|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
Post #69 anyone? - 4/11/2008 10:05:21 PM
|
|
|
iSERVEaJEW
Posts: 445
Joined: 3/29/2008
From: Canada
Status: offline
|
Is anyone going to take the question in post #69 seriously? Perhaps some of the people who are reading this are too afraid to acknowledge the obvious answer?
_____________________________
Saved by His grace alone.
Called to be His disciple and imitating Him.
Keeping the Torah with zeal.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Post #69 anyone? - 4/11/2008 10:12:19 PM
|
|
|
Ps103
Posts: 11779
Joined: 4/16/2005
From: Here, now
Status: offline
|
Sorry, isaj--it's just been done to death.
Wes linked you to the multitude of other threads about this--did you read any of them?
_____________________________
Fasten your seatbelts...it's going to be a bumpy night.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Post #69 anyone? - 4/11/2008 10:36:54 PM
|
|
|
iSERVEaJEW
Posts: 445
Joined: 3/29/2008
From: Canada
Status: offline
|
The majority of people in this world also reject the idea that Yeshua is the Messiah of Israel. Should we stop talking about Him too? Heaven forbid!
This discussion is over when people stop talking about it. I just wish that people wouldn't poke fun at the discussion. I also find it surprising that no one will seriously answer my question in post #69.
_____________________________
Saved by His grace alone.
Called to be His disciple and imitating Him.
Keeping the Torah with zeal.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Post #69 anyone? - 4/11/2008 10:51:42 PM
|
|
|
Ps103
Posts: 11779
Joined: 4/16/2005
From: Here, now
Status: offline
|
quote:
The majority of people in this world also reject the idea that Yeshua is the Messiah of Israel. Should we stop talking about Him too? Heaven forbid!
Jesus is God, regardless of whether or not anyone believes it or talks about it.
That fact has nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11 or any theories about what caused the buildings to fall.
_____________________________
Fasten your seatbelts...it's going to be a bumpy night.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Post #69 anyone? - 4/11/2008 11:12:11 PM
|
|
|
iSERVEaJEW
Posts: 445
Joined: 3/29/2008
From: Canada
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ps103
quote:
The majority of people in this world also reject the idea that Yeshua is the Messiah of Israel. Should we stop talking about Him too? Heaven forbid!
Jesus is God, regardless of whether or not anyone believes it or talks about it.
Yes, you and I believe that and we have good reason. There is much evidence observable in nature that God exists and the His Word clearly reveals to you and I that He is the Messiah of Israel. However, there are tonnes of people who disagree with us despite all of the empirical evidence. Even though they reject Him, we are to preach His Kingdom in the hope that some will hear and turn to Him.
People like me who have researched the events of 9/11 seriously believe that the official stories of NIST and FEMA are incomplete and obviously flawed. We're shaken by this understanding and it grieves us deeply to see others believing the lies and propaganda. There is a very reasonable reason why all three of those buildings fell at speeds slightly slower than free-fall in a vacuum - controlled demolition. There is plenty of observable evidence to support this idea from chemical analysis of dust and metal that shows thermate residue to obvious signs of explosive activity. Of course, the simple fact of the speed of their collapse is the most revealing and the reason why many scientists reject the government propaganda and are calling for investigations that are honest.
_____________________________
Saved by His grace alone.
Called to be His disciple and imitating Him.
Keeping the Torah with zeal.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Post #69 anyone? - 4/11/2008 11:19:05 PM
|
|
|
Ps103
Posts: 11779
Joined: 4/16/2005
From: Here, now
Status: offline
|
Isaj, tell me something--you believe this to be true, and you seem pretty bent on convincing others.
Suppose you do "convert" someone to your belief that someone other that Osama Bin Laden was behind 9/11.
What then?
