What brought down WTC7

[alchemize]

Here's the math, that Pulsar already linked to in the PFI section:

http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm

OK, now how much is 1.1 trillion joules in tons of TNT-equivalent? Let's see, now, a ton of TNT is 4,184,000,000J. So how many tons of TNT is 1,139,879,868,600J?
1,139,879,868,600J / 4,184,000,000J/t = 272t

Now, that's 272 tons of TNT, more or less; five hundred forty one-thousand-pound blockbuster bombs, more or less. That's over a quarter kiloton. We're talking about as much energy as a small nuclear weapon- and we've only calculated the kinetic energy of the falling building. We haven't added in the burning fuel, or the burning paper and cloth and wood and plastic, or the kinetic energy of impact of the plane (which, by the way, would have substantially turned to heat, and been put into the tower by the plane debris, that's another small nuclear weapon-equivalent) and we've got enough heat to melt the entire whole thing.

Now that's not specifically for TWC7, but you can do the same calculations for WTC7 and understand that basically a building this size collapsing is like a small, vertical nuclear weapon once it gets started.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: First

Originally posted by: First
I'll say it yet again since it's not sinking in; the burden of proof is on kylebisme's shoulders to provide the math or continue to be laughed at.

Bump. Come on kiddo, don't puss out.

Indeed. Bump.

 

[LunarRay]

'Specifically, in Appendix C of its World Trade Center Building Performance Study, FEMA claimed:
Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel... The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified.'
I can't find it in the NIST report but it maybe I missed it... anyone know if it is in there?

Relevant link

A government agency reported that molten suff exists but a government agency did not include this. Can anyone explain why NIST didn't include it as part of the analysis? I don't think it matters how long a fire raged if it didn't get hot enough to melt steel to form molten stuff.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: First

Originally posted by: First
I'll say it yet again since it's not sinking in; the burden of proof is on kylebisme's shoulders to provide the math or continue to be laughed at.

Bump. Come on kiddo, don't puss out.

Indeed. Bump.

Not if it is peer reviewed. It stands on its own feet subject to peer review of some input discounting the submissions prior!

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Here's the math, that Pulsar already linked to in the PFI section:

http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm

OK, now how much is 1.1 trillion joules in tons of TNT-equivalent? Let's see, now, a ton of TNT is 4,184,000,000J. So how many tons of TNT is 1,139,879,868,600J?
1,139,879,868,600J / 4,184,000,000J/t = 272t

Now, that's 272 tons of TNT, more or less; five hundred forty one-thousand-pound blockbuster bombs, more or less. That's over a quarter kiloton. We're talking about as much energy as a small nuclear weapon- and we've only calculated the kinetic energy of the falling building. We haven't added in the burning fuel, or the burning paper and cloth and wood and plastic, or the kinetic energy of impact of the plane (which, by the way, would have substantially turned to heat, and been put into the tower by the plane debris, that's another small nuclear weapon-equivalent) and we've got enough heat to melt the entire whole thing.

Now that's not specifically for TWC7, but you can do the same calculations for WTC7 and understand that basically a building this size collapsing is like a small, vertical nuclear weapon once it gets started.

That is like saying it would take 2 lbs of pancake batter when none was used. How much nano thermite might have been used in WTC 7 IF, IF, IF that was what did it... I figure oh.. maybe 10 tons? Easily concealed as lunch boxes over for the 27 centuries it would take to bring in.

 

[Venix]

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: Venix

Originally posted by: munky
Why can't you nerds see the forest from the trees? I glanced over the documents you linked, and see nothing but assumptions and guesses, with a bunch of technical-looking drawings and numbers thrown around based on those assumptions. How that would "prove" anything to anyone with a grain of intelligence is beyond me.

Still not an answer. I want to know, specifically, which portions of Ba?ant's research are incorrect.

I really just don't understand why you feel compelled to defame one of the world's most respected engineering researchers--and without even bothering to read his papers, at that. You and the OP may be complete fucking morons, but I will freely admit that there are intelligent people who disagree with the official version of September 11 events; Steven Jones certainly isn't stupid, and even just in this thread, miniMUNCH seems like a bright guy. Why can't you extend the same courtesy to the 99%+ of engineers and scientists who support the official explanation?

