The Mental Militia Forums

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Down

Author Topic: WTC Collapse was Controlled Demolition  (Read 11804 times)

Thunder

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3819
  • Go away, boy! Ya bother me! -Foghorn Leghorn
WTC Collapse was Controlled Demolition
« Reply #15 on: June 15, 2005, 08:07:31 am »

It would seem to me that structural failure due to heat is the cause.  The steel did not melt, it was just heated.  Blacksmiths don't melt iron or steel to bend and shape it, they just heat it.  

Now, given that the hottest part of the fire would be in the center of the buildings where the majority of jet fuel would have been spilt, the heating of the interior center beams would be most logical.  Once those beams weaken due to the heat and can no longer hold the weight above them, they collapse.  The resulting weight slams down on those below, so on and so forth bringing the thing down.

There was no conspiracy to blow the WTC towers.  The only conspiracy at work was the R's and D's conspiring to continue the failed foreign policies that caused the terrorists to RETALIATE (note: I didn't say attack) against us.


Paranoia will destroy ya.    
Logged
Thunder[/color][/font]



There are times, sir, when men of good conscience cannot blindly follow orders.  -Capt. Jean-Luc Picard

Wars will cease when people start loving their children more than they love the government.

People use the term 'chaos' only when they can't see far enough to view the big picture.   -Deepak Chopra

There are no illegal guns, only illegal gun laws.

mi6a2lm

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1840
    • http://emtaz.com
WTC Collapse was Controlled Demolition
« Reply #16 on: June 15, 2005, 08:11:39 am »

Quote
It would seem to me that structural failure due to heat is the cause.  The steel did not melt, it was just heated.  Blacksmiths don't melt iron or steel to bend and shape it, they just heat it.  

Now, given that the hottest part of the fire would be in the center of the buildings where the majority of jet fuel would have been spilt, the heating of the interior center beams would be most logical.  Once those beams weaken due to the heat and can no longer hold the weight above them, they collapse.  The resulting weight slams down on those below, so on and so forth bringing the thing down.

There was no conspiracy to blow the WTC towers.  The only conspiracy at work was the R's and D's conspiring to continue the failed foreign policies that caused the terrorists to RETALIATE (note: I didn't say attack) against us.


Paranoia will destroy ya.
What about building 7?  Have you seen the video of it going down?  It is similar to the demolitions of large buildings that one can see on TV.  (I can find the vid if you want.)
Logged
“This is a very important lesson. You must never confuse faith that you will prevail in the end - which you can never afford to lose - with the discipline to confront the most brutal facts of your current reality, whatever they might be.” - ADM James Stockdale

ultralongrunner

  • Guest
WTC Collapse was Controlled Demolition
« Reply #17 on: June 15, 2005, 08:35:18 am »

Quote
It would seem to me that structural failure due to heat is the cause.  The steel did not melt, it was just heated.  Blacksmiths don't melt iron or steel to bend and shape it, they just heat it.  

 
I agree.  In the fire service, we have a term for elevator shafts and stairways. They are called chimneys.  It sucks to have to drag a hose up a smoke filled, very hot stairway.

ultralongrunner
Logged

ultralongrunner

  • Guest
WTC Collapse was Controlled Demolition
« Reply #18 on: June 15, 2005, 08:36:46 am »

Quote
What about building 7?  Have you seen the video of it going down?  It is similar to the demolitions of large buildings that one can see on TV.  (I can find the vid if you want.)
Please find this. I've been right outside the danger zone during controled demolitions and would be interested.

Thanks,

ultralongrunner
Logged

byron

  • Guest
WTC Collapse was Controlled Demolition
« Reply #19 on: June 15, 2005, 08:38:12 am »

As Elias has so well documented (and anybody can find this out independently by putting in a few key words on your search engine) :

1) Larry Silverstein owned the buidings that came down that day...any other building owners "suffer" losses and make a profit?

2) Marvin BUSH was security company director for those buildings....brother of a doubletalking crook?

Lots more  "coincidental" stuff that all came together at the very same moments on 911, that  tells me that I will not believe anything that government has tried to explain away the day. As far as I am concerned we were attacked by our own government with the plan to make a huge 1-step move to enslave the people of the US even further.