_____________________________
Fasten your seatbelts...it's going to be a bumpy night.
|
|
|
|
|
NIST verson of collapse of WTC1 not reasonable. - 4/11/2008 11:41:10 PM
|
|
|
iSERVEaJEW
Posts: 445
Joined: 3/29/2008
From: Canada
Status: offline
|
In the paper, "Momentum Transfer Analysis of the Collapse of the Upper Storeys of WTC 1", Gordon Ross examines whether the energy delivered from the top 16 floors of WTC1 (North tower) would be enough to collapse the floors beneath it when it fell. He determines that there would not have been enough energy delivered to continue the collapse of WTC1. Here is his conclusion:
quote:
The energy balance of the collapse moves into deficit during the plastic shortening phase of the first impacted columns showing that there would be insufficient energy available from the released potential energy of the upper section to satisfy all of the energy demands of the collision. The analysis shows that despite the assumptions made in favour of collapse continuation, vertical movement of the falling section would be arrested prior to completion of the 3% shortening phase of the impacted columns, and within 0.02 seconds after impact.
A collapse driven only by gravity would not continue to progress beyond that point. The analysis shows that the energies expended during the time period of the plastic shortening of the first storey height of the vertical columns is sufficient to exhaust the energy of the falling section and thereby arrest collapse. This however is not the full extent of the plastic strain energy demand which exists. The next immediate task for the falling mass to continue in its descent would be the plastic shortening within the remainder of the buckle length. As has already been stated a buckling failure mode has a minimum length over which it can act and in the case of the towers would be several storey lengths. Each additional storey length involved in the buckle would add a further demand of about 450 MJ for a further downward movement of 0.111 metres. This also shows that collapse arrest is not dependent upon an expenditure of energy in concrete pulverisation, since even if this expenditure were disregarded the input energy would be exhausted during plastic shortening of the second storeys affected.
The analysis can be extrapolated to show that the energy expended within the plastic shortening phase of a six storey buckle would ensure that a fall by the upper section through two storeys under full gravitational acceleration would also be resisted at an early stage. A similar response would be elicited from an opposed three or more storey drop delivering the same levels of energy at impact. It can be further envisaged that a collapse initiated by a fall through a greater number of storeys, would be either arrested or significantly and noticably slowed when regard is taken for energy demands both in the fall by the upper section, and by inclusion of demands identified but not quantified in this article. It should also be noted that this analysis examines only the energy levels required up to a point in time during the plastic shortening phase. Energy demands which involve further phases of the collapse mechanism, such as buckling of beams and disassociation of end connections, spandrel plates and floor connections are further massive energy demands which must then be satisfied.
Ross, G. (2006, June). Momentum Transfer Analysis of the Collapse of the Upper Storeys of WTC 1. Journal of 9/11 Studies, pp. 36-37.
Does anyone want to discuss this paper? I think that it is really interesting to see that the WTC1 would have been able to withstand the force from the top 16 floors falling. I welcome any sincere comments or questions.
_____________________________
Saved by His grace alone.
Called to be His disciple and imitating Him.
Keeping the Torah with zeal.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Post #69 anyone? - 4/11/2008 11:46:59 PM
|
|
|
iSERVEaJEW
Posts: 445
Joined: 3/29/2008
From: Canada
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ps103
Isaj, tell me something--you believe this to be true, and you seem pretty bent on convincing others.
Suppose you do "convert" someone to your belief that someone other that Osama Bin Laden was behind 9/11.
What then?
I'm more interested on focussing on observable facts and seeing how they don't line up with the propaganda. I hope that we won't get too off track by talking about possible motives of the ones really responsible.
Once people realise they've been lied to I hope that they'll use their votes better. I've seen some very terrible things happen in the USA in recent years. Did you know that you can be locked up for three years in solitary confinement without being charged with a crime? Did you know that you can be tortured?
"The End of America" by Naomi Wolf
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjALf12PAWc
< Message edited by iSERVEaJEW -- 4/12/2008 12:02:27 AM >
_____________________________
Saved by His grace alone.
Called to be His disciple and imitating Him.
Keeping the Torah with zeal.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf
|
|
|
|
|
How did WTC1 fall in only 10 seconds? - 4/13/2008 2:21:28 AM
|
|
|
iSERVEaJEW
Posts: 445
Joined: 3/29/2008
From: Canada
Status: offline
|
The official NIST report on the collapse of WTC1 (North tower) said that it collapsed in only 10 seconds. If someone were to drop an object like a brick from that height with no resistance it would take about 9.2 seconds to hit the ground. How is it that this building fell so quickly?
