not comment on your AA nonsense. But in regards to science, its very foundation is built upon the use of inductive reasoning.

Inductive reasoning does not state that because 100% of all skyscrapers that caught fire did not collapse, 100% of all in the future will collapse. However, through inductive reasoning we are able to infer that because 100% of all skyscrapers withstood fires, that it is 99.999999999% sure that all in the future will. Why not 100%? Because every science textbook states that nothing is 100% for sure. Science can't prove anything 100% without invoking God. This is Hume's Problem of Induction, and if you can solve the problem Stanford will give you $1,000.

So using our inductive inference, we can state that "ouch, this fire is hot, therefore all fires must be hot," and "when I drop something it falls, therefore everything I let go of something it will fall," and lastly, "NO skyscraper in the history of the world has collapsed due to fire, because the melting point for steel is way higher than any fire could achieve, therefore no skyscraper will fall because of fire."

So what happened on 9/11 Mary you still don't have the balls to state your opinion and stand by it.

Chip,

Look at how many people have responded to my comments. Some of them have even done minor research and provided links in their rebuttals to me. Who besides me has responded to you? Nobody.

If you want the truth of 9/11 to get out, the only hope you have is to pose questions and point out inconsistencies with the official story. Coming out and stating who really did 9/11 will just make people call you a "conspiracy theorist," or in your case, an "anti-Semite," without researching the issue on their own.

You missed the point of my post. I was not saying that you were wrong, but you use logical fallacies to prove that you are right. The explanations given by the official report use science to deduce the best possible reason why the towers fell.

You prefer to go the rout of, "It has never so it will never," as I explained using logic and metaphors. You want everyone to believe that tower seven was brought down on purpose, based on the fact that you believe fire and damage could not have.

The logic of,
1)Fire has never brought down a skyscraper
2)I believe no way fire brought down T7
Therefore:
3)It was controlled demolition
is a terrible way of proving your point. By telling me that science leaves room for the chance means there is a chance so you proved my point. Just because it is near impossible doesn't mean it couldn't have happened.

If you still want to argue that towers 1 2 fall into this same, "Fire can't bring skyscrapers down," theory then you had better get some other steel buildings that took a Boeing jet and stayed standing...

Please, when trying to convince people of an alternate to the official, make one argument that doesn't use logical fallacy and maybe I will listen.

Stop being a Gatekeeper Mary if you don't believe in your position than who will. Your position must be incredibly weak if you can't state it. I win automatically then because all we have to go on is your denial of any evidence to the contrary of your poorly formed opinion. You're an intellectual zilch Mary your rebuttals have been copy and pasted forum posts and of course irrational denial of proof. You're just a dumb sheep that's following the group of truthers. The only person here who thinks the towers weren't hit by planes is you and you've demonstrated perfectly why that is. You are Retarded!

This comment has been buried by moderation (show comment)