The buildings came down a little too clean, a little too staged,  for me to believe that it wasn't rigged to do so.
Logged

Elias Alias

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4912
  • TMM
WTC Collapse was Controlled Demolition
« Reply #20 on: June 15, 2005, 08:41:38 am »

ultralongrunner stated:
Quote
Nope. But then again, I haven't been around many buildings that airplanes have crashed into. The closest was a Cesna that augered into a farm field. Messy.

Okay, ultralongrunner. This photo was taken quite some time after the airplane hit the tower. This was shot as the tower was coming down, er, ?collapsing?. I note again that steel beams are being hurled outward with great force. They are not sagging or bending or twisting or crumbling ? they are being shredded from their joint connections which had previously held them together. You'll note several bondings in small groupings of three, connected by a wider cross-section. These are the exterior-wall steel girders which enclosed the exterior of the building, not the massive steel beams from the inner core of the building. You'll note that these banded groupings of three are being literally blown outward, with many of them being blown away from their cross-bands, so that we see in this photo many single arms of steel, all flying away from the building. I would like to maintain that those air-borne beams are not so much ?twisting and crumpling? as they are dislodged and displaced traumatically and sent flying through the air. Toward the bottom of the photo we can see one grouping of three which is still attached to the facing of the building at the bottom of their grouping, with the top of their grouping bending outward, away from the building. One other thing we can notice here is that the steel beams are not melted, but instead are still solid.

Quote
Regarding the picture. Noted that there was no flame showing. All of the high order explosives that I've worked with there is a flame with the blast.

Okay, good. Question:  about how long does the flame exist from the initiation of the explosion? A few seconds, or longer? Is the flame more like a ?flash?, or is it more sustained? Your point is noted, that there is no flame visible in this photo ? and I think that is important to note.

Quote
Also, I have no idea as to the structural strength of the steel that is being blown out. Steel is strange in that way. We all think of it as quite strong, but under the right circumstances, it falls apart.

Yes ? under the right circumstances it falls apart. And under demolition, it can literally blow apart, especially at welds and rivet-junctions, right?  Your experience with demolitions is very valuable here. My work with steel and torches is very small and controlled, when compared to your work with explosives and steel.  Every day, I work with torches on metals, and many times each day I use steel as a ?heat-sink?. Know what I'm talking about? I use steel to draw heat out of gold or silver which is being torched for my work's requirements, such as soldering and fusing. If I want to reduce the flow of heat running through a gold shank on a finger-ring, I place steel tweezers on either side of the area where I'm directing the torche's heat, and the greatest heat from the work-area of my torch moves outward from the direct area and into the steel tweezers. We call it ?heat sinking?, and we use it to keep the temperatures away from whatever gemstones may be set in the top of the ring. I mention this to show that steel conducts heat, as any working jeweler knows. When holding steel tweezers in one's hand, with the farther end of the tweezers receiving the flow of the heat, one is always pleased to note that as the heat travels through the steel toward the hand, the heat is absorbed by the steel and dissipates before enough of it can reach the end where the skin is; which is why we call it a ?sink? - the heat literally sinks into the steel and dissipates, loses its warmth. I note this now because when we look more closely at the construction of the Twin Towers, we're gong to see that there were massive steel columns rising from the ground all the way up to the tops of the buildings, and these were in the central core of each building, and where the jet fuel ignited up high would have to be considered the source of the heat which is stated by our dear government to have caused the steel beams of the core to melt and/or weaken so much that they could no longer bear their weight-loads. What I know directly about steel is that it is a heat-sink, a place where heat can run to get lost unless the heat's source is sustained and adjusted hotter in order to spread a critical temperature to the far reaches of the steel's other ends.  We'll get to the cores of the towers soon enough.

And then, of course, within the steel industry we have the fact that there are a number of ?types? and ?grades? of steel, ranging from highly-tempered to 'dead-soft', or completely untempered, with all sorts of strengths ranging in between, as well as variations on molecular-compositions.

Quote
I have seen similar types of stuff flying out of windows during FX shoots. We used air mortars/cannons. Quite impresive as to what air can do if used right.

