you ever see what a piece of straw can go through in a tornado?
Yeah I watched it on myth busters...not much in comparison to the materials in the WTC.
How bout we stick to steel and aluminum as in the real world scenario?
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
explosions are heard clearly when there is a controlled demolition. unless there are new QUIET EXPLOSIVES out there i don't know about or maybe they had chris angel on their side too and he blocked all our hearing that day. i was at the sands demolition in vegas and wasn't even as close to it as i was the trade center on that day. i heard the detonations very clearly in vegas. there were no detonations in new york that day. it was the sound of crumbling falling smashing but no detonation of explosives.
Oh dear dad
Can you see me now
I am myself
Like you somehow
I'll ride the wave
Where it takes me
I'll hold the pain
Release me
not particularly in the mood for laughter at the moment, but you guys are certainly making me smile.
i can't remember the last time two massive buildings were struck by fully fuel-laden airplanes, that were flown deliberately into them, can you all? seeings how this was a unique occurrence i would imagine the conclusions about what caused the collapse of both towers would be uncharted territory and quite ground breaking.
is it possible that the conditions created within both towers were enough to raise the temperature high enough to melt the steel and aid in the collapse? i say yes.
am i a fool who is easily led by what people tell me especially when it comes from the government? no i am not.
even so, i am inclined to be more believing of the scientific reasoning rather than the conspiracy theories.
It's pure physics and common sense that jet fuel cannot melt steel. It's not even a question. Something melted the steel...nothing on the record even approaches it. In fact they deny it. Actually FEMA tried to rationalize it, then NIST tucked tail, and jumped ship and now has no recollection of ever discussing it. It's a I have no idea what you are talking about kinda secret now.
Everyone knows jet fuel cannot cant melt steel, yet melted pools of steel at the base of the buildings and vaporized steel pellets were both found throughout the dust which was broadcast all over the place.
So the impossibilities really do seem to be mounting up on that day.
So many unanswered questions.
The collapse data in the computer simulation had to be cranked beyond reality to get the collapses to occur. So much it is laughable, yet people still gobbled it up.
Employees resigned their positions (or were fired) during the investigation because they knew it was ridiculous what they were proposing.
Look at all the people that gobbled up the popular mechanics (joke) article like candy...and those who still hold up the official NIST/FEMA story like scripture....even though it's grossly inadequate, and explains very little to none of the hard questions.
Namely, what I am asking.
The official story is severely lacking.
There needs to be a new investigation, with all the withheld evidence released.
No one can answer what melted the steel. They can try to make up some excuse, but NIST knows...that's why they deny it vehemently.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
explosions are heard clearly when there is a controlled demolition. unless there are new QUIET EXPLOSIVES out there i don't know about or maybe they had chris angel on their side too and he blocked all our hearing that day. i was at the sands demolition in vegas and wasn't even as close to it as i was the trade center on that day. i heard the detonations very clearly in vegas. there were no detonations in new york that day. it was the sound of crumbling falling smashing but no detonation of explosives.
I'm not really interested in another building, and who did what or didn't do etc...
I want to discuss what melted the steel at WTC on 9/11
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
I'm not really interested in another building, and who did what or didn't do etc...
I want to discuss what melted the steel at WTC on 9/11
luke skywalker and darth vader were having a light saber battle right before the planes hit..they may have sliced through some of the steel ! the fires burned for 2 months or so afterwards in hot molten underground pockets.
Oh dear dad
Can you see me now
I am myself
Like you somehow
I'll ride the wave
Where it takes me
I'll hold the pain
Release me
luke skywalker and darth vader were having a light saber battle right before the planes hit..they may have sliced through some of the steel ! the fires burned for 2 months or so afterwards in hot molten underground pockets.
That sounds about right...but I think it was chewbaca firing his laser gun that got things really moving...