One sec... my crystal ball tells me in about 30 years you and you fellow gullible retards will see a bunch of declassified documents which will answer all your questions of how the buildings fell. In the mean time, don't waste my time diverting the issue into an engineering problem.

Yet another non-answer. Why are you having such difficulty debunking some "so-called expert's" critically flawed research?

I want to know which specific portions of Ba?ant's research are incorrect.

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: Venix

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: Venix

Originally posted by: munky
Why can't you nerds see the forest from the trees? I glanced over the documents you linked, and see nothing but assumptions and guesses, with a bunch of technical-looking drawings and numbers thrown around based on those assumptions. How that would "prove" anything to anyone with a grain of intelligence is beyond me.

Still not an answer. I want to know, specifically, which portions of Ba?ant's research are incorrect.

I really just don't understand why you feel compelled to defame one of the world's most respected engineering researchers--and without even bothering to read his papers, at that. You and the OP may be complete fucking morons, but I will freely admit that there are intelligent people who disagree with the official version of September 11 events; Steven Jones certainly isn't stupid, and even just in this thread, miniMUNCH seems like a bright guy. Why can't you extend the same courtesy to the 99%+ of engineers and scientists who support the official explanation?

One sec... my crystal ball tells me in about 30 years you and you fellow gullible retards will see a bunch of declassified documents which will answer all your questions of how the buildings fell. In the mean time, don't waste my time diverting the issue into an engineering problem.

Yet another non-answer. Why are you having such difficulty debunking some "so-called expert's" critically flawed research?

I want to know which specific portions of Ba?ant's research are incorrect.

How did people debunk the "experts" claiming the anthrax mailings originated from Iraq? These were proven wrong, and not by pouring over math questions and technical drawings, but by finding evidence which showed otherwise. The evidence in this case has been covered up, ignored, and otherwise distorted. You want an answer? Ask the people responsible for the attack.

 

[event8horizon]

Originally posted by: Venix

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: Venix

Originally posted by: munky
Why can't you nerds see the forest from the trees? I glanced over the documents you linked, and see nothing but assumptions and guesses, with a bunch of technical-looking drawings and numbers thrown around based on those assumptions. How that would "prove" anything to anyone with a grain of intelligence is beyond me.

Still not an answer. I want to know, specifically, which portions of Ba?ant's research are incorrect.

I really just don't understand why you feel compelled to defame one of the world's most respected engineering researchers--and without even bothering to read his papers, at that. You and the OP may be complete fucking morons, but I will freely admit that there are intelligent people who disagree with the official version of September 11 events; Steven Jones certainly isn't stupid, and even just in this thread, miniMUNCH seems like a bright guy. Why can't you extend the same courtesy to the 99%+ of engineers and scientists who support the official explanation?

One sec... my crystal ball tells me in about 30 years you and you fellow gullible retards will see a bunch of declassified documents which will answer all your questions of how the buildings fell. In the mean time, don't waste my time diverting the issue into an engineering problem.

Yet another non-answer. Why are you having such difficulty debunking some "so-called expert's" critically flawed research?

I want to know which specific portions of Ba?ant's research are incorrect.

are talking about the "crush down" theory.
here is a good primer debunking bazant for ya. this engineer is a member of 911truth.org


basically:

"Björkman's axiom regarding structural damage analysis of identical structures says:

A smaller part of an isotropic or composite 3-D structure, when dropped on and impacting a greater part of same structure by gravity, cannot one-way crush down the greater part of the structure.


It means that you cannot crush an isotropic or composite 3-D structure A by a part C of itself (C = 1/10 A) by dropping part C on A using gravity. Part C either bounces on A or gets damaged in contact with A and is stopped by A that is also damaged a little. It is quite basic and all due to forces and that the two parts have identical structure. Materials, size and particulars of the elements of the structure A doesn't matter the least. Part C of A cannot destroy A."

http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: alchemize
Here's the math, that Pulsar already linked to in the PFI section:

http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm

OK, now how much is 1.1 trillion joules in tons of TNT-equivalent? Let's see, now, a ton of TNT is 4,184,000,000J. So how many tons of TNT is 1,139,879,868,600J?
1,139,879,868,600J / 4,184,000,000J/t = 272t

Now, that's 272 tons of TNT, more or less; five hundred forty one-thousand-pound blockbuster bombs, more or less. That's over a quarter kiloton. We're talking about as much energy as a small nuclear weapon- and we've only calculated the kinetic energy of the falling building. We haven't added in the burning fuel, or the burning paper and cloth and wood and plastic, or the kinetic energy of impact of the plane (which, by the way, would have substantially turned to heat, and been put into the tower by the plane debris, that's another small nuclear weapon-equivalent) and we've got enough heat to melt the entire whole thing.

