Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

The Impossible Fast Collapse of The Towers


  • Please log in to reply
848 replies to this topic

#211    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 13,536 posts
  • Joined:18 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 13 June 2011 - 02:56 PM

View PostNuke_em, on 13 June 2011 - 02:38 PM, said:

Cornelius isnt it logical that if you make a structure that last for 3 days with burning at 2000degress wont collapse it, especially if burning happenes to be on top of structure. But in this case a jetproof building is hitted by 747, which on impact releases almost all the fuel in a giant fireball, makes it collapse in brief couple of minutes...Well i aint stupid or something but that sound very fishy to me...In my logic if this was truly the act of terorism WTC wouldnt collapse at all...Would burn slightly, nothing hard, like it really happened. So in short its impossible for jet fuel to make this building collapse, expert statments....If so this was manmade...
Two things...  first, it didn't collapse in a brief couple of minutes.  The towers collapsed long after the impact of the planes and after the fires had been burning for quite a while.

Second, the fire didn't melt the columns, it primarily weakened them (unevenly) to the point that collapse was not only possible but inevitable.  Considering that you like YouTube videos, this one actually does a fairly good job of explaining the affect of the fires in layman's terms.



It is also only about 4 minutes long, so shouldn't be too much of an inconvenience to watch.  The video you want us to watch is an hour and 19 minutes.  I will watch it later, but don't have the time right now.

Cheers.


#212    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 13 June 2011 - 03:51 PM

View Postflyingswan, on 13 June 2011 - 01:19 PM, said:

There is a large peak g at the point of impact, but since that overloads the columns that hit each other, those columns deform, and in deforming they act like shock absorbers to protect the bulk of the building which therefore sees a much lower g over a longer time.
the building had a safety factor of 5:1, every story could safely hold up 5 times the weight of all the storys above it.
the lower structure was built to resist "a large g", how can a 1g impulse destroy a strcuture built to resist 5g?
explain how "a much lower g over a longer time" can destroy a structure built to resist 5g?

it doesn't matter how many gentle taps you hit a structure with, in order to break the structure you need an instant impulse to amplify the impactor's load above the structure's safety factor. the required impulse that NIST and Bazant claim should have been there was not there in the measurements.


#213    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,892 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 13 June 2011 - 05:06 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 13 June 2011 - 03:51 PM, said:

the building had a safety factor of 5:1, every story could safely hold up 5 times the weight of all the storys above it.
the lower structure was built to resist "a large g", how can a 1g impulse destroy a strcuture built to resist 5g?
explain how "a much lower g over a longer time" can destroy a structure built to resist 5g?
You don't understand the difference between impulse and acceleration, do you?

I'll try one more time.

In Bazant's conservative model, he postulates that the columns of the upper and lower blocks meet end-on.  He calculates that the instantaneous load on each column when they meet is 31 times the design load.  The columns cannot take this load so they fail, most likely by buckling.  Since the columns cannot take this load, the force on the rest of the structure at the other ends of the columns is initially the maximum load it can carry (design load x safety factor), dropping off as it buckles because a buckling column carries much less load than a straight one.  The columns thus convert a very large load for a very short time into a smaller load over a longer time.  This is exactly what happens in a car crash, for instance, where parts of the car structure are designed to fail and in failing provide lower loads to the passengers.

MacQueen and Szamboti are effectively measuring the deceleration of the passengers in a car crash and claiming that it is too small to damage the car structure, ignoring the fact that the failure of the car structure is what gives the passengers a survivable deceleration.

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )

#214    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,892 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 13 June 2011 - 05:13 PM

View PostNuke_em, on 13 June 2011 - 02:38 PM, said:

Cornelius isnt it logical that if you make a structure that last for 3 days with burning at 2000degress wont collapse it...
Typical building regulations specify surviving a fire for only a few hours, as WTC7 did.  Steel is vulnerable to fire, that's why steel-frame buildings have fire-protection layers around the steel.  The fire-protection layer is crumbly, unlikely to survive well when faced with an aircraft impact.  That plus the impact damage is why the towers survived for a somewhat shorter period than designed.