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
You guys won't answer my question on the melted steel (I still have to read the the mystical post #44...oh wait no I answered it in post #51)
oh wait, yes i did. and oh wait, no you didnt. becos i pointed out there was a lot more than just jet fuel burning in there. and your only response was that jet fuel couldn't do it. i said, even assuming your jet fuel contention is true, what response do you have to the fact that there were dozens of other burning materials in there? do you know for a fact every single material that was burning in there, the temperature at which it burned, and whether or not it would be sufficient? i responded to your jet fuel nonsense, again and again. now perhaps you'd like to respond to my point?
oh wait, yes i did. and oh wait, no you didnt. becos i pointed out there was a lot more than just jet fuel burning in there. and your only response was that jet fuel couldn't do it. i said, even assuming your jet fuel contention is true, what response do you have to the fact that there were dozens of other burning materials in there? do you know for a fact every single material that was burning in there, the temperature at which it burned, and whether or not it would be sufficient? i responded to your jet fuel nonsense, again and again. now perhaps you'd like to respond to my point?
or can you not?
and I have to say that soulsinging has a great point, here. In an office, you have various chemicals sitting around at every printer station, mail room, etc. The toner and print cartridges alone....the bins full of recycling paper, the fibers in the chairs, sofas, carpets....all of these flammable items are common in office fires, and most are unhealthy even without the addition of burning jet fuel.
and I have to say that soulsinging has a great point, here. In an office, you have various chemicals sitting around at every printer station, mail room, etc. The toner and print cartridges alone....the bins full of recycling paper, the fibers in the chairs, sofas, carpets....all of these flammable items are common in office fires, and most are unhealthy even without the addition of burning jet fuel.
Just my 2 cents. Carry on.
Not to mention they seemed to be caught in the ignition point of jet fuel and not how hot a fire started by jet fuel and with all these combustables as well would get to incredibly hot temperatures. If I light a small wood fire and let it burn it will only generate so much heat. But the more and more wood I add the hotter and hotter it gets and the further I have to stand back from it. Mmmmmmmm I know crazy isn't it!!
and I have to say that soulsinging has a great point, here. In an office, you have various chemicals sitting around at every printer station, mail room, etc. The toner and print cartridges alone....the bins full of recycling paper, the fibers in the chairs, sofas, carpets....all of these flammable items are common in office fires, and most are unhealthy even without the addition of burning jet fuel.
Just my 2 cents. Carry on.
Boxes full of recycled paper completely destroyed(melted) 47 - 55"x22" steel columns? LOL
Not to mention they seemed to be caught in the ignition point of jet fuel and not how hot a fire started by jet fuel and with all these combustables as well would get to incredibly hot temperatures. If I light a small wood fire and let it burn it will only generate so much heat. But the more and more wood I add the hotter and hotter it gets and the further I have to stand back from it. Mmmmmmmm I know crazy isn't it!!
You understand that a jet's engine precisely measures the amount of fuel that is added to air to efficiently burn and utilize the fuels explosive power right? What device in the WTC's properly mixed fuel and oxygen to maximize the heat content and efficiently burn the carbon atoms contained in the fuel? There was no such device, hence the dirty incomplete combustion of the jet's fuel. The fire was cold, look at the smoke.
You understand that a jet's engine precisely measures the amount of fuel that is added to air to efficiently burn and utilize the fuels explosive power right? What device in the WTC's properly mixed fuel and oxygen to maximize the heat content and efficiently burn the carbon atoms contained in the fuel? There was no such device, hence the dirty incomplete combustion of the jet's fuel. The fire was cold, look at the smoke.
You conspiracy theorists always confuse me. The fire was hot enough to create rivers of molten steel, yet it was a cold fire?
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
It's pure physics and common sense that jet fuel cannot melt steel. It's not even a question. Something melted the steel...nothing on the record even approaches it. In fact they deny it. Actually FEMA tried to rationalize it, then NIST tucked tail, and jumped ship and now has no recollection of ever discussing it. It's a I have no idea what you are talking about kinda secret now.