Question: the stuff you've seen flying out of windows due to air cannons ? would that stuff also be seen flying out of windows if there were no man-made causes of blasts or explosions or air-cannons? In other words, would simple fire cause pieces of steel to launch themselves outward from the center of the fire, or, rather, would human-sourced 'causes' (such as an air-mortar) be needed to launch the pieces outward?
Please define for me what you mean by ?FX shoots??  
Now we notice in the photo that the debris (pieces of steel and other materials) are not just flying out of windows,  but, instead, the entire facing of the building is flying apart and outward from the building itself.
Also, am I correct in thinking that when you demolish a building you sometimes use ?air cannons?? What the heck is an ?air-cannon? and/or an ?air-mortar?? I take it that you want to derive from the use of such things a force-current of expelled air, which may be directed as needed?

Quote
Next time you are at Walmart, look at the ceiling. If they are built like the ones down here, it will be supported by steel. When heated, directly or otherwise, these beams first expand and as they loose strength, the roof comes down. So, you not only have to deal with collapsing walls, but the roof coming in. It is my understanding that the WTC was built of the same sorts of materials.

Well, in the case of overhead steel ?trusses? and triangled-beams and etc, which would be proportionately smaller in a Walmart store's building than in a skyscraper building, I sure do understand just what you're saying there. However, the materials may be the same, but the proportionate thickness of the steel members would be, in the case of one-hundred-plus-storey buildings, much much thicker, don't you agree?

Quote
Now, was there a conspiracy regarding the WTC? Maybe. The paranoid side of me wonders it seems quite similar to Pearl Harbor--all the powers that be needed to do was stand aside and let someone else do their dirty work.

One would certainly think that all they would need to do is stand aside and let it happen. But the truth shall reveal that they were doing much more than simply standing aside.  What Dick Cheney to this day has never admitted is the fact that he was running five wargame drills on that morning, one of which involved pilotless aircraft being controlled in flight from bunkers on the ground, and another of which was inserting false ?hijack blips? onto the FAA's and NORAD's radar screens ? among other cute tricks which, unfortunately, allowed the events of 911 to happen. We now know that had Cheney's wargame drills not been operating that morning, the four 'hijackings' could not have reached successful conclusions. It's that simple ? yet Dick Cheney has never spoken about these drills. But the rabbit hole goes even much deeper than just that, though I suppose on this thread we'll focus only on the collapses of three tall buildings.

But here is a very important question for you please: If I were to state that ?we're going to pull building number 6 now?, and if I were working for a demolition company which had been tasked with bringing down a building named ?number 6?, when I said that ? what would the term ?pull? mean to you if you heard me say that at the site of the soon-to-be-executed demolition of the building? Specifically, would ?pull the building? mean ?implode the building with controlled demolition techniques?? I ask this because Larry Silverstein said that FDNY and he ?decided to pull it?. He said this on a film which was broadcast nationally. When we look at the ?pulling? of WTC 7, we note that the building came down perfectly, and we  can see that from several different cameras' points of perspective. The CBS newscasters who covered the pulling of WTC 7 that afternoon said on national tv that it was like a controlled demolition, and when you look at the films of the building going down,  it is almost impossible for me to conceive of any other manner by which a building can collapse that perfectly ? other than controlled demolition.

Quote
Someone might very well have helped the building come down. I don't think so, given what I've seen given what my experience and training says. But no matter what, we'll never really know as all the evidence is pretty well gone...

Well, here is one sad fact: the WTC on the morning of 911 became a ?crime scene?, and Fedgov hustled to remove all the evidence of that crime from the crime scene. Have you any idea how bold the Fedgov was to remove all that evidence? That itself is against the law. Why would the government remove all the evidence which could have, under study and research, reveal the truth about how the buildings came down? I'm calling that ?evidence-tampering?.

Truthfully, I have various film-clips here at my place, films of New York City firemen and some NYC policemen, who were on the scene that morning, and they state excitedly that they heard explosions. I also have a number of films from the major news services on which the anchormen are talking about the ?loud explosions?. These films were broadcast live and some are on the French journalists' film ?911?, but the tv networks never showed the footages again after that day.  Curiously, the U.S. Department of Justice has placed the New York Fire Department personnel who were at the scene under a gag order, forbidding them to talk about the explosions they saw and heard. I wonder why Fedgov doesn't want eye-witnesses talking about explosions? Here is a page which gives some of their statements. (it's better of course to see their faces while they're saying these things, but unless you buy the videos we'll have to settle for text transcriptions only.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/e...ewitnesses.html

To wrap-up this post, I'd like to ask you the most important question I can imagine ? If you owned a demolition company, and if I were to hire your company to demolish a forty-seven story skyscraper in downtown New York City, with fires on the fifth floor and ninth floor and maybe a small fire or two on other floors, with total pandemonium going on all over the site (caused by aircraft diving into tall buildings in the complex in which I wanted to "pull" the building,  how long would it take your crews to get the building ready to ?pull?, and about how much sheer weight in explosives would you need to bring down that 47 story building perfectly?

