- :
- 02 lx
I think rism blew them up
Physics professor exposing 9-11 on msnbc
- Thread starter Rism
- Start date
- :
- Black RX-8
rism, have you read the 9-11 commission report ? you know, the one that you can buy in any bookstore any day of the week.
One thing the professor forgot is that an BOEING Jet Liner FULL of FUEL crashed into the building. The heat would most likely ignite the fuel and the resultent heat would most likely melt the steel support within the building. Hence, the floors above would cause a great stress on the weak layer and collapse. If I remember correctly, the upper 1/4 of the buildings were above the layer that was crashed into. The weak layer would have a tough time supporting this heavy of a mass.
Now the pentagon on the other hand,,, That seems more like a cover up to me. IMHO.
Now the pentagon on the other hand,,, That seems more like a cover up to me. IMHO.
Oh bulls***. All of you shut the ******* hell up. They have the owner of the WTC complex ON VIDEO saying that they "pulled" WTC7. I'm not sure if you are aware, but "pull" is a common term for executing a controlled demolition. Not to mention the thousands of people, including cops,and fire deptartment personel claiming to have smelled cordite throughtout the entire event. Not to mention the audio tapes and recordings of what appear to be auxilliary explosions during the collapse. So ******* spare me.
Moreover.
Don't be so critical of the professor. He stated over and over that his theory was a hypothesis up for evaluation and testing. You dogs and the rest of neo-conservative nazi's take anything people say and contort into a anti-bush message. Well listen the **** up. People spout their mouths off all god damn day about the WTC and it's impact on the world. It's real ******* easy for them to just kick back and eat that s*** up. With something so tragic, it'd naturally be hard to believe anything other than what the world saw on television. Well take it from me. I was standing at the corner of John and Park Row that morning not 10 blocks from the WTC heading over to J&R. I had just come down to Pace (where I went to school for a period of time) Losing a friend in that god awful mess has left me extremely bitter and I think I might be entitled to a little resentment of bulls***. I've had my beliefs since that day and I've called it bulls*** from the get go. I don't buy for two ******* seconds that a plane took either of those buildings down. Diesel tank in the basement of WTC7? Since when does diesel burn anywhere hot enough to melt steel? That's also the first I've ever heard of it since the FEMA release said "falling debris weakened the integrity of the building, fire finishing it off" Yeah right. WTC7 was demo'd. Period. That's not even the real issue. At first, they admited it. Now it's like it never happened. Our government would be great illusionists if they could just keep their ******* facts straight. Real facts or bogus ones.
Please, someone try to spin what I've said or out-of-context quote me. I will slam you with a rant that christ couldn't weedle out of.
Moreover.
Don't be so critical of the professor. He stated over and over that his theory was a hypothesis up for evaluation and testing. You dogs and the rest of neo-conservative nazi's take anything people say and contort into a anti-bush message. Well listen the **** up. People spout their mouths off all god damn day about the WTC and it's impact on the world. It's real ******* easy for them to just kick back and eat that s*** up. With something so tragic, it'd naturally be hard to believe anything other than what the world saw on television. Well take it from me. I was standing at the corner of John and Park Row that morning not 10 blocks from the WTC heading over to J&R. I had just come down to Pace (where I went to school for a period of time) Losing a friend in that god awful mess has left me extremely bitter and I think I might be entitled to a little resentment of bulls***. I've had my beliefs since that day and I've called it bulls*** from the get go. I don't buy for two ******* seconds that a plane took either of those buildings down. Diesel tank in the basement of WTC7? Since when does diesel burn anywhere hot enough to melt steel? That's also the first I've ever heard of it since the FEMA release said "falling debris weakened the integrity of the building, fire finishing it off" Yeah right. WTC7 was demo'd. Period. That's not even the real issue. At first, they admited it. Now it's like it never happened. Our government would be great illusionists if they could just keep their ******* facts straight. Real facts or bogus ones.
Please, someone try to spin what I've said or out-of-context quote me. I will slam you with a rant that christ couldn't weedle out of.
Matthew said:
I'd be real careful what you say matt.
kipper88 said:
So you're telling me that a single airplane had a significant weight impact on a building with a gravitational load of approximately 1 billion pounds?