Everyone knows jet fuel cannot cant melt steel, yet melted pools of steel at the base of the buildings and vaporized steel pellets were both found throughout the dust which was broadcast all over the place.
So the impossibilities really do seem to be mounting up on that day.
So many unanswered questions.
The collapse data in the computer simulation had to be cranked beyond reality to get the collapses to occur. So much it is laughable, yet people still gobbled it up.
Employees resigned their positions (or were fired) during the investigation because they knew it was ridiculous what they were proposing.
Look at all the people that gobbled up the popular mechanics (joke) article like candy...and those who still hold up the official NIST/FEMA story like scripture....even though it's grossly inadequate, and explains very little to none of the hard questions.
Namely, what I am asking.
The official story is severely lacking.
There needs to be a new investigation, with all the withheld evidence released.
No one can answer what melted the steel. They can try to make up some excuse, but NIST knows...that's why they deny it vehemently.
look roland i don't know what the fuck melted the steel. and guess what? not EVERYBODY knows that jet fuel can't melt steel.
and of course the simulations had to be cranked way past reality. this was, up to that day, an unreal situation. they didn't know what the fuck they were dealing with. it had never happened before.
i say the weight of the building collapsing on itself bought both the towers down after the steel was weakened by a fire generated and fed by unique circumstances. both buildings collapsed from the top(well from where the planes hit anyway) down. we all saw that much at least, in technicolour.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I think the 9/11 investigation has been found to be lacking in many key areas, and it was far from a thorough, and proper, investigation.
I also think a new 9/11 investigation should be reopened, and the circumstances surrounding it revisited. Very few who know the intricacies would disagree given the evidence.
I also think all the govt restricted evidence should be released and included into this new investigation.
I think this should be the standard answer for anyone that doesn't support the official comission report. We are not responsible for answering these questions, and it's too easy to be shot down on technical evidence, because the 'experts' are as divided on this shit as PJ fans are...
No matter what any of us believe, the fact of the matter is that the commision report was a travesty.
Too many details, loose ends, and too much destroyed evidence...it will always be a matter of opinion. But to me...it's obvious that their are members of the US government that are guilty of criminal acts in relation to 9/11. Nailing just one or two might get the ball rolling a bit towards the truth....and stop a lot of the wilder conspiracies that bother people so much.
look roland i don't know what the fuck melted the steel. and guess what? not EVERYBODY knows that jet fuel can't melt steel.
and of course the simulations had to be cranked way past reality. this was, up to that day, an unreal situation. they didn't know what the fuck they were dealing with. it has never happened before.
i say the weight of the building collapsing on itself bought both the towers down after the steel was weakened by a fire generated and fed by unique circumstances. both buildings collapsed from the top(well from where the planes hit anyway) down. we all saw that much at least, in technicolour.
and to add, the total ineptness of this current administration...
as much as the towers coming down helped the current goons in charge and as much as I don't trust these "evildoer's", I've seen nothing, have read nothing that makes me think anything other than those planes brought the towers down.
....now who funded the hijackers.....that's a good question.
and to add, the total ineptness of this current administration...
as much as the towers coming down helped the current goons in charge and as much as I don't trust these "evildoer's", I've seen nothing, have read nothing that makes me think anything other than those planes brought the towers down. ....now who funded the hijackers.....that's a good question.
al qaeda remember? that's why we invaded afghanistan.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
look roland i don't know what the fuck melted the steel. and guess what? not EVERYBODY knows that jet fuel can't melt steel.
and of course the simulations had to be cranked way past reality. this was, up to that day, an unreal situation. they didn't know what the fuck they were dealing with. it had never happened before.
i say the weight of the building collapsing on itself bought both the towers down after the steel was weakened by a fire generated and fed by unique circumstances. both buildings collapsed from the top(well from where the planes hit anyway) down. we all saw that much at least, in technicolour.
So your opinion of the investigation? Legitimate? Thorough?