Thanks so much for your help! I really appreciate your being willing to talk about these questions. :)

Salute!
Elias
Logged
"Heirs to self-knowledge shed gently their fears..."

Joel

  • Just a peckerwood who lives in the hills with too many guns.
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5379
WTC Collapse was Controlled Demolition
« Reply #21 on: June 15, 2005, 08:42:42 am »

I don't have a dog in this race, so don't anybody tear into me.  I agree with the "controlled demolition" advocates that the destruction of the buildings looks for all the world like a planned demolition, with the exception that there are no flashes from the phased detonations.  I've read the articles posted, some months ago.  But they leave me with two questions.

First, a controlled demolition of a large structure is not a clandestine business.  You've got to have access to every inch of the building.  There are demo packs against every load-bearing structure, det cord and cables are strung everywhere, sometimes you've got to saw partway through structural members.  It would take weeks of loud and obvious work for trained teams to prep a building the size of a WTC tower for a demo like that, and the traces would be everywhere.  Somebody would comment.

Second, the article(s) I read seemed to argue that the airplanes were a hoax.  There was more of the "hole's too small" argument.  But the planes hit the buildings in a very, very public manner; especially the second one.  It wasn't a mass hallucination.  The planes were there.

I'm prepared to believe that there was government complicity in the WTC disaster.  I enjoy believing things like that.  But in this case, while I can believe that somebody greased the skids for the planes to be hijacked, I don't believe some super-demo team faked the way the WTC was destroyed.  
Logged
Yet another Freedomista blog: The Ultimate Answer to Kings is not a bullet, but a belly laugh.

Scarmiglione'

  • Member
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5339
WTC Collapse was Controlled Demolition
« Reply #22 on: June 15, 2005, 08:49:04 am »

Just to add some fuel to throw around the fire (puns intended)...


Pictures of recent high rises that actually had steel-softening infernos as compared to WTC.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_fire.htm
Logged
We've built a world safe for fools, and are overrun by them.

Thunder

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3819
  • Go away, boy! Ya bother me! -Foghorn Leghorn
WTC Collapse was Controlled Demolition
« Reply #23 on: June 15, 2005, 09:48:35 am »

Not to mention the fact that the buildings had 2 big-assed planes flying into them at around 3-400 mph.  I'm quite sure the impact they had caused quite a bit of structural damage as well.  Remember, the planes didn't splat on the glass like a bug on a windshield.  Combined with burning jet fuel and office debris, you get a hot fire that heated already weakened structural steel.

JDW makes an excellent point about controlled demos.  Also, in order for the demo guys to get the biuldings to fall the way they want them to, the charges have to be timed in a certain sequence.  There's no explosions spaced at exact intervals all the way down the entire buildings as one has for controlled implosion demolition.  That's also assuming that they were able to wire the entire building to blow in the first place, which is ludicrous.

There is no conspiracy to blow the WTC towers up.  To believe that there is one would be granting the gov WAY too much intelligence.  We all know they are much more incompetent than that.
   
Logged
Thunder[/color][/font]



There are times, sir, when men of good conscience cannot blindly follow orders.  -Capt. Jean-Luc Picard

Wars will cease when people start loving their children more than they love the government.

People use the term 'chaos' only when they can't see far enough to view the big picture.   -Deepak Chopra

There are no illegal guns, only illegal gun laws.

Ted Nielsen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1219
WTC Collapse was Controlled Demolition
« Reply #24 on: June 15, 2005, 09:58:12 am »

WTC 7 videos:

Link 1

Link 2

My question is: were the WTC structures interconnected below street level? That would be the only way #7 and first tower that was hit could have collasped. The tower that was hit first would not have collasped on its own, it was hit to high. IIRC, it collasped from the bottom. Right? My point being the first tower that went down copromised the foundation to such an extent the rest of the WTC structures collasped.