A fully loaded Boeing 767 weighs 395,000 lbs. One of the World Trade Towers weighed 500,000 tons. Do the math.
To put it simply, that's like saying something weighing less than half a pound would be able to collapse a structurally sound building that weighed 1,000 lbs.
Stop talking and think for a minute.
Chris
GrandBelialKey said:
I don't know why you chose to capitalize entire words, or even to put quotes around the word professor, for that matter.
Here's the media motive - it's of immense interest to us all what happened on that day.
Here's the Mormon motive - ummm... he's just one guy with an opinion. How does this make it a Mormon issue? If you're Catholic, what's the Catholic motive for you posting this? If you're agnostic, what's the agnostic motive?
Stop talking and think for a minute. Maybe two.
Chris
65racecoupe
Member
- :
- Turbo (soon) Yellow 2002 P5
zmzmzm said:
Your math is messed up.
The total weight of the building of the building wouldn't have as much to do with a collapse compared to other things. The height of the crash (top 3/4 of the building) and the fact that the momentum of the plane took out a lot of structure in the floors that it hit. The floors above the crash would come down and the momentum from that would cause a domino effect.
You are not taking in to account the damage. You are just using weight.
REMillers said:
They admitted it, then covered it up. That's why. It's called failing credibility.
Amazing that they still to this day claim it was fire damage related when there are still photos of people standing in the impact zone of the plane. There was a fire, yes, but it didn't last long. Oh wait, of course! The fire took the elevator down to the food court, got himself a sandwhich and then slowly creeped it's way up the stairs. Yes of course, why didn't I think of that. Oh, because in order for that to have happened the fire would of needed to burn for days, literally days at a sustained temperature to degrade the steel. Not a few hours and oops, there goes one of the largest buildings in the world. Now, it's been said that it didn't need to melt the steel. It simply needed to only weaken it, which, technically speaking, is absolutely correct. However, uniform implosions don't occur from "spread-fire" There was no control to that fire, it was based on a liquid. It's splash traveled down elevator shafts and into hallways. Now if you are telling me that there was enough flaming jet fuel left over from the explosion to creep down every single nook and cranny of the internal structure of that building to where it would implode on itself in such a manner, you are out of your ******* mind.
ok..this thread is all over the place..
first of all, a plane didnt hit building 7? so why is everyone talking about the added weight of the plane? Noone is saying they "pulled" the two towers. Also, the guy on the video said they "pulled" building 7. Why is a proffessor doing a study? All he had to do was watch the video. I mean, the building was probably completely ****** up from the fire/debris/whatever and they were going to build a whole new center anyway, they would have blown it up eventually. Its not like they killed people in the process.
I duno..Doesnt seem like much to debate about..
first of all, a plane didnt hit building 7? so why is everyone talking about the added weight of the plane? Noone is saying they "pulled" the two towers. Also, the guy on the video said they "pulled" building 7. Why is a proffessor doing a study? All he had to do was watch the video. I mean, the building was probably completely ****** up from the fire/debris/whatever and they were going to build a whole new center anyway, they would have blown it up eventually. Its not like they killed people in the process.
I duno..Doesnt seem like much to debate about..
KzA said:
His report is about the entire WTC. Not just building 7. But you don't admit to doing something then turn right around and try to wash your hands of it. It makes you look guilty as hell and makes others pry to other involvement. That building wasn't that ****** up. The Deutche Bank is right next door literally got its northern face torn off. Still standing. The Hilton across the street. Same thing and all glass mind you, still standing. I had part of a one way street sign go through my window and I was 8-10 blocks away.
KzA said:
Yeah, like they waited for this to happen, then just ran in there really fast. Yeah right, it was set up in advance. An interview with a security officer at the WTC stated that the many floors in the towers had been shut down in prior weeks for construction for a new electrical system. All on tape. Funny how the head of security at the WTC had literally JUST transferred in. He was an FBI chief beforehand.
- :
- 2001 Pro 2.0 LX
they pulled the same thing on the TWA flight in 94 or whenever it was over Long Island.
SpicyMchaggis said:
So your saying that EVERYTHING was setup? What could they possibly gain from doing that?
PS Im not trying to argue with you or anything..you just seem to know a hell of alot more than i do bout this topic...just attempting something called "civil conversation"