Valid question associated not with "yes good question....we don't know..we tried to figure it out....but couldn't"
But rather outright denials.
hmm
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
and to add, the total ineptness of this current administration...
as much as the towers coming down helped the current goons in charge and as much as I don't trust these "evildoer's", I've seen nothing, have read nothing that makes me think anything other than those planes brought the towers down.
....now who funded the hijackers.....that's a good question.
Why weren't the put options, or any of the other funds that exchanged hands traced?
All the Bin Ladens privately escorted out of the country? There a couple dozen more jaw dropping circumstances that are worse.
New investigation please!
This thing is rotten from the inside out.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
and to add, the total ineptness of this current administration...
as much as the towers coming down helped the current goons in charge and as much as I don't trust these "evildoer's", I've seen nothing, have read nothing that makes me think anything other than those planes brought the towers down.
....now who funded the hijackers.....that's a good question.
So your opinion of the investigation? Legitimate? Thorough?
Valid question associated not with "yes good question....we don't know..we tried to figure it out....but couldn't"
But rather outright denials.
hmm
considering how deep in shit the US is in the middle east i'd have to say any investigation into the actions of anyone even vaguely related to the house of saudi or any vested interests would not be thorough.
it was a fuck up from the beginning to what we now see is a never-ending schmozzle.
covering one's arse sometimes requires ludricrous statements that those that speak them hope no one will be bothered dredging up.
for the US government the fact that such a heinous act was committed against its own people, was almost too perfect an opportunity. i'm not saying they were complicit in the hijacking of those planes or the destruction of the WTC, but what they've done since is just such a fuckup. they blew the opportunity to really show what is possible for a better world and they blew it big time.
and yes unambiguous statements are the best way to go when trying to clarify something. if you don't know something, then say so. if you do know something, then trust that those that need to be told, can handle the truth.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Jet fuel cannot burn hot enough to melt steel. This is why pots don't melt when you cook on a gas stove. Oxygen rich fires produce very little smoke and lots of flame. Neither were present or observed.
Anyone else want to try this question?
Heat causes the molecules to move in any material including steel. Any heat means there is some level of weakening of a material. In steel the temperature is much higher than say in asphault, but nonetheless it is clearly possible.
The damage to the interior structure plus the heat which was tremendous could have weakened the flooring metal which eventually cuased some to break and fall, possibly at the joints. There was a lot of kinetic energy in those towers released when it began to fall, and it wasn't neccesariy bad construction. Face it, there is no guarantee in construction of any type that would prevent the fall.
And please note that those planes hit in areas that were unlikely foreseen by the demolition theory, and yet the collapse began where the planes hit. I find it hard to believe that a crew of demolition experts rigged the entire building so they could later pick which floors to start the collapse.
But isn't it a moot point anyway? So what if they didn't fall and just burned the top 30 stories to nothing, what then? They would have demolished them anyways. The key is hijacked planes by Islamic fundamentalists hit the towers and burnt them. People died mostly in the top floors who couldn't escape the flames. Whether the buildings fall or not is irrelevent to the attack.
If the buildings were rigged with explosives, why not just blow them up earlier to create more loss of life? Hell, why fly planes into them at all if you can just blow them up? Nonsesical.
I agree with Bill.
HOB 10.05.2005, E Rutherford 06.03.2006, The Gorge 07.22.2006, Lolla 08.05.2007, West Palm 06.11.2008, Tampa 06.12.2008, Columbia 06.16.2008, EV Memphis 06.20.2009, New Orleans 05.01.2010, Kansas City 05.03.2010
NIST..yeah those kool-aid drinking quacks denied the melted steel. Why don't you focus on one fact at a time.
I am...
So I'll ask you. How did the towers fall? Please explain in the kind of detail that is provided in the NIST report. That means you have to explain, with proof, how explosives were planted and how they managed to set off these charges in the exact location that the planes hit as this was the point of initiation of collapse.
I await your answer.
Lack of a complete answer will be taken as an admission that your position lacks merit.
