i am not denying what i said yesterday as well you know.
in my post yesterday i said i copied this from the infowars site. [ I even know about the Hologram theories, the Blue Beam theories and the Mini-nuke theories. I don’t postulate those,
from infowars site]
so one more time i am not denying what i said yesterday.
you can find it on the infowars website where i copied it from.
so anyone that has a different take on what went on that day,you believe their ideas to be stupid?
fire/planes causing a near free-fall collapse of 3 superstructures,to believe in that idea well.....
stupidity link to unverified source proving that there was no moon landing
[cut & paste]SPAM from my mail box this morning claiming that an eclipse is going to cause an earthquake which will in turn cause a devastating tsunami. The ********* guys CAUSED the eclipse[/cut & paste]
Is cut and paste a valid way to spread SPAM? It's usally designed to clog mail boxes, not forums.
pweedas....
Just out of curiosity, what do you think made it fall at "near free fall collapse" ?
And I am interested in a detailed description, not just "it was a demolition job".
google Richard Gage or better still for a paticularly detailed description Ed Ward.
the people who jumped out of the towers from around the 80th floor took around 10 seconds to hit the ground. [free-fall speed equals no resistance]
how long did it take for the towers to fall?
similiar time, why because no resistance.
the floors below were taken out[you can see the lateral ejections] before the above floors made contact.this would result in no resistance.
computer sequenced explosives.
how they did it [turn the towers into micro dust before towers even hit the ground]we may never know exactly.
Yes it was Sausage, but not one of those mini nuke things they rabbit on about.
It was an METC device and the observant conspiracists will note the smaller explosion at a lower level which generates the gaseous cloud, followed by a larger one higher up a sthe cloud detonates after rising.
Oops, done it again. Everybody look at the red light that will flash in front of your eyes thus wiping your memory
pweedas......Tell me if you are swayed by this explanation even just a little bit.
absolutely ziltch,if there is such a word.
i am not a very smart guy but i can see a con when it is starring me right in the face.
pweedas....''There were no internal vertical steel or concrete supports for the floors at all''.
and pigs can fly there were none!
there were 47 central support columns that formed the core of the building.[look at the photos/videos of the towers under construction for verification of this]
in the documentary ''911 mysteries'' you can see one of the towers under construction. the video shows these massive 47 central columns jutting out around a hundred or so feet above the highest floor below. [at the time of construction]
look at other evidence.....
in one of the towers the top 30 floors fell to the side [around 23 degrees]. after tilting 23 degrees this top part[30 floors] should have fallen all the way to the ground independent of the other 80 floors.
instead it just disappeared!!!!
Google Richard Gage, he can present the evidence better than i can.
Arh Pweedas, an understanding of structural mechanics is not required for analysis of the collapse of buildings.
There is a reasonably famous (amongst structural engineners) example of a collapsing balcony many years ago.
My simpleton way of explaining it:
The balcony conprised two floors suspended on wires from the ceiling. Design had a single rope length with both floors connected to the rope.
Contractors messed up and terminated one rope at the upper floor, then suspended the lower from the upper on another length of rope.
Not a very good description, some pictures would help and show the very subtle change from design.
<<can't be arsed to insert google or sketch of this so will will just say "we may never know">>
In essence, same size rope, same load going throught the rope, same connections, but it collapsed.
Internal vertical members in high rise buildings are usually lift shafts and stair wells. They may or may not also act as shear members or columns.
Given the height of the WTC and therefore the speed and load required of elevators and to maximise internal floor space through minimising internal walls, if I were designing the structure of the towers, I would have kept lift shafts solely as supporting the lifts as far as possible.
pweedas.....we can debate the evidence till eternity and nothing is going to change.
if you can watch the 2 hr documentary '911 Mysteries' look me in the eye and still tell me it was not a controlled demo then i surrender.
i will retire to windsurf general.
the Doc is right..... the mainstream media....TELL US WHAT IS REALITY
and we believe them!
Ok next topic. Is Osama really dead?
Whats that I hear? It sounded like a cry of anguish.
I love this witty and jovial banter. Primarily because it helps me make up my mind on all contentious issues.
You are right of course, Ginger Pom et al, there is no way in a thousand years those good Christian gentlemen at the helms of our respective countries would even think to lead us astray. After all, they tell us so, with their hands on their hearts! Who are we to question their morals or their ideals or their motives?
Tomorrow I will wake up and forget that anything even slightly suspicious has ever occurred. After all it is obvious on the surface and deep deep down that any financial or power gains that have resulted over the years have been the result of uncalculating fortune.
In fact to suggest that anyone at all would even consider misleading anyone at all for the sake of achieving anything vaguely unethical is entirely blasphemous. In fact it is most probably the work of Satan.
Yeah right!
Careful, when you wake up your coffee may well have gone cold!
Yes, I take your point about Kev.
But he is a very small and insignificant cog in a very big wheel. If you don't believe someone is pulling his strings just tarry awhile.
When he is gone the money men will still be there and they are not going to change tactics.
