Fake Voices
huh???
What about building 7? There goes your argument. Game over, TRY AGAIN!
I am with Ganymede on this. I saw the events in New York that day from the corner of Church and Duane Street and I trust what my ears and eyes witnessed. It was obvious that there were LARGE explosions going off in the lower areas of the towers.
Also, take a look at steel buildings that were TOTALLY engulfed in flames and had burned for WEEKS and did not collapse. Yet some how its feasable that the WTC towers collapse only within minutes of the impact??? Please...
Far less than any pancake theory could possibly explain.
Steven E. Jones
Provo, Utah, USA
Retired BY Physics Professor
Intuitions????
For one, I am a Civil Engineer, soon recieving my Master's at SLU. Secondly, I know EXACTLY how the WTC was constructed down to the last truss. I've done my research.
Airliners have crashed in to large buildings before and the buildings did not collapse.
You forget that the WTC was SPECIFICALLY designed to handle MULTIPLE impacts from airliners.
How is this even an argument what about the fires that caused catastrophic damage to the buildings structure. How come every time someone makes a good point about why your theory is jsut stoned conspirist bullshit you just pull out the old "what about building 7"? card oh my god what about building fucking 7?
.Originally Posted by MZ3Boy84
Airliners have crashed in to large buildings before and the buildings did not collapse
The major difference between the Empire State Building crash is that a B-25 weighs in at 33, 000 lb. fully loaded, which that B-25 wasn't, and its cruse is 230 mph, which it wasn't done at the time as it was in the process of trying to land,
really no comparison can be made between the two crashes, different airplane, different construction methods.
Oh! Another 9/11 conspiracy video? And this time its on YouTube? How original!
Which could as easily have been transformers in the building. See the documentary "Screw Loose Change".
Because those buildings hadn't been hit by planes.
A cursory examination of the tower collapse will reveal that there was no "pancaking"; i.e. no pause.
He isn't "retired". He was dismissed. Fired. Pitched.
Riiiight. Which we have no proof of whatsoever.
Thankyou for revealing information about a completely different building, built over 50 years prior; in other words, a completely unrelated scenario. The depth of informativeness in this comment is massively underwhelming.
i) prove "multiple"
ii) prove that their specs also meant they could deal with fire, and that they would stay up indefinitely
iii) prove the builders weren't just wrong. It's happened before.
The lower 10 stories of the south face of the building were destroyed to a depth of about 25%. There was also a continuous fire burning (fed by stored diesel fuel) for hours. This combination was enough to ultimately drop the building.
hahah 911 posts for you!!! omg the government must be mocking you!
Nope, it's just a collection of actual news coverage from 9-11. You know the coverage that they're reluctant to ever replay. Because all of their onsite reports contradict the official story. Think, before you foolishly assume and react to something that isn't.
If you don't believe the vast amount of evidence that's already been presented. Then you'll never be convinced. No matter what's in front of your face.
And what are you basing this assumption on? Since it's never f*cking happend before?
Checkmate!