 
Logged

Ted Nielsen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1219
WTC Collapse was Controlled Demolition
« Reply #25 on: June 15, 2005, 10:14:24 am »

Elias wrote:
Quote
http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0111/ima...Biggart5-24.jpg

To me, it seems that I see steel beams being jettisoned outward from the periphery of the building with great force. That is more than just "twisting and bending", wouldn't you agree?

I don't think you can detmine the trajectory of the steel beams (if that's what they really are) from one picture.  
« Last Edit: June 15, 2005, 10:23:15 am by Ted Nielsen »
Logged

Harleqwin

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 571
WTC Collapse was Controlled Demolition
« Reply #26 on: June 15, 2005, 10:15:15 am »

Quote
It would seem to me that structural failure due to heat is the cause.  The steel did not melt, it was just heated.
....
Now, given that the hottest part of the fire would be in the center of the buildings where the majority of jet fuel would have been spilt, the heating of the interior center beams would be most logical.  Once those beams weaken due to the heat and can no longer hold the weight above them, they collapse.  The resulting weight slams down on those below, so on and so forth bringing the thing down.
Thunder, please read about this more if you do not believe what I state here.  The one little piece of info comes from the FEMA report, chapter 7 I believe.  (still at work, cannot get my copy of the report, yet)

the jet fuel burned off within 10 or 15 minutes ACCORDING to FEMA.  They state this in their report.  (They also state that they were unable to investigate what happened to building 7, and then they INFER what happened to it, based on what they INFER happend to WTC 1 and 2).

SO, the jet fuel has burned up 15 minutes after impact.  What is burning so HOT that the second tower hit is the first to fall 46ish minutes later?  What is burning (not so) hot that the first tower to be hit is the second tower to fall one hour after impact?

Sadly the OFFICIAL (FEMA) explanation does not tell us what burned so hot as to cause the extreme temperatures required to weaken steel.  It is obvious that a normal office fire will not weaken the steel; rather, I should say that this has never happened in the past.

Jet Fuel gone in 15 minutes.  What was causing all that heat?

Every attempt to support the official theory has assumed that the heat existed to weaken the steel.  They HAVE TO ASSUME THIS, because if there is no heat, well, there is no collapse due to fire; no collapse due to an overall weakening of the structure.  no perfect symmetrical "pancake collapse"

HEAT; it is the weakest point in the whole story of the collapse of WTC 1 and 2.


Elias, I have wondered what the insurance trial transripts would tell us?  I am referring to the trial wherein Silverstein was paid for the "accident".  Those transcripts should contain some information, possibly very valuable info about the causes of the collapse.  Or do you think that they avoided the issue?  Regardless, I would like to check into that.  Do you know where in New York the trial was held?  I might be able to travel to that courthouse and request a copy of that trial.

Every time I hear Silverstein, or I read about his admission, I can actually feel my mental resistance to the whole idea kick in....kinda like that is such a huge, shocking OH MY GOD!!!   if that guy said that, then that means......NO, it can't be I won't believe it I can't believe THAT!

so very wierd that feeling is...
Logged
The 'ideal' America praised by so many is nothing more than smoke from the propaganda machine. At best it is an idealized abstraction, at worst a wall to rational thought -IKDR

"But there's nothing wrong with me,   This is how I'm supposed to be,   In a land of make believe,   That don't believe in me"
"To find what you believe,   And I leave behind,   This hurricane of fucking lies,    I lost my faith to this,   This town that don't exist" - Green Day

Elias Alias

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4912
  • TMM
WTC Collapse was Controlled Demolition
« Reply #27 on: June 15, 2005, 10:34:27 am »

Quote
There is no conspiracy to blow the WTC towers up.  To believe that there is one would be granting the gov WAY too much intelligence.  We all know they are much more incompetent than that.
As a culmination of years of top-secret planning which involved literally thousands of people, and which was successfully kept secret for years, the U.S. government blew up Nagasaki and Hiroshima with weapons undreamed of prior to that time - the weapons are now called "Atomic Bombs". The secret project was called "The Manhattan Project". The U.S. government can do all sorts of cute tricks, including reading your license plate from outer space and putting space ships into orbit around the moon.

