Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

sp1

Wtc Collapse-conclusive Video Evidence With Radio Comms From Firemen

Recommended Posts

I also have considerable training in Physics. I admit I do not know all the facts on WTC7, so I can't really comment on that, but it does not require the high temperatures claimed to bring down the twin towers. The metal doesn't have to "melt" to bring it down, it just needs to be severely weakened. So, it does not need to reach melting temperatures. The apparent explosions around the edge of the buildings jusst before they collapsed are the concrete snapping. On close up videos you can actually see this for yourself (sorry I don't have a link).

Due to the conductivity of the steel in these buildings, the heat would very quickly travel around the entire building, weakening the entire building and allowing them to collapse on their own footprint. If you look at a full depth analysis of the official report, it really does make sense. That doesn't mean it wasn't a conspiracy, it just means that it was perfectly possible for the planes to bring the buildings down.

MattLG

WATCH THIS CONCLUSIVE SUBMISSION:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/video/060705loosechange.wmv

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

His argument sounds good.

I don't understand the science well enough to know how true it is.

For example, could those explosions seen as the towers fall have been the building falling in on its self. I'm not saying it is, just that I have no clue about the science, so my own critical thinking on the subject is...impossible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry about my poor spelling, troll fur was obscuring the keyboard. I had some sport with them who believe the spin because they did not have a fellow sheep to hold onto to form a brain cell.

Basically, the twin towers were designed to withstand the impact of a boeing 707, which is similar to the 757 which impacted. Now bear in mind that engineers build in a safety factor of 5 into a building. ie it will withstand 5 times the damage. It does make you wonder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice web link Libitina...But where are the luggage and body parts or even blood of passangers.... And the wings of the plane where are they...cos the picture on the web link shows clearly a small hole withouth any damage where the TWO engines and wings should have penetrated......

Keep trying,,,,

Start by watching this Link:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/video/060705loosechange.wmv

Than let me know what you thinck...and theis thread is about the WTC collapse...

I will start another specific to the pentagon if you wish...

Sp1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s not a case of Bush being negligent

It’s not even a case of Bush turning a blind eye

It’s a case of Bush ordering the destruction so he could go to war.

Why does he want to go to war ?

National interests so America could rely on cheap energy ? NO

It’s so Bush and his Saudi friends can fill their pockets more then they have been doing in the past. Benefits to America come second.

Why was the first civilian plane allowed in the sky after 9-11 caring 17 members of the Bin-Laden's family. Did no one want to ask them a few questions first !

Take 12 good men with no axe to grind and present them with the evidence and I think the jury will convict Bush, the evidence really is that strong and anyone that allows him to get away with this is deluding themselves if they think they will live happy ever after.

TRY LOOKING AT YOUR GAS, OIL OR ELCTRIC BILL AND ASK YOURSELF WHERE IS ALL THE MONEY GOING AND WHAT FAMOUS PRESIDENT HAS VAST INTERESTS IN ARMS MANUFACTURES.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry about my poor spelling, troll fur was obscuring the keyboard. I had some sport with them who believe the spin because they did not have a fellow sheep to hold onto to form a brain cell.

Basically, the twin towers were designed to withstand the impact of a boeing 707, which is similar to the 757 which impacted. Now bear in mind that engineers build in a safety factor of 5 into a building. ie it will withstand 5 times the damage. It does make you wonder.

It would have stood standing if the cionstruction firm had used the correct fire proofing on the supports, r at least given enough time to evacuatte the towers. The 5 times factor is nonsense. its actually generally 50X any EXPECTED loads, hate to point it out but 757s dont generally fly into buildings as a matter of course.

Finally, if you ever get chance to use FEM software with a very powerful computer, you will see how raising the temperature of a metal massively effects its tensile Strength/Strain characteristics.

Anyone who actually believes the twin towers were destroyed by the CIA is either very gullible, very stupid or possibly both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Him above :rolleyes:

”It would have stood standing if the cionstruction firm had used the correct fire proofing on the supports, r at least given enough time to evacuatte the towers. The 5 times factor is nonsense. its actually generally 50X any EXPECTED loads, “

Maybe you would like to get your FEM calculator and calculate the force of 100mph winds acting against all one hundred or so floors of the word trade centre buildings and see if it equates to more than 100 tons travelling at 500MPH.

hate to point it out but 757s dont generally fly into buildings as a matter of course.