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )

#215    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 13 June 2011 - 06:10 PM

View Postflyingswan, on 13 June 2011 - 05:06 PM, said:

You don't understand the difference between impulse and acceleration, do you?
g is acceleration and impulse is a force, f=ma and m is constant to the context of what is being discussed. so a 1g impulse means to say the force from the weight of the top block at rest, and 5g impulse means to say 5 times the force of the weight of the top block at rest. I don't think the pedantry is necessary.

Quote

In Bazant's conservative model, he postulates that the columns of the upper and lower blocks meet end-on.  He calculates that the instantaneous load on each column when they meet is 31 times the design load.  The columns cannot take this load so they fail
if they fail, where is the decerlation?

Quote

, most likely by buckling.  Since the columns cannot take this load, the force on the rest of the structure at the other ends of the columns is initially the maximum load it can carry (design load x safety factor), dropping off as it buckles because a buckling column carries much less load than a straight one.  The columns thus convert a very large load for a very short time into a smaller load over a longer time.  This is exactly what happens in a car crash, for instance, where parts of the car structure are designed to fail and in failing provide lower loads to the passengers.

MacQueen and Szamboti are effectively measuring the deceleration of the passengers in a car crash and claiming that it is too small to damage the car structure, ignoring the fact that the failure of the car structure is what gives the passengers a survivable deceleration.
a passenger would feel the same jolt as would the back of the car.
a jolt and deceleration from an impulse is predicted and implied by Bazant's hypothesis.
you are saying there would be no measurable deceleration when the top block hits the bottom block in the verinage videos.
how do you account for the fact the deceleration is seen and measurable in the verinage videos, but is not seen in the north tower measurements? both collapses were measured using the same method.


#216    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,892 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 13 June 2011 - 06:30 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 13 June 2011 - 06:10 PM, said:

g is acceleration and impulse is a force, f=ma and m is constant to the context of what is being discussed. so a 1g impulse means to say the force from the weight of the top block at rest, and 5g impulse means to say 5 times the force of the weight of the top block at rest. I don't think the pedantry is necessary.
Impulse is not force, it's force times time or, equivalently, change of momentum.  1g for five seconds gives the same impulse as 5g for 1 second.

Quote

if they fail, where is the decerlation?
Because they fail over a finite time during which they still carry a load.

Quote

a passenger would feel the same jolt as would the back of the car.
Yeah, the top floor would be the same as the roof.  It's the impacting elements at the bottom of the block, the equivalent of the front of the car, that's different.

Quote

a jolt and deceleration from an impulse is predicted and implied by Bazant's hypothesis.
The deceleration is there, that's why the collapse is slower than free-fall.  The jolt is both smaller than MacQueen and Szamboti say and less detectable at the roof where they measure it.

Quote

you are saying there would be no measurable deceleration when the top block hits the bottom block in the verinage videos.
how do you account for the fact the deceleration is seen and measurable in the verinage videos, but is not seen in the north tower measurements? both collapses were measured using the same method.
Different structures, different behaviour.  Concrete is more likely to fail in crushing rather than buckling, it's a quicker process, higher force for shorter time.

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )

#217    SolarPlexus

SolarPlexus

    Warrior of Light

  • Member
  • 3,961 posts
  • Joined:28 Sep 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Serbia

  • .....This moment contains all moments.....

    ...You dont have a Soul. You are a Soul. You have a body.....

Posted 13 June 2011 - 06:45 PM

Once Americans stop caring about 911 and when the last 911 generation passes away the govt will admit it just like it admited other things in the past

"In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual."
Galileo Galilei
Posted Image
"Who never walks save where he sees men's tracks makes no discoveries."J.G. Holland


#218    SurgeTechnologies

SurgeTechnologies

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,276 posts
  • Joined:21 Feb 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Not disclosed

  • "Why not take what seems to me the only chance of escaping what is otherwise the sure destruction"

Posted 13 June 2011 - 08:19 PM

I agree with solar, there are too many holes in whole event that are too obvious, but for some reasons people still think this was an outside event...If expert says that WTC can withstand 3 days of 2000degree fire well its clear to me, it will be to others too, when time comes... By the way couple of experts said that wtc could survive 3 jet impacts.. Some highranking offical said that, next day he was fired so ye... i'll stick to my theory at least its not based on a lie.