Imagine that these 14 floors were to fall without having the other 96 floors beneath them. Once they hit the ground they would have a very significant amount of force behind them. If the 14 floors only fell about one story (3.7 metres) the amount of force would be a lot less. Picture the difference in force behind a vehicle traveling 10 miles per hour and one traveling 100 miles per hour.
The official story is that the top 14 floors which were above the plane crash came crashing down on the floors beneath and that triggered a collapse of the entire building. So, these 14 floors that fell onto the 96 beneath them not only caused the building to collapse, but it collapsed at a speed slightly slower than an object falling in a vacuum (10 seconds verses 9.2 seconds). I hope you're beginning to see that it is impossible, yet we've been sold that story by the government.
To highlight why it seems so impossible, let's talk about the law of conservation of momentum. If you were slowly driving down the street in a car and you hit a parked truck your vehicle would be slowed or stopped, right? How is it that WTC1 fell so quickly?
Those 14 floors were hitting "over 300 thousand tons of steel and concrete spread out over 90+ floors (including 47 huge core columns and 240 perimeter columns). That is a tremendous amount of material in the way." (Source, p. 67) Isn't it reasonable to think that the collapse would be slowed significantly? Even if there was enough force from the top 14 floors to collapse the floors underneath, it would have taken "over 25 seconds for the complete collapse of Tower 1" (Source, p. 67).
What do you think about this?
_____________________________
Saved by His grace alone.
Called to be His disciple and imitating Him.
Keeping the Torah with zeal.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf
|
|
|
|
|
RE: THE question! - 4/13/2008 7:50:28 AM
|
|
|
draexo
Posts: 774
Joined: 1/26/2007
From: Saratoga County, New York
Status: offline
|
What is being pointed out here is that the towers collapsed at free fall speed. We know historically that in a pancake collapse, each floor needs to "get moving" so to speak. The floor above would have to break enough of the steel and concrete of the floor below to cause it to fail and crash down onto the next floor. This takes time. It is simple laws of physics. It would have taken minutes for the towers to collapse in a true pancake fashion. Instead what we see is a collapse in free-fall speed. The only way for this to happen is if the towers were taken out at their base. Also. In a pancake collapse, you find layers of steel and concrete in neat stacks after the collapse. With the towers, you see concrete pulverized into dust as it falls. How else would this happen unless it was explosives? Then you have the numerous reports from firemen of "secondary explosions".
There were reports that the fires were containable from firefighters. There were explosions in the basement right before the first plane hit. There are more problems as well - the pools of melted metal and concrete had to have been created by an explosive. Jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel. There are pictures of i-beams clearly cut with thermate or thermite. Then there are i-beams and steel works that ejected horizontally out of the building. How? Explosives.
The science is all there. The problem is that no one wants to admit that we live in enemy-occupied territory. That the prince of this world is the devil and that he sets things in motion to set up his kingdom. That maybe our government helped set this up just does not seem probable because we live in America. That this is 1 step in the coming world government. We would rather believe that 19 guys with boxcutters (half of whom turn out to be alive now) managed to do this.
Wake up! We are not of this world! America is not God's kingdom on earth.
_____________________________
The truth will set you free!
TRUTH
|
|
|
|
|
RE: How did WTC1 fall in only 10 seconds? - 4/13/2008 7:53:51 AM
|
|
|
draexo
Posts: 774
Joined: 1/26/2007
From: Saratoga County, New York
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: iSERVEaJEW
The official NIST report on the collapse of WTC1 (North tower) said that it collapsed in only 10 seconds. If someone were to drop an object like a brick from that height with no resistance it would take about 9.2 seconds to hit the ground. How is it that this building fell so quickly?
Imagine that these 14 floors were to fall without having the other 96 floors beneath them. Once they hit the ground they would have a very significant amount of force behind them. If the 14 floors only fell about one story (3.7 metres) the amount of force would be a lot less. Picture the difference in force behind a vehicle traveling 10 miles per hour and one traveling 100 miles per hour.
The official story is that the top 14 floors which were above the plane crash came crashing down on the floors beneath and that triggered a collapse of the entire building. So, these 14 floors that fell onto the 96 beneath them not only caused the building to collapse, but it collapsed at a speed slightly slower than an object falling in a vacuum (10 seconds verses 9.2 seconds). I hope you're beginning to see that it is impossible, yet we've been sold that story by the government.