Hate to point this out but steel structured building do not normal implode with contact of fire.

”Anyone who actually believes the twin towers were destroyed by the CIA is either very gullible, very stupid or possibly both.”

That just what I think of people who say a plane can fold it’s wings before impact with the pentagon.

now surely your not trying to tell us here that the 9-11 report went any way to answering questions imposed by the events are you ? I would hate you to take my word for it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Him above :rolleyes:

Maybe you would like to get your FEM calculator and calculate the force of 100mph winds acting against all one hundred or so floors of the word trade centre buildings and see if it equates to more than 100 tons travelling at 500MPH.

Do you know what FEM stands for, or ever used such software? From your lack of engineering imagination, expecting the INITIAL impact to bring down the wtc, then I suspect not. Ever heard of KE= Half X Mass X Velocity Squared? FAR more energy in the plane than a STATIC wind. The wind does not go from 0 to 100 MPH instantly does it? Furthermore, the wind affects the whole structure rather than the energy being focussed on a particular area. So in other words, you are wrong, I am right. Your example is simplistic in the extreme. A building simply CANNOT be designed to prevent collapse after such a dramatic impact and subsequent internal fire, even if some over enthusiastic architect says it can. It is simply a damage limitation exercise. As for that weird website, talk about freaks.....

Hate to point this out but steel structured building do not normal implode with contact of fire.

Yes they do. The internal structure of the WTC was based upon steel reinforced concrete floors resting upon brackets formed on the main support structure. One the brackets towards the top "Softened" in the fire, (at 700 C they would have had around a tenth of their normal tensile strength) they sheared. There is evidence of these shears all through the structure. Once the top floors started to collapse, it pushed the lower floors down with it, causing internal collapse, and the puffs of smoke on lower floors that looked like explosions. This was well documented in the ATF and NTSB investigations. But yet again, people have to believe the inplausible "Bush dit it" Crackpot theory.

That just what I think of people who say a plane can fold it’s wings before impact with the pentagon.

Erm, yes they can. I suggest you do a google search for the 747 that polled in after departing Stanstead a few years back. When the fire brigade arrived at the scene, they found a 10 metre deep smoking hole that was no wider than 6 metres. Everything, and I mean everything, had folded into that hole. THey originally thought that the aircraft could not have been anything larger than a biz jet! and we are talking about an aircraft that weighs 175 tonnes fuelled! Its what happens when relatively structurally weak materials strike solid objects at above 300 Kts. They simply disintgrate, even vapourise, if the speed is high enough. As for the 2 pilots flying the 747, I believe the largest part they found was a toe.

Face the facts, not what people tell you. Dont fall for some absolotely bloody stupid theory to satisfy your left-wing fantasies.

now surely your not trying to tell us here that the 9-11 report went any way to answering questions imposed by the events are you ? I would hate you to take my word for it

Above site designed by someone who obviously likes taking it up the rear from that fat Commie Tw*t Michael Moore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear mbga9pdf the fire was not even intense enought be seen burning through the hole of the plane with huge flames pouring up...only black smoke.

And if you claim the impact were significant to the failiure them how would it fall onto its foot print and not topple to one side?

And how come the section above the fire doeasnot fall and crash into the ground - Instead it explodes up floor by floor as it tilts in mid air!

Please see the video links first them decide.

And WT-7 No plane hit that building but it to is one of only 3 skt scrapers to ever collapse in the world. a steel ware house is not a sky scraper and is not subject to the same requirments because they do not pose a risk to a large areas of expensive high density adjacent properties..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

him above :rolleyes:

“Ever heard of KE= Half X Mass X Velocity Squared? FAR more energy in the plane than a STATIC wind. The wind does not go from 0 to 100 MPH instantly does it?”

Sorry but I’ve not come across “STATIC wind” before have you ! and do remember the plane penetrated the building so the impact energy would had been dissipated.

“in the fire, (at 700 C they would have had around a tenth of their normal tensile strength)”

Link please because I think my car exhaust pipe is about to drop off my car again

“steel reinforced concrete floors”

But the floors simply supported the weight of people and desks, the main structure was steel beams and these type of structures have never before be destroyed by fires or shall we go back to saying that the impact did the damage in which case I would like to see pictures of the building being bent after impact much like a car bends after a collision, they are both made from steel remember.