Now that's not specifically for TWC7, but you can do the same calculations for WTC7 and understand that basically a building this size collapsing is like a small, vertical nuclear weapon once it gets started.

That is like saying it would take 2 lbs of pancake batter when none was used. How much nano thermite might have been used in WTC 7 IF, IF, IF that was what did it... I figure oh.. maybe 10 tons? Easily concealed as lunch boxes over for the 27 centuries it would take to bring in.

You are misreading it. Please read the whole link.

 

[alchemize]

If I dropped a 50 lb weight on a twoofers head, would it appear to crush his empty skull at free fall speed?

 

[Cogman]

Originally posted by: event8horizon

Originally posted by: Venix

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: Venix

Originally posted by: munky
Why can't you nerds see the forest from the trees? I glanced over the documents you linked, and see nothing but assumptions and guesses, with a bunch of technical-looking drawings and numbers thrown around based on those assumptions. How that would "prove" anything to anyone with a grain of intelligence is beyond me.

Still not an answer. I want to know, specifically, which portions of Ba?ant's research are incorrect.

I really just don't understand why you feel compelled to defame one of the world's most respected engineering researchers--and without even bothering to read his papers, at that. You and the OP may be complete fucking morons, but I will freely admit that there are intelligent people who disagree with the official version of September 11 events; Steven Jones certainly isn't stupid, and even just in this thread, miniMUNCH seems like a bright guy. Why can't you extend the same courtesy to the 99%+ of engineers and scientists who support the official explanation?

One sec... my crystal ball tells me in about 30 years you and you fellow gullible retards will see a bunch of declassified documents which will answer all your questions of how the buildings fell. In the mean time, don't waste my time diverting the issue into an engineering problem.

Yet another non-answer. Why are you having such difficulty debunking some "so-called expert's" critically flawed research?

I want to know which specific portions of Ba?ant's research are incorrect.

are talking about the "crush down" theory.
here is a good primer debunking bazant for ya. this engineer is a member of 911truth.org


basically:

"Björkman's axiom regarding structural damage analysis of identical structures says:

A smaller part of an isotropic or composite 3-D structure, when dropped on and impacting a greater part of same structure by gravity, cannot one-way crush down the greater part of the structure.


It means that you cannot crush an isotropic or composite 3-D structure A by a part C of itself (C = 1/10 A) by dropping part C on A using gravity. Part C either bounces on A or gets damaged in contact with A and is stopped by A that is also damaged a little. It is quite basic and all due to forces and that the two parts have identical structure. Materials, size and particulars of the elements of the structure A doesn't matter the least. Part C of A cannot destroy A."

http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm

Lol, you might want to research WHO Björkman is before you start using his axioms.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=138715&page=8 (go down two posts)

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: alchemize

You are misreading it. Please read the whole link.

Ok..

I was referring to WTC7. However, the towers did fall slower than free fall and that is obvious to my eye and stop watch and cuz of all the pulverized stuff blowing out of the towers as they fell. That stuff covered most of lower Manhattan so there had to be Resistance to create that equal to the variance to free fall... The few seconds of variance to a free fall can be calculated back to determine what amount of structure might have caused that delay. I can't get a handle on how to approach that but could do the math if I knew the applicable laws.
I can't and won't attempt to 'debunk' a person of Bazant's credentials... IF he submitted for peer review that is fine with me and I'll accept it. It then falls for other eminent thinkers to debate that and submit their notion to peer review and at the end of the day we may have two possible scenarios... and both should be deemed to be reasonable. imo

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Number1

The Clinton White House was not able to hide a sexual act between 2 adults and those twuthers want us to think that the government, administrations after administrations, would be able to hide such a monstrous conspiracy.