@ BooNyZarc Even so they collapsed far far too fast...and those columns should actualy tilt the top part of building, if you say they unevenly been weakened, thus building came down in a straight line...Ow and yes i like youtube videos some of other people actualy did their homework and made "this post" a fact... I dont have access to US archives or security cameras, someone else did, thats why its 1h 19 min long...In video you will learn that other facilites in the area recorded this event, but FBI was there first and they confiscated those recordings...Now why would you do that, oh right you dont need to talk by the thruth, rather use media for global coverup/brainwash of some third terorist party...And when they finnaly found this "Osama" dude, they buried him at sea LOL! He was US public enemy no.1, US nation at least deserves to see the picture of him, but only people in congres had  that option. So from my point of view this was massive, global politicaly-media game...

@Flyingswan Thats what i'm trying to tell you from your own experts lol, the guys who made wtc made it rock solid.. MADE IT JETPROOF except if they were lying, entire structure shouldnt collapsed at all!!

I'll rest my case in this topic, for good...

Edited by Nuke_em, 13 June 2011 - 08:37 PM.

" Technology has exceeded our humanity. "

#219    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,658 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 13 June 2011 - 08:38 PM

View PostNuke_em, on 13 June 2011 - 08:19 PM, said:

I agree with solar, there are too many holes in whole event that are too obvious, but for some reasons people still think this was an outside event...If expert says that WTC can withstand 3 days of 2000degree fire well its clear to me, it will be to others too, when time comes... By the way couple of experts said that wtc could survive 3 jet impacts.. Some highranking offical said that, next day he was fired so ye... i'll stick to my theory at least its not based on a lie.

@ BooNyZarc Even so they collapsed far far too fast...and those columns should actualy tilt the top part of building, if you say they unevenly been weakened, thus building came down in a straight line...
You have made this claim twice - can you please provide your source for it. It is not enough to make such a claim without supporting it.

It was never possible for it to come down in anything but a vertical collapse because the moment it started to develop a turning momentum it placed stress on the surviving members which collapsed them. Once one floor gave out the rate of gravity acceleration far exceeded any residual turning momentum and so the whole structure accelerated downwards rather than sideways.

Br Cornelius

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#220    SolarPlexus

SolarPlexus

    Warrior of Light

  • Member
  • 3,961 posts
  • Joined:28 Sep 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Serbia

  • .....This moment contains all moments.....

    ...You dont have a Soul. You are a Soul. You have a body.....

Posted 13 June 2011 - 09:18 PM

View Postflyingswan, on 13 June 2011 - 01:24 PM, said:

View PostSolarPlexus, on 13 June 2011 - 11:18 AM, said:

View Postflyingswan, on 12 June 2011 - 03:08 PM, said:

How about addressing the important part: that no matter what they claim, they could not have predicted the outcome with the methods available at the time.

The outcome? They did predict plane impacts if that's what you mean.  Twin Towers Engineered To Withstand Jet Collision, The Seattle Times, 2/27/93 (cached)

The outcome of the impacts and particularly the fires.

They did predict both.  

  • John Skilling, head structural engineer, on fires resulting from an airplane impact

    Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there. (Source: Twin Towers Engineered To Withstand Jet Collision, The Seattle Times, 02/27/1993)


  • Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager, on possible airplane impact

    The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.(Source: interview, Jan 25, 2001.)