“Once the top floors started to collapse, it pushed the lower floors down with it, causing internal collapse”

Yes we all saw the building collapse as fast as a failing stone but what about the time delay we should had seen between each floor collapsing (domino effect) as simple physics dictates confirms just what you said about “does not go from 0 to 100 MPH instantly”

.”Twin towers under construction

see it's all steel and steel may bend but it does not crumble, we both know that i hope

“Erm, yes they can. I suggest you do a google search for the 747 that polled in after departing Stanstead a few years back. When the fire brigade arrived at the scene, they found a 10 metre deep smoking hole that was no wider than 6 metres”

The hole may had been 6 meters but you could see parts of the wings and damage where they hit the ground, not quite like the impact with the Pentagon is it now.

“175 tonnes fuelled”

think you will find it’s about 100 tons

“Face the facts, not what people tell you. Dont fall for some absolotely bloody stupid theory to satisfy your left-wing fantasies"

Don’t think many here find me left-wing at all. I’m the one that wants all the immigrants stopped from coming in.

so what’s worse a ” fat Commie Tw*t Michael Moore” or left-wing fat Tw*t

resorting to name calling would indicate you have little substance to your argument and are getting a bit frustrated would it not.

Would you care to enlighten us as to what destroyed WT7 ? That’s the little one that’s didn’t get hit by a plane or damaged by any of the small fragments being blown outwards when WT1/2 exploded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry but I’ve not come across “STATIC wind” before have you ! and do remember the plane penetrated the building so the impact energy would had been dissipated.

No, but dynamic forces are generally more significant than static ones, and are far more destructive. The wind is a dynamic force, but to consider "a 100 MPH wind" as significant as a fully fuelled 757 as simply wrong. So tell me, if the energy simply dissapated, where did it dissapate to? Or does not the rule that energy cannot be created or destroyed apply here? Or perhaps the Building structure absorbed it almost instantaneously (what actually happened)?

Link please because I think my car exhaust pipe is about to drop off my car again

Erm, your car exauhst has been to withstand such temperatures, and as such are not under any huge load, as were the WTC support structure. The WTC could have withstood the temperature if the support beams were not carrying any load, but the combination of a reduced number of support shelves (impact damage) combined with heat softening of the support steel just could not hold the load of "the weight of people and desks," (ommiting the weight of the steel reinforced floor that is in your simplistic view)

the main structure was steel beams and these type of structures have never before be destroyed by fires or shall we go back to saying that the impact did the damage in which case I would like to see pictures of the building being bent after impact much like a car bends after a collision, they are both made from steel remember.

Well, I cant remember the last time I saw a fully fuelled air liner crashing into a modern skyscraper. The load bearing integrity of many structures has been compromised by fire, if you dont believe me then speak to your local firemen and ask why building collapse iis such a major concern in a fire, or perhaps ask an aerospace engineer how a gas turbines engine life (normally operating above 1000C) can have it operating life halved by a rise to 1010 C and be made unusable with only another 40 C rise. The fact is metals do very weird things when under high temperature. In the WTC case, the "Shelves" that held up the weight of thousands of tonnes of flooring per floor simply could not withstand the shear forces at such a high temperature. They snapped once their structural integrity was compromised.

Yes we all saw the building collapse as fast as a failing stone but what about the time delay we should had seen between each floor collapsing (domino effect) as simple physics dictates confirms just what you said about “does not go from 0 to 100 MPH instantly”

Once you have hundreds of tonnes with such great momentum behind something, it simply does not stop. Very much like a car wont stop a freightt train. Buildings are inherently static in their design in terms of load bearing, as such the puny frames were no match for hundreds of thousands of tonnes of concrete and steel bearing on them

The hole may had been 6 meters but you could see parts of the wings and damage where they hit the ground, not quite like the impact with the Pentagon is it now.

No you couldnt. once the leading edge of the swept wing strikes the ground with such velocity, it folds backwards. The aircraft debris hit the pentagon, not the intact aircraft. That Filthy d*ck (whose body remains should have been fed to pigs) that was flying the aircraft couldnt fly for sh*t. He hit short. Wings are only designed to hold 4-5 times the weight of a typical modern airliner, so try pushing them backwards at 600 mph against a solid object and its easily understandable how wings can leave very little mark. Please also remember, the Pentagon was designed to withstand such an impact (well, from up to 155mm artillery shells I believe anyway) and is one of the toughest buildings in the world. The FEM I have seen demonstrated adequately proves the theory at this high speed of this particular impact. A similar FEM was used to prove the loss of Colombia with the foam strike if you are unsure of what FE modelling is.

think you will find it’s about 100 tons.

Wrong. Maximum takeoff weight of the 747-300 series is 394 metric tonnes. The one that crashed in essex was only partially loaded and fuelled (short leg to italy)

Don’t think many here find me left-wing at all. I’m the one that wants all the immigrants stopped from coming in.

Why, want this country to go bust do you? How about stating you want all the scroungers coming here instead instead of labelling them all worthless? Or how about we send our own layabouts to their countries?

so what’s worse a ” fat Commie Tw*t Michael Moore” or left-wing fat Tw*t Both as bad as each other in my view. Better dead than red I say.

resorting to name calling would indicate you have little substance to your argument (erm, no, just cant stand that fat commie lie-spreading twit who incessently goes on about Sept 11th and anything slightly republican)and are getting a bit frustrated would it not.

Would you care to enlighten us as to what destroyed WT7 ? That’s the little one that’s didn’t get hit by a plane or damaged by any of the small fragments being blown outwards when WT1/2 exploded.

Material fragments of WTC1 severed diesel fuel lines supplying generators and the subsequent fire far exceeded normal testing limits of building materials. The truss structure used in construction is not a redundant structure and thus collapsed like a pack of cards once the key beam failed.

The "we are going to pull it" comment refers to the Fire brigade pulling its already decimated, shellshocked members away from the building as it was completely evacuated and feared it would collapse. No point saving it really then was there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Him above that does not know how to quote people :rolleyes:

“No, but dynamic forces are generally more significant than static ones, and are far more destructive. The wind is a dynamic force, but to consider "a 100 MPH wind" as significant as a fully fuelled 757 as simply wrong”

Lets do the sums here then

100 tons at 500mph spread over 50 m2 is more than energy than 100mph wind spread over 100 plus floors * 3m height and 100m width. I don’t think so

Seems you forget that it “Static Wind” that keeps a plane in the sky.

Anyway it’s not the impact that brought the towers down, the building swayed a little but it’s a matter of record that the sway was less than registered on a windy day so lets move on to fire.

“Material fragments of WTC1 severed diesel fuel lines supplying generators and the subsequent fire far exceeded normal testing limits of building materials”

best get my “Diesel” cutting touch out the next time I want to cut a RSJ in half, get real, even under perfect conditions Diesel does not melt steel so don’t ask me what heated the metal so much at WT1/2 that it was still glowing red hot days later as the rubble was excavated.

glowingsteel-704860.jpg

Moving on to the Pentagon

“once the leading edge of the swept wing strikes the ground with such velocity, it folds backwards. The aircraft debris hit the pentagon, not the intact aircraft.”

I think it would be fair to say that only one wing could impact the ground if the plane was at an angle so why can we not see a crater and why can we not see where the other wing impacted the building.

For the last time wings do not fold off and vanish on impact else we would have to conclude that UFO’s hit the twin towers as clearly we can see the damage from the wings on WT1/2

“The "we are going to pull it" comment refers to the Fire brigade pulling its already decimated, shellshocked members away from the building as it was completely evacuated and feared it would collapse. No point saving it really then was there?”

takes weeks for demolition experts to plan a demolition and more time do drill and plant explosive charges in a building, add in the building was covered in smoke and dangerous then it does not take a scientist to work out they didn’t have time to “Pull the Building” without the charges already being planted.

Care to calculate the chances of 3 steel structured building all being destroyed by fire on the same day when no other have ever been toppled by fire before. More chance of finding Elvis alive on the moon I thinks. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

100 tons at 500mph spread over 50 m2 is more than energy than 100mph wind spread over 100 plus floors * 3m height and 100m width. I don’t think so

Seems you forget that it “Static Wind” that keeps a plane in the sky.

Anyway it’s not the impact that brought the towers down, the building swayed a little but it’s a matter of record that the sway was less than registered on a windy day so lets move on to fire.

Moving on to the Pentagon

I think it would be fair to say that only one wing could impact the ground if the plane was at an angle so why can we not see a crater and why can we not see where the other wing impacted the building.

For the last time wings do not fold off and vanish on impact else we would have to conclude that UFO’s hit

You really are thick. even 200 MPH winds dont have the energy to cut steel beams, like the wing of the 757 did. The building did not sway much as the aircraft practically forced its way through to the other side, cutting support stucture as it went. Tell me this, what has more of an effect, you reacting to somone pushing you, or someone giving you a shove with the same force? same theory in dynamics. A forces effect can have a far greater effect and the force is actually maginfied when effecting a sturucture in a cyclical manner. Hence how bridges have been known to fall down with light winds, and soldiers break step when marching over bridges.

No, i did not forget that static winds keep a plane in the sky, I do test fly them for a living.

The aircraft from what i recall that struck the pentagon had very little bank on it. So you are going to tell me that a cruise missile did it? So where did the black boxes and engine components with the AA serial numbers stamped into them come from? Cruise missiles dont generate ruddy great big fireballs either, explosives dont go off like in the movies you know. The wing sweep I refer to is the sweep of the wing in design, around 20 degrees in the 747, to add stability.

I really do wish you people could get a life, rather than spout hurtful shit and constantly drag up this nightmare for all the families involved. It must be really sad to have a life where you have to fantasize such crap in order to get off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Him above who can quote :rolleyes:

So you think that the thin aluminium skin used in a planes wing can slice through 2 inch thick steel beams, was it going at the speed of light or something and if 500 MPH can do that then what went wrong at the pentagon as the only penetration into the building was a 16 ft round hole. You can not have it both ways.

“i did not forget that static winds keep a plane in the sky, I do test fly them for a living."

Yes and then you woke up :lol:

“The aircraft from what i recall that struck the pentagon had very little bank on it”

Careful as many who say a plane did indeed hit the pentagon excuse the lack of damage to the exterior of the building by insisting one of the wings impacted with ground 00000000001 ms before impact.

“The wing sweep I refer to is the sweep of the wing in design, around 20 degrees in the 747, to add stability.”

Are you trying to say that as a car hits a brick wall the passengers are thrown out the back window. The wings would had been propelled forward in relation to the plane as the nose hit the building so where are the marks on the building or the ground if the plane was at an angle as some say.

“rather than spout hurtful shit and constantly drag up this nightmare for all the families involved”

Is that the best you can hide behind when logic and physics fail to stack up ?

OK I’ll take you up on that one, so how come many of the families are now demanding Bush be impeached and over 50% of NY citizens think Bush had prior knowledge of the attack

Forget all the evidence, some people will swallow anything the BBC says. The media blackout won’t last 4ever as more people like myself have taken the time to question these conspiracies and have been awoken from a very long sleep :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you think that the thin aluminium skin used in a planes wing can slice through 2 inch thick steel beams, was it going at the speed of light or something and if 500 MPH can do that then what went wrong at the pentagon as the only penetration into the building was a 16 ft round hole. You can not have it both ways.

Thats interesting, because this company produces water jets that can cut through steel, or compressed air can easily cut human skin. Just because a material has dissimilar material properties does not mean it cant cut or damage it.

Different holes, different construction and different impact modes. ONCE AGAIN LOOK AT THE FEM DATA COLLECTED! The pentagon crash almost went through to the centre ring of the structure, hardly the limited damage you describe. As well, the original design specs of the headquaters of the most powerful armed force in the world are slightly different to the design of a commercial skyscraper no?

Careful as many who say a plane did indeed hit the pentagon excuse the lack of damage to the exterior of the building by insisting one of the wings impacted with ground 00000000001 ms before impact.

yes, in other words very little bank.

Are you trying to say that as a car hits a brick wall the passengers are thrown out the back window. The wings would had been propelled forward in relation to the plane as the nose hit the building so where are the marks on the building or the ground if the plane was at an angle as some say.

Erm, Do you actually know how an aircraft is constructed. Obviously not. The fuselage and nose is not much thicker than 1-2mm. Its a tin can. The wings form the most solid structure. As I have repeatedly said, in impacts of very large aircraft the wings fold backwards, opposite to momentum, as the ground pushes the wings back. Up to that point, the thin walled tube crumples very much like a tin can under your foot. The wing spar, the most solid part of the aircraft, as well as the undercarriage, have, time after time FOLDED BACK in such impacts. Dont belive me if you dont want to, but I have seen many many photos demonstrating this happen.

Yes and then you woke up

I do not have the full TP qual but carry out airtests as part of my job for a small carrier, I also have a degree in aerospace engineering so I think I know what I am talking about here.

Forget all the evidence, some people will swallow anything the BBC says

No, I have examined the facts with an open mind, as they say no smoke without fire and have come to the conclusion that the liberals have manufactured this as a great excuse to slate George Bush. Not that they needed anything as unbelieveable as this to fight their corner. That Idiot Michael Moore being a key individual here. Then again, I have an structural engineering background and have studied dynamic failure in aircraft structures, buy hey, what the hell, I will just take anything I read on the internet as the truth, its got to be right hasnt it?

With reference to your earlier comment,

best get my “Diesel” cutting touch out the next time I want to cut a RSJ in half, get real, even under perfect conditions Diesel does not melt steel so don’t ask me what heated the metal so much at WT1/2 that it was still glowing red hot days later as the rubble was excavated.

Why cannot you understand that you dont need to melt a metal to cause structural failure? Do you really think that there is a huge change in material properties occuring at melting point? there isnt. At the temperatures occuring in the fire, the steel would have had a strength between copper and lead. If the building was brought down by explosives, yo simply would not have had glowing metal like that. And dont you think that, having killed thousands in the WTC, they wouldnt be bothered about killing a few more in WTC7? So why then did they take the building down in a picture perfect manner and not rig the explosives to "make" it look like a scrappy building falling down? Thnk man. Evil bastards from the middle east were responsible for this, no matter how much your bleeding liberal heart wants it to be Bush, it wasnt him. Feeling stupid yet? you should do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"as the ground pushes the wings back"

So are you saying that both wings hit the ground, not just one as would be the case if the plane was banking left or right.

Where are the visable marks on the grass, i don't see any do you

200109114-800JPG.JPG

Yes we know air can cut human skin, water can cut thin metal but it's concentrated and travling several times the speed of sound.

Strange that the ten story builing in Iran that got hit about 3 weeks ago by a jumbo didn't fail down don't you think. must be built better than the twin towers.

2" Steel beams can not be melted by poring kerasine on it and lighting a fire, would burn the paint off but as for changing it's properties to that of lead or copper ! i don't think so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strange that the ten story builing in Iran that got hit about 3 weeks ago by a jumbo didn't fail down don't you think. must be built better than the twin towers.

The marks on the ground were behind the fire trucks. The wings folded as they hit the reinforced structure of the pentagon, a building FAR MORE ADAPT at coping with such impacts than the WTC.

You need to get your facts straight. The aircraft was a C130 hercules, not a jumbo, and it was an arrival and thus had little fuel onboard. Trying to compare an aircraft with a max takeoff weight of 55 tonnes with one that has a MTOW of over 200 tonnes is moronic. And I proved you wrong on that one didnt I, like I have on evey other simplistic argument you have presented.

2" Steel beams can not be melted by poring kerasine on it and lighting a fire, would burn the paint off but as for changing it's properties to that of lead or copper ! i don't think so.

yes they can be turned into material props similar to copper at high temps. check here if you dont believe me.

Here

ONCE AGAIN YOU DO NOT NEED TO MELT A STRUCTURE TO CAUSE STRUCTURAL FAILURE!!!!

SO CAN YOU ANSWER MY QUESTIONS PLEASE

1) WHY DID THEY RIG A PERFECT DEMOLITION?

2)WHY WERE PARTS GLOWING RED HOT IN THE RECOVERY IF THE STEEL HAD BEEN CUT BY EXPLOSIVES? eXPLOSIVES DONT WORK LIKE THIS!

3) WHEN WOULD THEY HAVE RIGGED THESE EXPLOSIVES, BEARING IN MIND IT WOULD HAVE TAKEN WEEKS, EVEN THOUGH WTC 7 WAS FULLY FUNCTIONING UP TO 11/7? SURELT THE EMPLOYEES WOULD HAVE NOTICED\ OR DID THE PENTAGON USE THEIR FRIKKIN LASER BEAM?

4) WHERE DID ALL THE PAX ON THE AA FLIGHTS GO? CAMP x-RAY?

Just admit you are wong. Comparing a building fire in Madrid with one that has an intensity several times larger (WTC1,2 in particular) is, once again, moronic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The marks on the ground were behind the fire trucks. The wings folded as they hit the reinforced structure of the pentagon, a building FAR MORE ADAPT at coping with such impacts than the WTC.