To highlight why it seems so impossible, let's talk about the law of conservation of momentum. If you were slowly driving down the street in a car and you hit a parked truck your vehicle would be slowed or stopped, right? How is it that WTC1 fell so quickly?
Those 14 floors were hitting "over 300 thousand tons of steel and concrete spread out over 90+ floors (including 47 huge core columns and 240 perimeter columns). That is a tremendous amount of material in the way." (Source, p. 67) Isn't it reasonable to think that the collapse would be slowed significantly? Even if there was enough force from the top 14 floors to collapse the floors underneath, it would have taken "over 25 seconds for the complete collapse of Tower 1" (Source, p. 67).
What do you think about this?
The problem is that the floors underneath were still supporting the same amount of weight they always were and had no reason to collapse.
Anyone who watches a video of the collapse can see clearly it was a demolition. Classic demolition.
_____________________________
The truth will set you free!
TRUTH
|
|
|
|
|
RE: THE question! - 4/13/2008 8:01:29 AM
|
|
|
iSERVEaJEW
Posts: 445
Joined: 3/29/2008
From: Canada
Status: offline
|
The FEMA report in 2002 said that the floors pancaked, but the NIST "investigation" pointed out that it was something else in 2004 when they couldn't duplicate the pancake theory in testing. Instead, they came up with another theory that they cooked up through dishonesty. Their theories fly in the face of the laws of gravity and conservation of momentum.
It is all just a smoke screen to distract people from the facts.
_____________________________
Saved by His grace alone.
Called to be His disciple and imitating Him.
Keeping the Torah with zeal.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf
|
|
|
|
|
RE: THE question! - 4/13/2008 11:55:10 PM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3539
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: iSERVEaJEW
The FEMA report in 2002 said that the floors pancaked, but the NIST "investigation" pointed out that it was something else in 2004 when they couldn't duplicate the pancake theory in testing. Instead, they came up with another theory that they cooked up through dishonesty. Their theories fly in the face of the laws of gravity and conservation of momentum.
It is all just a smoke screen to distract people from the facts.
If they had stayed with the pancake theory, you'd sad they weren't looking at evidence. They changed conclusion based on better data. You make extraordinary claims but your evidence is full of gaps. The biggest one is the simple fact that there is zero evidence to show that the buildings could have been wired and packed with explosives without anyone figuring it out.
_____________________________
Wer weiß, was Übel im Herzen der Männer lauert? Nur der Schatten weiß. Giants 17 Patriots 14.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: THE question! - 4/14/2008 12:19:37 AM
|
|
|
iSERVEaJEW
Posts: 445
Joined: 3/29/2008
From: Canada
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: cow451
quote:
ORIGINAL: iSERVEaJEW
The FEMA report in 2002 said that the floors pancaked, but the NIST "investigation" pointed out that it was something else in 2004 when they couldn't duplicate the pancake theory in testing. Instead, they came up with another theory that they cooked up through dishonesty. Their theories fly in the face of the laws of gravity and conservation of momentum.
It is all just a smoke screen to distract people from the facts.
If they had stayed with the pancake theory, you'd sad they weren't looking at evidence. They changed conclusion based on better data. You make extraordinary claims but your evidence is full of gaps. The biggest one is the simple fact that there is zero evidence to show that the buildings could have been wired and packed with explosives without anyone figuring it out.
Why do you avoid my questions on gravity and the conservation of momentum? I am chiefly concerned with observable facts like the speed of collapse and how that does not fit with the NIST or FEMA ideas.
How could three buildings collapse at almost free-fall speed?
WTC1 & WTC2 were 110 stories each. In a vacuum (no resistance) they would collapse in 9.2 seconds. According to NIST they collapsed in 10 seconds.
WTC7 was 47 stories tall. In a vacuum it would collapse in 6.0 seconds. It collapsed, as measured from the SW corner, in 6.5 +- 0.2 seconds.
Those facts alone should make any rational person understand that something is not right. However, there are plenty of other things to consider that I have mentioned in earlier posts. I'd really like someone like you to try to explain away some of these things instead of just bringing up subjective things.
