Reply With Quote
you've now joined the good guys?
That's good.
Let's party!
you've now joined the good guys?
That's good.
Let's party!
The Jackalope (Lepus-temperamentalus) is one of the rarest animals in the world. A cross between an extinct pygmy-deer and a species of killer-rabbit, they are extremely shy unless approached. None have ever been captured alive and this rare photo shows a mighty buck about to strike.
Known by the ancients as "deerbunnies", it wasn't until the early 1960's that the modern more fearsome "jackalope" name was adopted.
It is written that you can extract a Jackalope's milk as it sleeps belly up at night. The milk is belived to be medicinal and can be used for a variety of afflictions. The truth is these creatures are aggressive and unpredictable, and should not be provoked for any reason!
The goverment wants you to believe they aren't real, but there are many who believe. The evidence is mounting!
It collapsed.
Killer RabbitThe Jackalope (Lepus-temperamentalus) is one of the rarest animals in the world. A cross between an extinct pygmy-deer and a species of killer-rabbit, they are extremely shy unless approached. None have ever been captured alive and this rare photo shows a mighty buck about to strike.
Known by the ancients as "deerbunnies", it wasn't until the early 1960's that the modern more fearsome "jackalope" name was adopted.
It is written that you can extract a Jackalope's milk as it sleeps belly up at night. The milk is belived to be medicinal and can be used for a variety of afflictions. The truth is these creatures are aggressive and unpredictable, and should not be provoked for any reason!
The goverment wants you to believe they aren't real, but there are many who believe. The evidence is mounting!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=1
we all know that. WHat explains it?
The evidence is better than your conspiracy theory.
Where is the physical explosive residue evidence?
In such a conspiracy, someone would have squeaked.
An explosion from what? Did someone put an egg in the microwave?
Why would they do that? Wasn't the burning fuel part of the cover to bring down the towers?
Why do you ignore clear evidence posted by others? I have posted a photo showing clear damage to WTC-6. There was clear debris in front of WTC-7 with the other photo I posted. Are you saying the acceleration of steel beams being dislodged from more than 60 storeys up don't have enough kinetic energy to do serious damage?
If WTC-1 was too far away, how do we have several clear undisputable photos of the SW corner of WTC-7 with floors 8 to 18 cleaved off?
Where is this evidence other than someone making it up.
You have these laughable theories. We have plausible theories. It is true we don't know 100% what happened. Such a complete conclusion may never occur. Anyone with a scientific mind who understands materials and physics can understand why the theory of damage and fire is the most reasonable. Don't forget like Chump has repeatedly pointed out, the structure of WTC-7 was not typical. The lower floors trussing around the sub station was a weak point. It is very reasonable to expect power transformers to explode too.
Hey Galileo...
How about an opinion of how the top of this building was damaged. It is at least twice as far away from WTC-1 as WTC-7 was. Please explain the damage in the circle I added, and how WTC-7 is too far away:
Structural failure.
The little chunk has nothing to do with the collapse and is already mentioned in the NISt report.The evidence is better than your conspiracy theory.
Where is the physical explosive residue evidence?
In such a conspiracy, someone would have squeaked.
An explosion from what? Did someone put an egg in the microwave?
Why would they do that? Wasn't the burning fuel part of the cover to bring down the towers?
Why do you ignore clear evidence posted by others? I have posted a photo showing clear damage to WTC-6. There was clear debris in front of WTC-7 with the other photo I posted. Are you saying the acceleration of steel beams being dislodged from more than 60 storeys up don't have enough kinetic energy to do serious damage?
If WTC-1 was too far away, how do we have several clear undisputable photos of the SW corner of WTC-7 with floors 8 to 18 cleaved off?
Where is this evidence other than someone making it up.
You have these laughable theories. We have plausible theories. It is true we don't know 100% what happened. Such a complete conclusion may never occur. Anyone with a scientific mind who understands materials and physics can understand why the theory of damage and fire is the most reasonable. Don't forget like Chump has repeatedly pointed out, the structure of WTC-7 was not typical. The lower floors trussing around the sub station was a weak point. It is very reasonable to expect power transformers to explode too.
Hey Galileo...
How about an opinion of how the top of this building was damaged. It is at least twice as far away from WTC-1 as WTC-7 was. Please explain the damage in the circle I added, and how WTC-7 is too far away:
That chunk could have been caused by explosives planted inside WTC 7.
You outta learn that the construction of WTC 7 was unusually assymetrical, so a natural collapse would be assymetric.
Partially evaporated steel columns were found in the rubble which is a byproduct of explosives, as well as the heat spots found.