Like all skyscrapers, the Twin Towers were over-engineered

3. THE STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS CARRIED OUT BY THE FIRM OF WORTHINGTON, SKILLING, HELLE & JACKSON IS THE MOST COMPLETE AND DETAILED OF ANY EVER MADE FOR ANY BUILDING STRUCTURE. THE PRELIMINARY CALCULATIONS ALONE COVER 1,200 PAGES AND INVOLVE OVER 100 DETAILED DRAWINGS.
...
4. BECAUSE OF ITS CONFIGURATION, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY THAT OF A STEEL BEAM 209' DEEP, THE TOWERS ARE ACTUALLY FAR LESS DARING STRUCTURALLY THAN A CONVENTIONAL BUILDING SUCH AS THE EMPIRE STATE BUILDING WHERE THE SPINE OR BRACED AREA OF THE BUILDING IS FAR SMALLER IN RELATION TO ITS HEIGHT.
...
5. THE BUILDING AS DESIGNED IS SIXTEEN TIMES STIFFER THAN A CONVENTIONAL STRUCTURE. THE DESIGN CONCEPT IS SO SOUND THAT THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER HAS BEEN ABLE TO BE ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE IN HIS DESIGN WITHOUT ADVERSELY AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF THE STRUCTURE... (Source:  City in the Sky, Times Books, page 134-136)


How long will you continue to ignore the evidence flyingswan? You need to be objective, you are an engineer after all and i hope a patriot as well. I know its hard to accept but they just needed an excuse to go deeper into the middle-east. I rest my case. Best wishes to you

Edited by SolarPlexus, 13 June 2011 - 09:26 PM.

"In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual."
Galileo Galilei
Posted Image
"Who never walks save where he sees men's tracks makes no discoveries."J.G. Holland


#221    MID

MID

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,490 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Male

  • ...The greatest error is not to have tried and failed, but that in trying, we did not give it our best effort.

Posted 13 June 2011 - 09:27 PM

View PostNuke_em, on 13 June 2011 - 02:09 PM, said:

Watch the video please and stop arguing, max temp. of wtc fires was 1300degress those columns were made to support 2000degress so fire didnt make building collapse but controlled explosion did...



I was just wondring what all this back and forth was about.
Is this it?

Controlled demolition????


Great.

Swanny has the patience of a saint...

:yes:


#222    mrbusdriver

mrbusdriver

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,589 posts
  • Joined:19 Dec 2007

Posted 13 June 2011 - 10:58 PM

View PostSolarPlexus, on 13 June 2011 - 09:18 PM, said:

They did predict both.  

  • John Skilling, head structural engineer, on fires resulting from an airplane impact

    Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there. (Source: Twin Towers Engineered To Withstand Jet Collision, The Seattle Times, 02/27/1993)


  • Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager, on possible airplane impact

    The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.(Source: interview, Jan 25, 2001.)


Like all skyscrapers, the Twin Towers were over-engineered

3. THE STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS CARRIED OUT BY THE FIRM OF WORTHINGTON, SKILLING, HELLE & JACKSON IS THE MOST COMPLETE AND DETAILED OF ANY EVER MADE FOR ANY BUILDING STRUCTURE. THE PRELIMINARY CALCULATIONS ALONE COVER 1,200 PAGES AND INVOLVE OVER 100 DETAILED DRAWINGS.
...
4. BECAUSE OF ITS CONFIGURATION, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY THAT OF A STEEL BEAM 209' DEEP, THE TOWERS ARE ACTUALLY FAR LESS DARING STRUCTURALLY THAN A CONVENTIONAL BUILDING SUCH AS THE EMPIRE STATE BUILDING WHERE THE SPINE OR BRACED AREA OF THE BUILDING IS FAR SMALLER IN RELATION TO ITS HEIGHT.
...
5. THE BUILDING AS DESIGNED IS SIXTEEN TIMES STIFFER THAN A CONVENTIONAL STRUCTURE. THE DESIGN CONCEPT IS SO SOUND THAT THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER HAS BEEN ABLE TO BE ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE IN HIS DESIGN WITHOUT ADVERSELY AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF THE STRUCTURE... (Source:  City in the Sky, Times Books, page 134-136)


How long will you continue to ignore the evidence flyingswan? You need to be objective, you are an engineer after all and i hope a patriot as well. I know its hard to accept but they just needed an excuse to go deeper into the middle-east. I rest my case. Best wishes to you

Has anyone specifically asked these folks, based on their previous statements, if they now believe that the collapses were due to CD? Has anyone discussed this with them at all?