If this is a conspiracy involving members in the government then they certainly could plant the explosives and keep it quiet. If you think that it is highly unlikely then that is your choice. I certainly believe it is possible. And, I see absolutely no benefit in discussing subjective things like this.
_____________________________
Saved by His grace alone.
Called to be His disciple and imitating Him.
Keeping the Torah with zeal.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf
|
|
|
|
|
RE: THE question! - 4/14/2008 12:51:09 AM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3539
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: iSERVEaJEW
quote:
ORIGINAL: cow451
quote:
ORIGINAL: iSERVEaJEW
The FEMA report in 2002 said that the floors pancaked, but the NIST "investigation" pointed out that it was something else in 2004 when they couldn't duplicate the pancake theory in testing. Instead, they came up with another theory that they cooked up through dishonesty. Their theories fly in the face of the laws of gravity and conservation of momentum.
It is all just a smoke screen to distract people from the facts.
If they had stayed with the pancake theory, you'd sad they weren't looking at evidence. They changed conclusion based on better data. You make extraordinary claims but your evidence is full of gaps. The biggest one is the simple fact that there is zero evidence to show that the buildings could have been wired and packed with explosives without anyone figuring it out.
Why do you avoid my questions on gravity and the conservation of momentum? I am chiefly concerned with observable facts like the speed of collapse and how that does not fit with the NIST or FEMA ideas.
How could three buildings collapse at almost free-fall speed?
WTC1 & WTC2 were 110 stories each. In a vacuum (no resistance) they would collapse in 9.2 seconds. According to NIST they collapsed in 10 seconds.
WTC7 was 47 stories tall. In a vacuum it would collapse in 6.0 seconds. It collapsed, as measured from the SW corner, in 6.5 +- 0.2 seconds.
Those facts alone should make any rational person understand that something is not right. However, there are plenty of other things to consider that I have mentioned in earlier posts. I'd really like someone like you to try to explain away some of these things instead of just bringing up subjective things.
If this is a conspiracy involving members in the government then they certainly could plant the explosives and keep it quiet. If you think that it is highly unlikely then that is your choice. I certainly believe it is possible. And, I see absolutely no benefit in discussing subjective things like this.
It's all subjective, friend. A building collapse is a building collapse, regardless of cause. Therefore the fascination with apples and bricks falling from tall buildings is missing the point. You argue that the only way to cause a collapse is by explosive devices. That is a faulty premise on which the 9/11 conspiracists make their case.
_____________________________
Wer weiß, was Übel im Herzen der Männer lauert? Nur der Schatten weiß. Giants 17 Patriots 14.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: THE question! - 4/14/2008 1:33:36 AM
|
|
|
iSERVEaJEW
Posts: 445
Joined: 3/29/2008
From: Canada
Status: offline
|
No, I argue that explosive theory fits with the way we have OBSERVED them collapsing. Let's forget for a moment that I think it was explosives that accomplished the collapses.
What do you truly believe? Do you believe the official reports published by NIST for the Towers and FEMA for WTC7?
You still haven't begun to explain how the very fast collapses of those buildings fits with the apparent fabrications of the NIST and FEMA reports. Forget what actually started the collapses. How can you think that the way the collapses progressed are in any way consistent with the basic laws of gravity and conservation of momentum?
I am amazed at how many posts are not directly addressing the simple, physics-based questions I have about the duration, and progression, of the collapses.
< Message edited by iSERVEaJEW -- 4/14/2008 1:41:21 AM >
_____________________________
Saved by His grace alone.
Called to be His disciple and imitating Him.
Keeping the Torah with zeal.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf
|
|
|
|
|
RE: THE question! - 4/14/2008 9:26:05 PM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3539
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: iSERVEaJEW
No, I argue that explosive theory fits with the way we have OBSERVED them collapsing. Let's forget for a moment that I think it was explosives that accomplished the collapses.
What do you truly believe? Do you believe the official reports published by NIST for the Towers and FEMA for WTC7?
You still haven't begun to explain how the very fast collapses of those buildings fits with the apparent fabrications of the NIST and FEMA reports. Forget what actually started the collapses. How can you think that the way the collapses progressed are in any way consistent with the basic laws of gravity and conservation of momentum?
I am amazed at how many posts are not directly addressing the simple, physics-based questions I have about the duration, and progression, of the collapses.