LOL


That President Obama, a Nobel prize winner would be in on the conspiracy is
Laughable really.

It's so "out there" it is beyond stupid.

Why does there have to be a Conspiracy at all...?

Maybe there are a few equally scientific and probable reasons this falling stuff occurred. I know I don't buy into a Conspiracy but do see stuff that makes me uneasy with the 'official' version as it applies to wtc7 and maybe even some of wtc 1,2. Heck, no one talks about the building 4 most proximate to the towers that got slammed by all sorts of junk but didn't fall down.. only lost some structure and a bit of collapse...
I started looking at wtc7 from a different perspective (fire started by folks to destroy evidence in wtc7) and became convinced that place fell from some event sequence not stated but not that it was government conspiracy but rather facts or methods not accepted or maybe even determined or maybe newton is a bit off, for all I know.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: ironwing
WTC7 was just the ball return man. Pay back is a bitch.

Sorry, but I'm a bit dense... what does that mean?

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: event8horizon


It means that you cannot crush an isotropic or composite 3-D structure A by a part C of itself (C = 1/10 A) by dropping part C on A using gravity. Part C either bounces on A or gets damaged in contact with A and is stopped by A that is also damaged a little. It is quite basic and all due to forces and that the two parts have identical structure. Materials, size and particulars of the elements of the structure A doesn't matter the least. Part C of A cannot destroy A."

http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm

Ok, if that is true, and I think I grasp the basics in that link, aside from explosive from tnt, thermite or anything like that, is there an explanation of what dynamic can cause what I saw? The building fell.. I saw it fall.. We can't just leap to someone blew it up until we've exhausted the more complex aspects even though someone's razor suggests the simple is the most reasonable...

I think I understand that guy also thinks a hoover vacuum or some such sucked wtc7 down... I can't get mine to clean a carpet let alone well...

 

[Number1]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Number1

The Clinton White House was not able to hide a sexual act between 2 adults and those twuthers want us to think that the government, administrations after administrations, would be able to hide such a monstrous conspiracy.

LOL


That President Obama, a Nobel prize winner would be in on the conspiracy is
Laughable really.

It's so "out there" it is beyond stupid.

Why does there have to be a Conspiracy at all...?

Maybe there are a few equally scientific and probable reasons this falling stuff occurred. I know I don't buy into a Conspiracy but do see stuff that makes me uneasy with the 'official' version as it applies to wtc7 and maybe even some of wtc 1,2. Heck, no one talks about the building 4 most proximate to the towers that got slammed by all sorts of junk but didn't fall down.. only lost some structure and a bit of collapse...
I started looking at wtc7 from a different perspective (fire started by folks to destroy evidence in wtc7) and became convinced that place fell from some event sequence not stated but not that it was government conspiracy but rather facts or methods not accepted or maybe even determined or maybe newton is a bit off, for all I know.

Well some of the best scientist in the world analyzed and investigated the WTC7 collapse for years and produced the NIST report. If you think you know better then them, good for you but frankly, what are the chances?

I am glad you reject the conspiracies as nonsense.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: alchemize
If I dropped a 50 lb weight on a twoofers head, would it appear to crush his empty skull at free fall speed?

Well... you have a few issues here... Is the 50lbs made of feathers in a very large bag or is it in a concentrated mass? can the concrete inside the skull keep the skull intact regardless... would it fracture only? If the concrete was replaced by rubber would that allow the skull to absorb the force and maybe bounce the weight back at you? You assume a skull exists? End of day... only if you were in a vacuum cleaner. or some such!

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Number1
This is just ridiculous. There are plenty of pictures of airplane debris at the Pentagon on that day. Just Google it.


The towers fell in the wrong order!!!! Are you trying to be funny again?

The only thing that smells like a steaming pile of bullshit here is your diatribe.

First, prove that Barbara Olsen got on airplane that hit the pentagon. Then find Barbara Olsen... and then we look for the bits of plane she was not on..

Ok.. I'll be clearer.. hehehehe... She did get on a plane. She has not answered her email. No one has found her anywhere and she is well known... So I figure she and the plane she was on flew into the pentagon notwithstanding the expert flying job done by the guy who flew the plane with no expertise to do so.. I can see no alternative to that.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Number1

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Number1

The Clinton White House was not able to hide a sexual act between 2 adults and those twuthers want us to think that the government, administrations after administrations, would be able to hide such a monstrous conspiracy.