#223    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 13,536 posts
  • Joined:18 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 14 June 2011 - 04:33 AM

I watched the film Nuke_em.  And it made me angry.  Is that the response you would expect?

Certainly if what these kids have put together was an accurate and true representation of what happened, any righteous human being should be angry.  Angry at the US Government.  Angry at the lies.  Angry at the deception.  Etc...

Would you agree?  I'd agree.  If this movie were factual and accurate, it would be worthy of anger.

But I'm not angry about that because this film isn't factual and accurate.  Do you want to know what I'm angry about?  I'm angry that these kids have spread so much disinformation about what happened, dishonoring so many people from that day including fire fighters, police officers, medical personnel, citizens, and even dishonoring the victims themselves.  I find that shameful and I find that extremely sad.  And it makes me angry.

Despite that, I'm not angry at them.  I honestly think they are doing what they feel is right.  I believe that they believe what they've convinced themselves of.  And that, more than anything, just makes me sad.

View PostNuke_em, on 13 June 2011 - 08:19 PM, said:

I agree with solar, there are too many holes in whole event that are too obvious, but for some reasons people still think this was an outside event...If expert says that WTC can withstand 3 days of 2000degree fire well its clear to me, it will be to others too, when time comes... By the way couple of experts said that wtc could survive 3 jet impacts.. Some highranking offical said that, next day he was fired so ye... i'll stick to my theory at least its not based on a lie.
The too many obvious holes likely seem that way because you've chosen to accept the words of the kids who produced this film that you are suggesting people watch and accept as blindly as you have.  Tell me something Nuke_em...  have you tried to verify any portion of this film at all?  Have you tried to falsify any of it?  Have you looked into alternate explanations at all?

Or did you just watch this film, get sucked into their hype, and then go with the flow?

I remember when 911 happened.  I remember walking downstairs to my kitchen and my family was glued to the TV screen shortly after the first plane had hit.  I remember them telling me what was going on and likewise watching that TV, transfixed, unable to do anything but shake my head in disbelief and try to make some kind of sense of it.  I remember watching the second plane hit and having my shock compound.  I remember hearing a plane in the air above my house soon after and rushing to the window to try to see it.  I remember the fear, the shock, the absolute numbness that lasted for weeks after.

Did you watch this thing happen Nuke_em?

Or did you just hear about it on the news, follow up on it down the road, and then latch on to the first conspiracy theory that you could find about it?  I'm really curious.  Did this event have any direct impact on you at all?


View PostNuke_em, on 13 June 2011 - 08:19 PM, said:

@ BooNyZarc Even so they collapsed far far too fast...and those columns should actualy tilt the top part of building, if you say they unevenly been weakened, thus building came down in a straight line...Ow and yes i like youtube videos some of other people actualy did their homework and made "this post" a fact... I dont have access to US archives or security cameras, someone else did, thats why its 1h 19 min long...In video you will learn that other facilites in the area recorded this event, but FBI was there first and they confiscated those recordings...Now why would you do that, oh right you dont need to talk by the thruth, rather use media for global coverup/brainwash of some third terorist party...And when they finnaly found this "Osama" dude, they buried him at sea LOL! He was US public enemy no.1, US nation at least deserves to see the picture of him, but only people in congres had  that option. So from my point of view this was massive, global politicaly-media game...
Yes, the columns did tilt the top part of the building.  It tilted to something like 23 degrees or so?  This was the result of the heated metal floor struts sagging and pulling the outside supports inward.  This is what initiated the collapse.  This is visible in the images on film, this is clearly what toppled the upper section, and there can be no denying it.  From that moment it is merely a matter of physics.


