Reply With Quote
How did the magic demolition fairies attach the thermite to the vertical columns?
geez! you sound mighty supers ous today!
How did the magic demolition fairies attach the thermite to the vertical columns?
Geez! You sound mighty delusional every day!
that's not a scientific question.
Science has been corrupted by the government, which controls the money and the media. They have been putting out a steady stream bogus science. Liberals have stopped the scientific revolution. First, bogus global warning scares; then they told us that second hand smoke is almost as dangerous as the Black death; and now an office fire takes down a steel building. What's next?
That's not a scientific statement.
Don't worry about the black helicopters, then.
You're right.
That was a sarcastic question.
A scientific question would be:
"What is the minimium amount of force needed to take out the vertical columns if one wanted to demolish the buildings?"
Answer that please.
Then go on to calculate the total amount of say, C4, that would have been required. I would like that answer too.
"If you contend that thermite, not explosives, were used, then how much thermite would have been required?"
This is your theory. Please fill it out a little for me.
conspiracy theorists dont claim to know the answers, we just question the official ones.
defending innocent people who are innocent until proven guilty is NOT a conspiracy theory. And WTC 7 has nothing to do with any conspiracy theory unless you've cooked one up I've not heard yet.
I haven't read your impassioned defense of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
Could you provide a link to that?
the strange thing about building 7 is HOW and WHY it fell down. it burned for less hours then both WTC 1 & 2 but yell fell down the exact same way they did. some responses ive heard are,
"parts of WTC 1 & 2 fell on building 7 therfore causing it to fall."
ok, but what makes this theory any better than ours? there is no way of proving it and yet they say its a valid reason.
our questionings could often be misrepresented as us having the answers. which some people claim to have but if they were to say it they would be laughed and mocked. which is expected cause i guess people expect to hear the media admit it was the US Government who orchestrated the attacks i guess.
Funny thing about explosives. They propel things very, very fast.
Truthers make a lot of noises about how "squibs" and so forth ejected material.
One of them even did a calculation of exactly how fast the material from these "squibs" was ejected. This came out in the order of a few hundred feet per second.
The scientific explanation of this is that there was simply enough of a piston effect in the collapsing building to cause air overOverpressure to eject material at the terminal floors of some elevator shafts.
This would produce an airburst of a few hundred feet per second.
Ask any explosives expert what kinds of debris velocities are generated by actual explosives.
You get answers in the thousands of feet per second.
Funny thing is that I saw a myth-busters episode recently that highlighted this perfectly.
They simulated a pirate ship to find whether a cannonball shot through a wooden ship hull would produce enough splinters to kill people.
The first thing they tried was a BIG air cannon. The best muzzle velocity they could get was a bit shy of two hundred feet per second.
Oddly enough, cannons use explosives to propel s s. Old fashioned black powder in this case was used in the civil-war era cannon that they used to test the cannonball velocity next. The muzzle velocity they got with actual explosives was over 700 feet per second if memory serves.
We can reasonably assume semtex/C4/etc are a bit more powerful than old fashioned gunpowder.
So, if the buildings were demolished using actual explosives you would have glass and small debris shooting sideways at thousands of feet per second, scattering lethal debris over many SQUARE MILES of upper manhattan.
My next scientific question is:
Do we have reports of this expected phenomenon? Does the controlled demolition theory accurately reflect what was actually observed?
I have yet to see reports of anybody being hit with collapse debris from miles away.
Maybe Galileo can provide one?
There is a vast gulf between honest questions, and throwing at the wall to see what sticks.
I am tired of ducking .
haha....i guess u think the majority of "conspiracy theorists" are blithering idiots who conjur up retarted questions out of thin air?
truly the idiots are people who dont question and believe anything the media tells them.
Both parts of that last sentence are untrue. WTC 7 burned longer than the twin towers and its collapse initiated internally and was not a top-down collapse that originated at the perimeter like those of the twin towers.
Really it was just WTC 1 that started the fires that the NIST concluded to be the sole cause of the collapse.some responses ive heard are,
"parts of WTC 1 & 2 fell on building 7 therfore causing it to fall."
I don't know what other people's theories are. They never give a full one.ok, but what makes this theory any better than ours?
The main way to do this now is with computer modeling. The one's shown in the NIST videos are pretty impressive. i have yet to see anything from the alternative non-theorists.there is no way of proving it and yet they say its a valid reason.
I would just like to hear an actual alternative theory about the entirety of events on 9/11. I have even dedicated a thread to it. No one has stepped up.our questionings could often be misrepresented as us having the answers. which some people claim to have but if they were to say it they would be laughed and mocked. which is expected cause i guess people expect to hear the media admit it was the US Government who orchestrated the attacks i guess.
i remember talking about this with you.
i gave an explanation before.
Explosives brought down the towers
thats the alternate theory! whats so hard to understand about that.
Larry Silverstein said he decided to "pull it" and BBC News reported the building fell even before it collapsed!! its easy to smell conspiracy here. and you are not unamerican for questioning the official story either.
what more do you need!?
The Single Column Theory
move over, single bullet theory....
Now we have the SINGLE COLUMN THEORY!
Nist Final Report Uses Fire/ Single Column Failure(column 79)/Thermal Expansion?http://www.911blogger.com/node/17260
That's right! A single column, just one of 81 columns in WTC 7, took it down! WTC 7 was a house of cards.
[Of course, if a single column could take down WTC 7, then it would be easy to target that column and take it out with explosives.]
It has nothing to do with the Pentagon or Shanksville, for starters.
"Pull it" is not a term used for explosive demolition.Larry Silverstein said he decided to "pull it"
Perpetrators, motive, methods, evidence. I'm not asking for 10,000 pages like the NIST has produced -- just more than "It was Cheney in WTC 7 with the thermite."and BBC News reported the building fell even before it collapsed!! its easy to smell conspiracy here. and you are not unamerican for questioning the official story either.
what more do you need!?
How would anyone know to target that one column beforehand if it took six years to conclude it was the one that failed?
And the NIST calculated how big a charge would be needed in case anyone had actually figured out that Column 79 was the one needed to bring it all down --
-- and no one heard or recorded anything close to the sound that kind of charge would create. They studied your little theory, and it failed.
"pull it"
this is a term used in the sexual underworld, first by Clay Shaw, and now by out of the closet Larry Craig.
Silverstein was using this sexual imagery when he said "pull it" and ordered WTC 7 taken down in an obvious insurance job.
NIST says a small office fire can take out column # 79, but not explosive charges.
So, you are saying it was the jooooooooooooooooooos now?
Make up your mind.
It wasn't a small fire.
There were no such explosions heard before the collapse like any CD you have seen on YouTube.
according to NIST, it was a small fire. Thermite doesn't make loud noises.
Also, NIST never studied column # 79, so basically, their theory is bull .
who's Joe?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions