[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Researchers Find Unknown Chemical In Drinking Water Posing "Potential Human Health Concern"

Putin visibly ‘shocked’ by US green-light for long-range missiles to strike inside Russia

Putin visibly ‘shocked’ by US green-light for long-range missiles to strike inside Russia

Putin visibly ‘shocked’ by US green-light for long-range missiles to strike inside Russia

Putin visibly ‘shocked’ by US green-light for long-range missiles to strike inside Russia

Putin visibly ‘shocked’ by US green-light for long-range missiles to strike inside Russia

Putin visibly ‘shocked’ by US green-light for long-range missiles to strike inside Russia

Putin visibly ‘shocked’ by US green-light for long-range missiles to strike inside Russia

Putin visibly ‘shocked’ by US green-light for long-range missiles to strike inside Russia

Putin visibly ‘shocked’ by US green-light for long-range missiles to strike inside Russia

Putin visibly ‘shocked’ by US green-light for long-range missiles to strike inside Russia

Putin visibly ‘shocked’ by US green-light for long-range missiles to strike inside Russia

Putin visibly ‘shocked’ by US green-light for long-range missiles to strike inside Russia

Putin visibly ‘shocked’ by US green-light for long-range missiles to strike inside Russia

Putin visibly ‘shocked’ by US green-light for long-range missiles to strike inside Russia

Putin visibly ‘shocked’ by US green-light for long-range missiles to strike inside Russia

Putin visibly ‘shocked’ by US green-light for long-range missiles to strike inside Russia

Putin visibly ‘shocked’ by US green-light for long-range missiles to strike inside Russia

Putin visibly ‘shocked’ by US green-light for long-range missiles to strike inside Russia

Putin visibly ‘shocked’ by US green-light for long-range missiles to strike inside Russia

The Problem of the Bitcoin Billionaires

Biden: “We’re leaving America in a better place today than when we came into office four years ago … "

Candace Owens: Gaetz out, Bondi in. There's more to this than you think.

OMG!!! Could Jill Biden Be Any MORE Embarrassing??? - Anyone NOTICE This???

Sudden death COVID vaccine paper published, then censored, by The Lancet now republished with peer review

Russian children returned from Syria

Donald Trump Indirectly Exposes the Jewish Neocons Behind Joe Biden's Nuclear War

Key European NATO Bases in Reach of Russia's Oreshnik Hypersonic Missile

Supervolcano Alert in Europe: Phlegraean Fields Activity Sparks Scientists Attention (Mass Starvation)

France reacted to the words of a US senator on sanctions against allies


9/11
See other 9/11 Articles

Title: 911 Mysteries - DEMOLITIONS Video Part 1-3. No one could watch these and not be convinced that the WTC towers were brought down with EXPLOSIVES and that 911 is an INSIDE JOB
Source: Google Video
URL Source: [None]
Published: Sep 17, 2006
Author: none
Post Date: 2006-09-17 11:06:49 by christine
Keywords: None
Views: 5159
Comments: 86

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3


Poster Comment: The DVD can be purchased in quantity for low bulk rates here: http://www.911weknow.com/

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 20.

#2. To: *9-11* (#0)

Watching Part 1 now, looks very good.

robin  posted on  2006-09-17   11:30:35 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: All (#2)

"What happened to the core?"

robin  posted on  2006-09-17   12:42:18 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: All (#6)

and what about all those squibs going off in advance of the falling building, insuring a freefall time?

pancaking it should have taken over 90 seconds, not 9.

robin  posted on  2006-09-17   13:02:38 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: robin (#9)

pancaking it should have taken over 90 seconds, not 9.

Check this out, my lady. I recall reading somewhere that what ultimately convinced Prof. Steve Jones of the impossibility of the official story of the collapse, was precisely this sort of quantitative study of the amount of energy required for the Towers to collapse in the time they did and in the manner they did.

Peetie Wheatstraw  posted on  2006-09-17   14:14:59 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: Peetie Wheatstraw (#16)

And the floors went around the core.

Where's the steel core?

robin  posted on  2006-09-17   14:17:05 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: robin (#17)

And the floors went around the core.

Where's the steel core?

That's a question they always fudge on the government side, isn't it? Even if we accept the government contention, repeated ad nauseam by 911 Truth opponents as though it were a magic charm, that "steel loses half its strength at X degrees," how could the entire core have been heated to that temperature by fires, however intense, on some upper floors? From what I understand, there was a longer lasting fire that was at least as intense on a lower floor or floors in WTC 1 in 1975, and yet the core wasn't "weakened" so that the thing came down like a house of cards, was it?

Now that I'm on a "roll" :P....what about the 1993 WTC explosions? How much energy was released in that explosion or explosions compared to the maximum amount that could have been released by the impact of the planes and subsequent fires? (Gee, I wish I had taken more than one physics class...! They had a one year math and science requirement at Columbia but I just took "Calculus A"---or as we called it, "Dummy Calculus"---and Physics 101---or as we called it, "Poets' Physics"...:P)

Peetie Wheatstraw  posted on  2006-09-17   14:29:28 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 20.

#38. To: Peetie Wheatstraw (#20)

what about the 1993 WTC explosions? How much energy was released in that explosion or explosions compared to the maximum amount that could have been released by the impact of the planes and subsequent fires?

I have been trying to find the "flame speed" for kerosene in what would have been it's partially atomized state after inpact just to compare it to the flame speed of TNT, wich the believers of the Official Fairy Tale ™ like to relate as being comparable to X number of tons of TNT.

The flame speed of a TNT explosion is 27,000 feet per second. I highly doubt that atomized kerosene comes withing 5% of that.

I searched and searched with google but haven't found anything on kerosene flame speed. Gasoline, yes, kerosene, no.

Critter  posted on  2006-09-17 22:40:46 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 20.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]