View PostNuke_em, on 13 June 2011 - 08:19 PM, said:

@Flyingswan Thats what i'm trying to tell you from your own experts lol, the guys who made wtc made it rock solid.. MADE IT JETPROOF except if they were lying, entire structure shouldnt collapsed at all!!
You completely misunderstand the physics and engineering behind this.  I don't claim to fully understand all of the details either, but the general concept is actual quite simple and explained quite clearly in that video I linked for you above.  Flyingswan is going out of his way to educate you and the others in this thread about how this happened.  I suggest you pay attention if you have any genuine interest in understanding what caused those towers to collapse.


View PostNuke_em, on 13 June 2011 - 08:19 PM, said:

I'll rest my case in this topic, for good...
That's nice.  While you are resting take a look at this debate between the producer and director of your film and Mark Roberts.  I thank you for asking me to watch that film.  It wasn't until after watching that film that I also saw this debate.  I'm curious about your thoughts about this debate, unless you truly are resting your case.  It is broken into two sets of three videos (6 in total).

First:


Notice when Dylan Avery says, "We made that film essentially as a bunch of kids.  That's the reality of the situation.  We were a bunch of kids, tackling a situation, far beyond the scope of any one documentary.  I'll be the first to admit that our film definitely contained errors.  It still does contain some dubious claims, and it definitely does come to some conclusions that are not 100% backed up by the facts.  Sure, I'm just saying that Loose Change is not a very fair representation of the 911 Truth Movement.  I'd recommend 911 Press for Truth, 911 Mysteries, really 911 Press for Truth is really the one you can show to anybody."

Now, I haven't seen either of these other films that he recommends, but I will watch them.  The point I'm making here is that if he is honest enough to say that this film isn't a fair representation perhaps you should take that to heart and try to give it a more honest assessment.  And if you watch the full 6-part debate series I'd be surprised if you walk away with as much conviction in your conspiracy beliefs as you've walked in with.  And if you do... well, I guess that's on you.

Part 2 and the rest from here.


#224    SurgeTechnologies

SurgeTechnologies

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,276 posts
  • Joined:21 Feb 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Not disclosed

  • "Why not take what seems to me the only chance of escaping what is otherwise the sure destruction"

Posted 14 June 2011 - 08:52 AM

Like people will talk the thruth on national TV? Maybe they have a death wish? Of course its game of cat and mouse no one will say ; "Ye we made that movie to make people more informative..." Next day they will probably go missing or something due to your paranoid gov. About this debate i think gov. pressed on them to go and lie about whole thing...thats what im talking about...At some point they say "Osama said that he didnt take the responsibility" in the 5min of debate " Osama claims terorist involvment" sorry but i think this video is hard disinformation, even in this video they say whole thing is fishy plus why dont they show us pictures... Whole debate is supporting my video...

And yes i saw the whole thing live when it started happening.
And Cornelius i'll make that claim 4 more times if i need to. Because its a crucial fact in the whole event...

And like i said im wasting time trying to tell the thruth if you dont see this wasnt a terorist act, it was in your eyes which they made you see it that way... And were not talking physics here were talking facts...Which were backed up in that film,and film of NoobyZarc, in case you didnt follow, there were statements made from real experts, and maybe those "kids" wanted to present it to more broader public. And i dont know what kind of education you have but i'll belive those experts which are saying this was not normal collapse...And i'll keep saying it over and over again until someone will get it...

MID its not about the demolition lol its about what your nation thinks of all this,.. And tell me why non-US citizen get this event right, and US citizens dont ?

Edited by Nuke_em, 14 June 2011 - 09:14 AM.

" Technology has exceeded our humanity. "

#225    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 14 June 2011 - 09:06 AM

View PostNuke_em, on 14 June 2011 - 08:52 AM, said:

its about what your nation thinks of all this, and i must say they are very limited.. And tell me why non-US citizen get this event right, and US citizens dont ?
I don't think what you hear from posters here is representative.

New Poll

48% of New Yorkers Support a New Investigation into Building 7's Collapse

28% believe the Twin Towers were brought down with explosives or some other demolition devices in addition to being hit by airplanes

http://rememberbuild...lding-7-linger/





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users