LOL


That President Obama, a Nobel prize winner would be in on the conspiracy is
Laughable really.

It's so "out there" it is beyond stupid.

Why does there have to be a Conspiracy at all...?

Maybe there are a few equally scientific and probable reasons this falling stuff occurred. I know I don't buy into a Conspiracy but do see stuff that makes me uneasy with the 'official' version as it applies to wtc7 and maybe even some of wtc 1,2. Heck, no one talks about the building 4 most proximate to the towers that got slammed by all sorts of junk but didn't fall down.. only lost some structure and a bit of collapse...
I started looking at wtc7 from a different perspective (fire started by folks to destroy evidence in wtc7) and became convinced that place fell from some event sequence not stated but not that it was government conspiracy but rather facts or methods not accepted or maybe even determined or maybe newton is a bit off, for all I know.

Well some of the best scientist in the world analyzed and investigated the WTC7 collapse for years and produced the NIST report. If you think you know better then them, good for you but frankly, what are the chances?

I am glad you reject the conspiracies as nonsense.

I'm afraid I can't argue the NIST expert findings based on my own expertise... IF it were in my expertise I'd still not debate from MY expertise unless I could introduce to peer review... others have gone out on that limb and cuz I think I know what risk they stand I give some credence to it.. Their heads are forever vulnerable to the axe if what they say is shown to be bad science. Grants and Academic Tenure rest on the merits of the individual as well as being controversial and losing credibility elsewhere.

I suggest you do this, as I have done.. I'm not a science person at all... so I let all the information into my cauldron and let it sit... Everything that could be evidence about wtc7 is in that cauldron. Why not? Why should I reject evidence if it is evidence of something, anything. Remember also please that evidence can be tested independent of the big picture.. like molten iron stuff on steel... See FIMA's report I linked... they found it in wtc7's rubble.. what does that mean? It means what they said it means... they found bla bla bla.. so into the cauldron. Sooner or later someone can explain how that came to be... IF that is not related and agreed to be not related to the 9/11 event then out pops that bit and I toss it in the recycle bin.
But for the dang building doing what it did and NIST stuck on some numbers they used to define two separate events... Constant drop v near free fall drop for some period of time.. I'd maybe not have so big a cauldron now... only had a little tea kettle years ago.. then up pops this thread and now I can make tea again.

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: ironwing
WTC7 was just the ball return man. Pay back is a bitch.

Sorry, but I'm a bit dense... what does that mean?

Read up on the IABPC. This was definitely their kind of strike. Nothing was spared.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: ironwing
WTC7 was just the ball return man. Pay back is a bitch.

Sorry, but I'm a bit dense... what does that mean?

Read up on the IABPC. This was definitely their kind of strike. Nothing was spared.

Dam, LunarRay you go even deeper... ok I'll read what an IABPC is. Nothing spared... a 300 hmmmm not going to win the triple crown with that though..

EDIT: Indian American business... huh.. you mean Indians did it?

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: Number1

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: kylebisme
I'd bet munky would akcnolage that the truth movment has it's share of bumbling idiots too, the people who think the planes hitting the towers was all TV fakery being an obvious example.

Oh, I have no doubt that the planes hit the towers, and a bunch of innocent people died. That much is undeniable. But the official explanation which within hours of the attack pinned the blame on Osama Bin Laden, that the towers collapsed from the fire in the wrong order no less, that there were no fighter jets scrambled to intercept, that the key witness to the basement explosions just happened to commit suicide, that there was no video footage or debris found at the pentagon, and that the following anthrax scare was wrongfully blamed on Iraq by the media... those are just some key elements of the story that smell like a well-fermented steaming pile of BS.

This is just ridiculous. There are plenty of pictures of airplane debris at the Pentagon on that day. Just Google it.


The towers fell in the wrong order!!!! Are you trying to be funny again?

The only thing that smells like a steaming pile of bullshit here is your diatribe.