The sheer logistics and engineering feats necessary for the execution of what happened in New York City and at the Pentagon on the morning of 911 are so staggeringly huge that it is much easier for me to believe that criminal elements within the government using government offices and resources and military equipment and Secret Service and CIA and FEMA assets, among other toys such as those featured by the Pentagon, arranged and carried out the attacks, than it is for me to believe that a bearded guerrilla fighter with a kidney problem living in a cave in Afghanistan could have done it.

But let me ask you - what about those five wargame drills which Cheney was running that morning? Have you somehow managed to deprive yourself of that knowledge? Are you aware of the fact that the FAA and NORAD at times that morning were seeing as many as 22 "hijackings" in progress on their radar screens? Are you aware that there were U.S. military Boeing 767s in the air that morning over the east coast which were being flown by ground controls?

Why do you resist so adamantly the supposition that there may be a criminal syndicate hidden inside our secretive government? Who was Ted Shackley? What was Oliver North doing during the Reagan administration? Who landed fifteen-hundred U.S. trained-and-supplied troops on the shores of Cuba at the Bay of Pigs? Why did Eisenhower lie outright about the Gary Powers U-2 shootdown over Russia? But mostly - and this is something I'd really like to hear you comment upon - what in the name of hell was going on under Admiral L. L. Lemnitzer in 1962 when he was head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the Pentagon?

http://www.thementalmilitia.org/modules.ph...article&sid=301

If you read that, you'll see that our dearly-beloved government is quite capable of planning terrorist events inside the borders of the United States for the purpose of gaining public support for a foreign war. They have been thinking this way since at least 1962, as these documents show.

911 was an inside job.

Dick Cheney is a former Director at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Ali Mohammed was on the FBI's payroll when he wrote the manual for Jihad for al Qeada.

The Federal Reserve System, Inc., is the biggest counterfeit operation on earth.

Waco happened.

Who's side are you on?

Why would you wish to believe that this current Federal government is not trying to install a police state in America?

Why did George Walker Bush state twice, publicly and on film, that he had seen the first plane dive into the first tower on the morning of 911 before he went into that Florida classroom?

I invite you to go here and start catching up on your homework....

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/Con...the%20Evidence/

Salute!
Elias

 
Logged
"Heirs to self-knowledge shed gently their fears..."

Elias Alias

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4912
  • TMM
WTC Collapse was Controlled Demolition
« Reply #28 on: June 15, 2005, 10:39:11 am »

Quote
I don't think you can detmine the trajectory of the steel beams (if that's what they really are) from one picture.
I have quite a few different videos of the events of  911. (What would you expect, lol - I'm one who is convinced that the government did 911!)

In the film footage, which has not been shown since the day of 911, you can see the entire footage of the collapses in vivid detail.  Next time you're down my way, I'll be delighted to show you all the videos I've collected up. In fact, I've also given copies of the tapes to Basil, so he now also has a nice library of films Fedgov does not want us to see.

Ths sick truth is that not only are those steel beams being jettisoned outward from the building, they are also being jettisoned up first, then arcing downward, right before your very eyes. :)

Salute!
Elias
Logged
"Heirs to self-knowledge shed gently their fears..."

Thunder

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3819
  • Go away, boy! Ya bother me! -Foghorn Leghorn
WTC Collapse was Controlled Demolition
« Reply #29 on: June 15, 2005, 10:46:54 am »

Just looking into the heat issue is still missing the fact that the buildings structural members were FIRST hit by an airplane that weighed 315,000 lbs, not including fuel, passengers, cargo, etc.  I don't know of much that could withstand that without some damage.  Add a fire on top of that and the thing fell like a house of cards.

As I said before, the government is too stupid to be able to pull something like a controlled demo off.  Don't give them credit they don't deserve.


 
Logged
Thunder[/color][/font]



There are times, sir, when men of good conscience cannot blindly follow orders.  -Capt. Jean-Luc Picard

Wars will cease when people start loving their children more than they love the government.

People use the term 'chaos' only when they can't see far enough to view the big picture.   -Deepak Chopra

There are no illegal guns, only illegal gun laws.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Up