So what melted the steel?. Your site surely explains it.
It's pure physics and common sense that jet fuel cannot melt steel. It's not even a question. Something melted the steel...nothing on the record even approaches it. In fact they deny it. Actually FEMA tried to rationalize it, then NIST tucked tail, and jumped ship and now has no recollection of ever discussing it. It's a I have no idea what you are talking about kinda secret now.
Everyone knows jet fuel cannot cant melt steel, yet melted pools of steel at the base of the buildings and vaporized steel pellets were both found throughout the dust which was broadcast all over the place.
So the impossibilities really do seem to be mounting up on that day.
So many unanswered questions.
The collapse data in the computer simulation had to be cranked beyond reality to get the collapses to occur. So much it is laughable, yet people still gobbled it up.
Employees resigned their positions (or were fired) during the investigation because they knew it was ridiculous what they were proposing.
Look at all the people that gobbled up the popular mechanics (joke) article like candy...and those who still hold up the official NIST/FEMA story like scripture....even though it's grossly inadequate, and explains very little to none of the hard questions.
Namely, what I am asking.
The official story is severely lacking.
There needs to be a new investigation, with all the withheld evidence released.
No one can answer what melted the steel. They can try to make up some excuse, but NIST knows...that's why they deny it vehemently.
"Why don't you focus on one fact at a time. I get the feeling you have a million little projects that are all unfinished everywhere in your life because you can;t focus on one thing at a time." -- You
The smoke itself is not very revealing. By your explanation of the black smoke, it could mean that there were parts of the fire that were not burning very intensely. It doesn't mean that other parts of the building weren't burning intensely.
The smoke itself is not very revealing. By your explanation of the black smoke, it could mean that there were parts of the fire that were not burning very intensely. It doesn't mean that other parts of the building weren't burning intensely.
isn't the colour of smoke determined by what is burning?
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Yeah, I already did read. It said nothing to explain how the steel melted.
This is why there should be a new investigation.
Nobody seems to know, or can explain this fact.
Wouldn't you say?
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
"Why don't you focus on one fact at a time. I get the feeling you have a million little projects that are all unfinished everywhere in your life because you can;t focus on one thing at a time." -- You
wtf are you rambling about?
try to stay focused...
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Comments
Yeah I watched it on myth busters...not much in comparison to the materials in the WTC.
How bout we stick to steel and aluminum as in the real world scenario?
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
http://www.controlled-demolition.com/default.asp?reqLocId=7&reqItemId=20030225133807
explosions are heard clearly when there is a controlled demolition. unless there are new QUIET EXPLOSIVES out there i don't know about or maybe they had chris angel on their side too and he blocked all our hearing that day. i was at the sands demolition in vegas and wasn't even as close to it as i was the trade center on that day. i heard the detonations very clearly in vegas. there were no detonations in new york that day. it was the sound of crumbling falling smashing but no detonation of explosives.
Can you see me now
I am myself
Like you somehow
I'll ride the wave
Where it takes me
I'll hold the pain
Release me
It's pure physics and common sense that jet fuel cannot melt steel. It's not even a question. Something melted the steel...nothing on the record even approaches it. In fact they deny it. Actually FEMA tried to rationalize it, then NIST tucked tail, and jumped ship and now has no recollection of ever discussing it. It's a I have no idea what you are talking about kinda secret now.
Everyone knows jet fuel cannot cant melt steel, yet melted pools of steel at the base of the buildings and vaporized steel pellets were both found throughout the dust which was broadcast all over the place.
So the impossibilities really do seem to be mounting up on that day.
So many unanswered questions.
The collapse data in the computer simulation had to be cranked beyond reality to get the collapses to occur. So much it is laughable, yet people still gobbled it up.
Employees resigned their positions (or were fired) during the investigation because they knew it was ridiculous what they were proposing.
Look at all the people that gobbled up the popular mechanics (joke) article like candy...and those who still hold up the official NIST/FEMA story like scripture....even though it's grossly inadequate, and explains very little to none of the hard questions.