Blowing up a vacant building is not a conspiracy, no one was killed.
What is your obsession with conspiracy theories? You're a nut.
WTC 7 was too far away for gravity to throw object, so you have provided additional proof of explosives in WTC 1.
The explosion in WTC 7 was from an explosive.
what casued the structural failure? All buildings that collapse have structural failure.
Let's get real, like a paper straw through a potato...have you ever knocked down a haystack with a needle?
The report doesn't theorize any such thing. Explain why we see no hole from the north side of WTC-7 to do that then.
Did I say it would be either symmetrical or asymmetrical? No. It was very unusual, especially because of the substation it was built over. The foundation isn't even consistent.
That alone is no evidence. There has to be residues of specific chemicals in specific ratios to support explosives. This is how forensics know what types of explosives are used.
Do you understand the laws of thermodynamics and conservation of energy? Energy turns to heat, and if any steel was melted or (very unlikely) vaporized, this is the most likely reason why. Energy in an impact causes heat.
Heat spots are also a known byproduct of a collapse. Water exasperates the heat! With the heat as it already is, the steel oxidizes, in effect, it burns, hydrogen is released, and more chemical reactions occur.
It wouldn't be murder, but it is still a conspiracy. Still, there is absolutely no evidence of an explosive demolition.
I see you're looking into a mirror.
Gravity only provided the Z axis vector force. The X and Y axis forces are because moving objects change direction with collisions. Forces other than explosions provide the answer just as easily.
Ever play billiards? You theory would suggest all the balls go the same direction. Hit one ball with the stick, when it hits another, the ball travels the same direction. Right?
Have you ever stepped on anything and not have it shoot off side-ways?
My God. Why am I wasting my time with someone who has no comprehension of physics?
There is no evidence. If you know something the NIST doesn't, then please show them your evidence.
Wait... I understand now... You are one of the criminals who helped plant the explosives, right? That's how you know it happened that way and how you know they are covering up the truth, right?
The Architects and Engneers for 9/11 Truth have already determined that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition. The evidence proved it. They proved WTC 7 did not fall from fire or flying debris.
Since you are neither an architect or engineer, you are not qualified on this topic. I will take the rational road and defer to the findings of 300 experts.
I am also an expert. I am Galileo Galilei, the founder of science, and I have determined that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition as well. You should listen to experts and keep your crazy (and dangerous) ideas to yourself.
They didn't prove anything. Show me their work, and I'll bet I can provide more than reasonable doubt concerning their work.
I have an uncle who is a retired civil engineer for San Francisco. He designed large structured. He finds these truther theories not worthy of more than laughter.
A bit narcissistic? Delusional?
You are not a qualified expert, so no, I'm not providing it. They have already determined that WTC 7 was imploded by explosives, so your opinion doesn't matter.
Ah! On that; I and all sane people in the world disagree with you and all the nutjobs.
Show the me official report that says a controlled explosion brought down WTC 7.
As I, and the prevailing theory, have stated. WTC 7 was hit by WTC 1's debris and that caused sufficient damage, along with a raging fire that burned all day, to bring it down.
And there you have it.
How 'bout, CRAZY?
WTC 7 did not have a raging fire nor sufficient damage from debris for it to fall.
The NSIT report shows the locations of the fires in WTC 7. Nowhere does it say the fires were raging.
NIST has ruled out debris damage as a cause of collapse.
Like a typical conspiracy nut, you simply make things up to satisfy your urges.
So, direct me to your official report that says a controlled explosion brought down WTC 7.
I hope the below animated gif can be seen. And, if so, Gal, tell me why that penthouse disappears into the roof and where, is all that ing smoke coming from?
Just point me to your source. If there is a large file, point me to pages and quotes as well.
Nice stuff Galileo, I have tried to explain to the 911 faithers that in order for WTC7 to have collapsed anywhere near the way it did, the first 6 floors including the basements would have to have been completely ingulfed in flames....really hot flames...and no one has ever provided any evidence that this was the case....as you mentioned before, even NIST has ruled out structural damage as the main cause of the collapse...
....keep up the good work confounding the 911 faith-movement...
Not really, but nice try.Nice stuff Galileo, I have tried to explain to the 911 faithers that in order for WTC7 to have collapsed anywhere near the way it did, the first 6 floors including the basements would have to have been completely ingulfed in flames....really hot flames
At least this guy had a half baked theory about what happened on 9/11.
What do you think really happened on 9/11, dan?
Well, then, you must have the answer....why don't you tell us?Not really, but nice try.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