Do you have a link that shows the marks behind the fire truck cus i've never seen any !

Looks like you are saying and a building with 5 floors is stronger when it comes to impact protection than a building 100 plus floors and being steel framed. Not sure if this is true or not but i still want to see damage from the wings hitting the building or the ground, be even better to see sections of wings like seen after other planes have crashed.

From the link you listed above

"NOTE: These were cyclic tests for 100 hours duration in air containing 10% water vapor. Cycled every 2 hours to room temperature then back to test temperature. Weight gain (or loss) measured without purposeful removal of scale."

Come now lets compare like for like

1) WHY DID THEY RIG A PERFECT DEMOLITION?

So Bush and his Saudi friends could profit more from the Oil See here for details

2)WHY WERE PARTS GLOWING RED HOT IN THE RECOVERY IF THE STEEL HAD BEEN CUT BY EXPLOSIVES? eXPLOSIVES DONT WORK LIKE THIS!

Wana bet. Shaped charges cut metal by producing heat of 3000-4000c and is only explanation for the molten metal in the basement. Try looking in Google. This is not debatable, it’s proven physics

3) WHEN WOULD THEY HAVE RIGGED THESE EXPLOSIVES, BEARING IN MIND IT WOULD HAVE TAKEN WEEKS, EVEN THOUGH WTC 7 WAS FULLY FUNCTIONING UP TO 11/7? SURELT THE EMPLOYEES WOULD HAVE NOTICED\ OR DID THE PENTAGON USE THEIR FRIKKIN LASER BEAM?

Bush’s brother was connected with the company providing security protection at the trade centres, the very same building that changed hands a few months before the so called attack

4) WHERE DID ALL THE PAX ON THE AA FLIGHTS GO? CAMP x-RAY?

Small fry to Bush especially as all the planes only had an average occupancy rates of about 20% for some strange reason and the seating patterns were not normal. All dead now ands this is another reason we must not let bush get away with it, it’s peoples duty to investigate and make sure that those responsible are hold accountable for their actions.

Madrid ? I’ve not mentioned the fire in Madrid that burned much hotter and for much longer and yet the building still did not fall down. Mouth and Foot comes to mind here !

I’ve tried to answer your questions but you will find millions of other web sites that present much more detailed explanations from independent experts and eye witnesses than i have time to offer you here. You need to do your own research and decide for yourself the most plausible explanation as you sure in hell won’t get much from the official story.

have a happy xmas :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you have a link that shows the marks behind the fire truck cus i've never seen any !

Looks like you are saying and a building with 5 floors is stronger when it comes to impact protection than a building 100 plus floors and being steel framed. Not sure if this is true or not but i still want to see damage from the wings hitting the building or the ground, be even better to see sections of wings like seen after other planes have crashed.

have a happy xmas

You too. Getting bored now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just admit you are wong. Comparing a building fire in Madrid with one that has an intensity several times larger (WTC1,2 in particular) is, once again, moronic.

Is this the same intense fire this women was able to walk through to get a good view of New York.

woman_wtc.jpg

:lol::lol::lol:

post-418-1135434940_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this the same intense fire this women was able to walk through to get a good view of New York.

woman_wtc.jpg

:lol::lol::lol:

Making fun with the use of a woman who more than likely did not survive the terrorists attacks is pathetic and sad. Oh yes and by the way mbga9pgf seems to have wrapped up any idiotic consipacy theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Making fun with the use of a woman who more than likely did not survive the terrorists attacks is pathetic and sad. Oh yes and by the way mbga9pgf seems to have wrapped up any idiotic consipacy theory.

Sorry if the post offended you in the early hours of christmas day.

Obviously I am devastated about the loss of life on that fateful day however i am even more devastated that theyre is still many questions in my opinion that have still not been answered.

If the women did not survive surely her family deserve the truth which i believe has not happened.

Again no one seems to be able to answer the simple question how did the women survive that intense heat even though it was hot enough to change the strength characteristics of steel? Such a simple question I thought you might of answered it because no one else seems to be able to do so.

Again sorry if offended you.

Happy Xmas take care

CB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shaker Baby

"Oh yes and by the way mbga9pgf seems to have wrapped up any idiotic consipacy theory."

Did i blink and miss something or what

"survive the terrorists attacks is pathetic and sad"

It’s even worse as it's more likly it was her own government that killed her

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 301 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.