Namely, what I am asking.
The official story is severely lacking.
There needs to be a new investigation, with all the withheld evidence released.
No one can answer what melted the steel. They can try to make up some excuse, but NIST knows...that's why they deny it vehemently.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
I'm not really interested in another building, and who did what or didn't do etc...
I want to discuss what melted the steel at WTC on 9/11
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Can you see me now
I am myself
Like you somehow
I'll ride the wave
Where it takes me
I'll hold the pain
Release me
That sounds about right...but I think it was chewbaca firing his laser gun that got things really moving...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
No, it was Princess Leia's hair.
oh wait, yes i did. and oh wait, no you didnt. becos i pointed out there was a lot more than just jet fuel burning in there. and your only response was that jet fuel couldn't do it. i said, even assuming your jet fuel contention is true, what response do you have to the fact that there were dozens of other burning materials in there? do you know for a fact every single material that was burning in there, the temperature at which it burned, and whether or not it would be sufficient? i responded to your jet fuel nonsense, again and again. now perhaps you'd like to respond to my point?
or can you not?
and I have to say that soulsinging has a great point, here. In an office, you have various chemicals sitting around at every printer station, mail room, etc. The toner and print cartridges alone....the bins full of recycling paper, the fibers in the chairs, sofas, carpets....all of these flammable items are common in office fires, and most are unhealthy even without the addition of burning jet fuel.
Just my 2 cents. Carry on.
Not to mention they seemed to be caught in the ignition point of jet fuel and not how hot a fire started by jet fuel and with all these combustables as well would get to incredibly hot temperatures. If I light a small wood fire and let it burn it will only generate so much heat. But the more and more wood I add the hotter and hotter it gets and the further I have to stand back from it. Mmmmmmmm I know crazy isn't it!!
Boxes full of recycled paper completely destroyed(melted) 47 - 55"x22" steel columns? LOL
You got to spend it all
You understand that a jet's engine precisely measures the amount of fuel that is added to air to efficiently burn and utilize the fuels explosive power right? What device in the WTC's properly mixed fuel and oxygen to maximize the heat content and efficiently burn the carbon atoms contained in the fuel? There was no such device, hence the dirty incomplete combustion of the jet's fuel. The fire was cold, look at the smoke.
You got to spend it all
You conspiracy theorists always confuse me. The fire was hot enough to create rivers of molten steel, yet it was a cold fire?
look roland i don't know what the fuck melted the steel. and guess what? not EVERYBODY knows that jet fuel can't melt steel.
and of course the simulations had to be cranked way past reality. this was, up to that day, an unreal situation. they didn't know what the fuck they were dealing with. it had never happened before.
i say the weight of the building collapsing on itself bought both the towers down after the steel was weakened by a fire generated and fed by unique circumstances. both buildings collapsed from the top(well from where the planes hit anyway) down. we all saw that much at least, in technicolour.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I think this should be the standard answer for anyone that doesn't support the official comission report. We are not responsible for answering these questions, and it's too easy to be shot down on technical evidence, because the 'experts' are as divided on this shit as PJ fans are...
No matter what any of us believe, the fact of the matter is that the commision report was a travesty.
Too many details, loose ends, and too much destroyed evidence...it will always be a matter of opinion. But to me...it's obvious that their are members of the US government that are guilty of criminal acts in relation to 9/11. Nailing just one or two might get the ball rolling a bit towards the truth....and stop a lot of the wilder conspiracies that bother people so much.
and to add, the total ineptness of this current administration...
as much as the towers coming down helped the current goons in charge and as much as I don't trust these "evildoer's", I've seen nothing, have read nothing that makes me think anything other than those planes brought the towers down.
....now who funded the hijackers.....that's a good question.
al qaeda remember? that's why we invaded afghanistan.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
So your opinion of the investigation? Legitimate? Thorough?