Just google "towers fell in wrong order" then... or if you're too lazy, read this:

The south tower was hit after the north tower, at an angle, near one of the corners. Most of the jet fuel either ignited outside the tower, or spilled out. Compared the the north tower, which was hit first, head on, it could not have sustained as much damage. So why then did the south tower fall first?

 

[sciwizam]

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: Number1

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: kylebisme
I'd bet munky would akcnolage that the truth movment has it's share of bumbling idiots too, the people who think the planes hitting the towers was all TV fakery being an obvious example.

Oh, I have no doubt that the planes hit the towers, and a bunch of innocent people died. That much is undeniable. But the official explanation which within hours of the attack pinned the blame on Osama Bin Laden, that the towers collapsed from the fire in the wrong order no less, that there were no fighter jets scrambled to intercept, that the key witness to the basement explosions just happened to commit suicide, that there was no video footage or debris found at the pentagon, and that the following anthrax scare was wrongfully blamed on Iraq by the media... those are just some key elements of the story that smell like a well-fermented steaming pile of BS.

This is just ridiculous. There are plenty of pictures of airplane debris at the Pentagon on that day. Just Google it.


The towers fell in the wrong order!!!! Are you trying to be funny again?

The only thing that smells like a steaming pile of bullshit here is your diatribe.

Just google "towers fell in wrong order" then... or if you're too lazy, read this:

The south tower was hit after the north tower, at an angle, near one of the corners. Most of the jet fuel either ignited outside the tower, or spilled out. Compared the the north tower, which was hit first, head on, it could not have sustained as much damage. So why then did the south tower fall first?

Anything to back that up?

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: sciwizam

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: Number1

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: kylebisme
I'd bet munky would akcnolage that the truth movment has it's share of bumbling idiots too, the people who think the planes hitting the towers was all TV fakery being an obvious example.

Oh, I have no doubt that the planes hit the towers, and a bunch of innocent people died. That much is undeniable. But the official explanation which within hours of the attack pinned the blame on Osama Bin Laden, that the towers collapsed from the fire in the wrong order no less, that there were no fighter jets scrambled to intercept, that the key witness to the basement explosions just happened to commit suicide, that there was no video footage or debris found at the pentagon, and that the following anthrax scare was wrongfully blamed on Iraq by the media... those are just some key elements of the story that smell like a well-fermented steaming pile of BS.

This is just ridiculous. There are plenty of pictures of airplane debris at the Pentagon on that day. Just Google it.


The towers fell in the wrong order!!!! Are you trying to be funny again?

The only thing that smells like a steaming pile of bullshit here is your diatribe.

Just google "towers fell in wrong order" then... or if you're too lazy, read this:

The south tower was hit after the north tower, at an angle, near one of the corners. Most of the jet fuel either ignited outside the tower, or spilled out. Compared the the north tower, which was hit first, head on, it could not have sustained as much damage. So why then did the south tower fall first?

Anything to back that up?

Have you looked at this?

Text

 

[sciwizam]

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: sciwizam

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: Number1

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: kylebisme
I'd bet munky would akcnolage that the truth movment has it's share of bumbling idiots too, the people who think the planes hitting the towers was all TV fakery being an obvious example.

Oh, I have no doubt that the planes hit the towers, and a bunch of innocent people died. That much is undeniable. But the official explanation which within hours of the attack pinned the blame on Osama Bin Laden, that the towers collapsed from the fire in the wrong order no less, that there were no fighter jets scrambled to intercept, that the key witness to the basement explosions just happened to commit suicide, that there was no video footage or debris found at the pentagon, and that the following anthrax scare was wrongfully blamed on Iraq by the media... those are just some key elements of the story that smell like a well-fermented steaming pile of BS.

This is just ridiculous. There are plenty of pictures of airplane debris at the Pentagon on that day. Just Google it.


The towers fell in the wrong order!!!! Are you trying to be funny again?

The only thing that smells like a steaming pile of bullshit here is your diatribe.

Just google "towers fell in wrong order" then... or if you're too lazy, read this:

The south tower was hit after the north tower, at an angle, near one of the corners. Most of the jet fuel either ignited outside the tower, or spilled out. Compared the the north tower, which was hit first, head on, it could not have sustained as much damage. So why then did the south tower fall first?

Anything to back that up?

Have you looked at this?

Text

Still not seeing any data.