[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
9/11 See other 9/11 Articles Title: Confessions Of A 911 Hitman Confessions Of A 911 Hitman Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top Page Up Full Thread Page Down Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 204.
#1. To: robin (#0)
(Edited)
Demolitions don't work that way. In fact demolitions won't bring down a building in and of themselves. That is why they spend more time gutting the inside of buildings and weakening the superstructure because the explosions would not do a thing in terms of getting the building to implode and fall down in a precise manner.
In fact demolitions won't bring down a building in and of themselves. That is why they spend more time gutting the inside of buildings and weakening the superstructure because the explosions would not do a thing in terms of getting the building to implode and fall down in a precise manner. Which is exactly what the man who wrote this saying, that it took years to plan this and months to prepare the building. BTW, have you watched any of the excellent 9/11 videos that have been made this year?
Sorry - this theory fails Occam's Razor theorem.
Have you seen any of the excellent 9/11 videos made recently? They explain with high school physics how the buildings fell at the rate of free fall and that this only happens in a demolition. They also show the squibs (the explosives going off under each falling floor) that precede that fall. They also interviewed some of the surviving tenants of the building who describe some of the odd goings on before 9/11. They also replay the sound of some powerful explosions that precede the fall of each tower. They also play the video of Larry Silverstein, who coincidently owned all 3 buildings that fell that day, saying on the video "so I told them to 'pull it'". He used a term used in demolitions regarding WTC7.
Wow - he let the bag out on a PBS interview - LOL - it was not a slip heard on some CB. People don't tell you that - they make it sound like his calls were intercepted. It was in reference to pulling out of WTC 7 and not trying to save it.
Not true, have you seen the video interview where he says exactly "pull it"?
Yes. Have you?
Do you too believe that the buildings pancaked on top of each other; yet managed to fall at the rate of free fall? So since the floors were around the steel center core, why isn't the core still standing? The pancake theory doesn't hold water regarding the center core and no one who tries to hold that theory can ever explain the center core not still standing. But demolition explains everything.
So since the floors were around the steel center core, why isn't the core still standing? The freefall rate is one man's work based on his own assumptions - a man not involved in the construction or demolition industry. The steel core is what to you? Some super duper adamantium structure? Like one long solid bar of steel that would be left standing like a pipe? Come on - you are making stuff up as you go along based on cartoon notions of pyhsics. Physics as composed by Bugs Bunny.
I can't believe the low quality crap the CIA is paying for these days. I guess it beats a job at McDonald's huh? The free fall rate in vacuum close to the Earth's surface is on average exactly: 9.81 m/s^2 Both buildings, WTC1 and WTC2, are recorded by seismographs as falling in about 10 seconds. That is almost the same speed (given the height of the buildings it would have taken them approximately 9.2 seconds to completely fall in a vacuum) they would fall if NOTHING, including air molecules, were impeding their fall. But they had the rest of the building impeding its fall, which would have greatly increased the length of time for the buildings to fall. The pancake theory is a joke. Even if somehow one floor fell all at once to the floor beneath it and started a domino effect where all the floors collapsed the 47, I repeat 47, core steel columns that held up the entire weight of the building and were over engineered to handle much more weight than that, would not have collapsed. The floors falling alone could not have caused these 47 core steel columns to fail. And if you watch the North Tower fall you can see the antenna on top of the North Tower begin to fall first. Why is this significant? Because it was built directly on top of the core. It could not have fallen first unless the core was taken out first. I suggest you give up your shill efforts at this forum. No one here will respond to your silliness for too long and you will be exposed for the crackpot government theory nut you are.
That is why I have wasted no time on this thread. Been there, done that, enough said. ;0)
There are no replies to Comment # 204. End Trace Mode for Comment # 204.
Top Page Up Full Thread Page Down Bottom/Latest |
||
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|