Valid question associated not with "yes good question....we don't know..we tried to figure it out....but couldn't"
But rather outright denials.
hmm
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Why weren't the put options, or any of the other funds that exchanged hands traced?
All the Bin Ladens privately escorted out of the country? There a couple dozen more jaw dropping circumstances that are worse.
New investigation please!
This thing is rotten from the inside out.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
And is already answered, but no one gives a fuck.
I know it's wikipedia however there are several articles about this man but I'm too lazy to look for them
Ben laden and this guy are still running free and no one really cares about them, meanwhile Sadam was hung without a fair trial and that itself should be enough to get you to doubt at least a little the goals of all of these wars.
considering how deep in shit the US is in the middle east i'd have to say any investigation into the actions of anyone even vaguely related to the house of saudi or any vested interests would not be thorough.
it was a fuck up from the beginning to what we now see is a never-ending schmozzle.
covering one's arse sometimes requires ludricrous statements that those that speak them hope no one will be bothered dredging up.
for the US government the fact that such a heinous act was committed against its own people, was almost too perfect an opportunity. i'm not saying they were complicit in the hijacking of those planes or the destruction of the WTC, but what they've done since is just such a fuckup. they blew the opportunity to really show what is possible for a better world and they blew it big time.
and yes unambiguous statements are the best way to go when trying to clarify something. if you don't know something, then say so. if you do know something, then trust that those that need to be told, can handle the truth.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Heat causes the molecules to move in any material including steel. Any heat means there is some level of weakening of a material. In steel the temperature is much higher than say in asphault, but nonetheless it is clearly possible.
The damage to the interior structure plus the heat which was tremendous could have weakened the flooring metal which eventually cuased some to break and fall, possibly at the joints. There was a lot of kinetic energy in those towers released when it began to fall, and it wasn't neccesariy bad construction. Face it, there is no guarantee in construction of any type that would prevent the fall.
And please note that those planes hit in areas that were unlikely foreseen by the demolition theory, and yet the collapse began where the planes hit. I find it hard to believe that a crew of demolition experts rigged the entire building so they could later pick which floors to start the collapse.
But isn't it a moot point anyway? So what if they didn't fall and just burned the top 30 stories to nothing, what then? They would have demolished them anyways. The key is hijacked planes by Islamic fundamentalists hit the towers and burnt them. People died mostly in the top floors who couldn't escape the flames. Whether the buildings fall or not is irrelevent to the attack.
If the buildings were rigged with explosives, why not just blow them up earlier to create more loss of life? Hell, why fly planes into them at all if you can just blow them up? Nonsesical.
I agree with Bill.
I am...
So I'll ask you. How did the towers fall? Please explain in the kind of detail that is provided in the NIST report. That means you have to explain, with proof, how explosives were planted and how they managed to set off these charges in the exact location that the planes hit as this was the point of initiation of collapse.
I await your answer.
Lack of a complete answer will be taken as an admission that your position lacks merit.
You can't read?
http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm
What do you think melted the steel?
"Why don't you focus on one fact at a time. I get the feeling you have a million little projects that are all unfinished everywhere in your life because you can;t focus on one thing at a time." -- You
You can't read?
http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm
What do you think melted the steel?
Yep, because that's exactly what the contents of WTC 1 & 2 were. They were gigantic storehouses for boxes of recycled paper.
Um, who said the anything about 47 completely destroyed(melted) 55"x22" steel columns? This is a new one even I haven't heard!
Do tell...
Cold fire? WTF?
The smoke itself is not very revealing. By your explanation of the black smoke, it could mean that there were parts of the fire that were not burning very intensely. It doesn't mean that other parts of the building weren't burning intensely.
isn't the colour of smoke determined by what is burning?
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Yeah, I already did read. It said nothing to explain how the steel melted.
This is why there should be a new investigation.
Nobody seems to know, or can explain this fact.
Wouldn't you say?
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
wtf are you rambling about?
try to stay focused...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")