Again, collapse is collapse. That's why it's called collapse. It does not defy any laws of physics for a collapse to happen fast. When I look at all the evidence (not just what I agree with), the best explanation is the NIST.
_____________________________
Wer weiß, was Übel im Herzen der Männer lauert? Nur der Schatten weiß. Giants 17 Patriots 14.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: THE question! - 4/14/2008 10:00:56 PM
|
|
|
draexo
Posts: 774
Joined: 1/26/2007
From: Saratoga County, New York
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: iSERVEaJEW
No, I argue that explosive theory fits with the way we have OBSERVED them collapsing. Let's forget for a moment that I think it was explosives that accomplished the collapses.
What do you truly believe? Do you believe the official reports published by NIST for the Towers and FEMA for WTC7?
You still haven't begun to explain how the very fast collapses of those buildings fits with the apparent fabrications of the NIST and FEMA reports. Forget what actually started the collapses. How can you think that the way the collapses progressed are in any way consistent with the basic laws of gravity and conservation of momentum?
I am amazed at how many posts are not directly addressing the simple, physics-based questions I have about the duration, and progression, of the collapses.
Is it time to mention thermite yet?
_____________________________
The truth will set you free!
TRUTH
|
|
|
|
|
RE: THE question! - 4/15/2008 9:17:03 AM
|
|
|
LoyalGypsy
Posts: 1507
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: iSERVEaJEW
No, I argue that explosive theory fits with the way we have OBSERVED them collapsing. Let's forget for a moment that I think it was explosives that accomplished the collapses.
What do you truly believe? Do you believe the official reports published by NIST for the Towers and FEMA for WTC7?
You still haven't begun to explain how the very fast collapses of those buildings fits with the apparent fabrications of the NIST and FEMA reports. Forget what actually started the collapses. How can you think that the way the collapses progressed are in any way consistent with the basic laws of gravity and conservation of momentum?
I am amazed at how many posts are not directly addressing the simple, physics-based questions I have about the duration, and progression, of the collapses.
Greetings,
quote:
How can you think that the way the collapses progressed are in any way consistent with the basic laws of gravity and conservation of momentum?
Only the contractors would know that, is there a reference as to who they were.
LG
< Message edited by LoyalGypsy -- 4/15/2008 11:00:31 AM >
_____________________________
Ex 19:5 Now therefore, if you will indeed obey My voice
...So the Persians ask that the 300 drop their arms. Leonidas responds; "Persians! Come and get them!"
300 The Movie
|
|
|
|
|
RE: THE question! - 4/15/2008 10:32:42 AM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3539
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: draexo
quote:
ORIGINAL: iSERVEaJEW
No, I argue that explosive theory fits with the way we have OBSERVED them collapsing. Let's forget for a moment that I think it was explosives that accomplished the collapses.
What do you truly believe? Do you believe the official reports published by NIST for the Towers and FEMA for WTC7?
You still haven't begun to explain how the very fast collapses of those buildings fits with the apparent fabrications of the NIST and FEMA reports. Forget what actually started the collapses. How can you think that the way the collapses progressed are in any way consistent with the basic laws of gravity and conservation of momentum?
I am amazed at how many posts are not directly addressing the simple, physics-based questions I have about the duration, and progression, of the collapses.
Is it time to mention thermite yet?
Yes, please. And don't forget the remote-controlled planes, either.
_____________________________
Wer weiß, was Übel im Herzen der Männer lauert? Nur der Schatten weiß. Giants 17 Patriots 14.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: THE question! - 4/15/2008 11:03:04 AM
|
|
|
Ps103
Posts: 11779
Joined: 4/16/2005
From: Here, now
Status: offline
|
quote:
Yes, please. And don't forget the remote-controlled planes, either.
And don't forget the Illuminati.
_____________________________
Fasten your seatbelts...it's going to be a bumpy night.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: THE question! - 4/15/2008 12:48:25 PM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3539
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ps103
quote:
Yes, please. And don't forget the remote-controlled planes, either.
And don't forget the Illuminati.
I figured that was a given.
_____________________________
Wer weiß, was Übel im Herzen der Männer lauert? Nur der Schatten weiß. Giants 17 Patriots 14.
|
|
| | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
