user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
Apologies for the long intro. I wanted to post the whole letter, but I can provide a link for anyone who wants to read the whole text.
The government won't admit Bush played hookey from the National Guard ... why would they admit anything bigger? :-/
This will never get any attention. Most Americans think that Saddam Hussein knocked down WTC #7 as well.
Can anyone suggest another reason for the buildings to fall besides melting steel?
Either bombs were on the planes or explosives were planted in the buildings. Also, Flights 93 was shot down. There's a good chance that the passengers regained control of the aircraft and if allowed to land safely, the whole jig would have been exposed.
Several firefighters are on record as saying they could smell explosives on the ground floor of the North tower before the building collapsed. Eyewitnesses close to the towers also reported hearing explosions.
That are so many strange events on that day. WTC seven for example. Wasn't even damaged and only had a few localised fires burning. Yet all forty odd stories of it collapsed into its own footprint. Never before had sky scrapers collapsed because of fire. Yet three collapse in one day.
WTC 7 was deliberately imploded on the afternoon of 9/11 at the behest of NYC officials citing safety concerns. If you watch the footage of WTC7 going down, it's eerily similar to the way the North and South Towers fell a few hours earlier.
Most fires don't involve jet fuel.
The WTC steel was certified to withstand temperatures of more than 3000F which was far higher than the heat from burning jet fuel, estimated to be 2000F on the five floors surrounding the points of impact.
If there is more to the WTC towers collapsing than impact, heat and weight of a jet... why wouldn't Osama release the details publicly? If he was trying to discredit Bush before the election, the deceit to the public would have been the tool to topple his administration!
by MO_ on Fri Nov 19, 04 11:36am
[+]
I doubt he'd have access to the data, for one thing. He's either the fall guy here or he's in the employ of the CIA. (Don't forget those family connections!)
I'm only half-joking.
I thought the WTC was built to implode
by aya on Fri Nov 19, 04 11:59am
[+]
I'm not an engineer (although I've picked some engineers' brains on this) and due to the WTC buildings' egg-crate 'redundant' design, plus the fact that the buildings were not solid, I'm told they were more likely to implode than stagger over and fall. I'm still intrigued as to why the governmental reports to date still cite the steel as being the principal cause of the collapse(s), though.
humm, okay... I'm going to find Tad's and the warm and fuzzy ballots, : ).
by MO_ on Fri Nov 19, 04 12:31pm
[+]
LMFAO! I'll probably see you there myself soon. :)
Critics have pointed out that steel does not MELT at 1500 F, but it does soften and lose its strength, enough to cause the towers to collapse. http://www. icivilengineer.com /News/WTC/ structure.php
I did visit that website, although I couldn't get to the link you gave me. The latest news on there re: WTC steel is the summary of the latest official N.I.S.T. findings which Dr. Gayle of N.I.S.T. and Kevin Ryan of UL were discussing in the above email.
Or at least, the email in which Kevin Ryan was discussing (and refuting) the official findings.
The experts: Osama bin Ladin and Jackie Chiraqi
hahaha
*LOL* that was funny
Some people find your ballots funny too, jappy. But that's all you have to refute the above facts. Ridicule. You ARE a really bad joke, jappy.
Critics have pointed out that steel does not MELT at 1500 F, but it does soften and lose its strength, enough to cause the towers to collapse. http://www. icivilengineer.com /News/WTC/ structure.php by WalterPeck_EPA on Nov 19, 2004 Walter. Those WTC towers were designed to withstand a plane crashing into them. And you are wrong to claim that 1500 degree temps can soften steel enough to cause a catastrophic failure. Even television news reporters described what they thought were "secondary explosions" just before the towers came down, and they were in a helicopter right next to the towers. Obviously WlaterPeckEPA knows better than the designer of the WTC, the firemen who evacuated the buildings and brought the fires inside them completely under control, a plethora of technicians and engineers who know for a fact that planes crashing into them could never cause the buildings to collapse, eye-witness actually there who maintain that they saw and heard explosions coming from the buildings just before they fell, and just about anybody who disagrees with the American government's pitiful bullshit cover story. And her tone remains as insultingly dismissive as ever. Is that the best these Bush supporting truth deniers can do? Yes. They suck.
lets be serious here.. The impact of those airliners must have been rediculous.. and that combined with a jet feul explosion is going to do some damage.. its not like the fire was started from a cigarette and caused the towers to fall.. yea our own government decided to attack our own country.. that makes A LOT of sense people
You should get used to the idea that the government is prepared to attack its own people, Raw Iron. The fact is that the steel in the towers would have proved how they fell over, beyond any doubt. This steel was not examined. Can anybody explain why this steel was not analysed in order to find out why the towers fell? And no matter what anyone like WalterPeckEPA might say, there is video footage that shows explosions going off round the WTC towers. They were demolished.
Structural engineering was the weak link. Not to cast blame, logically, who could ever have foreseen those terrible events coming.
Okay I really don't know what to believe here -- this topic has been thoroughly debated on multiple ballots and I don't have a good grip on the science of it all, so I'm lost for the most part. That said, here's a question: the next time I see footage of the towers falling, what should I look for? People have said that it looks like explosives were detonated in the towers, but I've never seen that; however, I never looked for it either. And I read somewhere that explosives had been placed in the WTC a long time ago for when the towers would theoretically become obsolete, so the towers could be knocked down with as little damage as possible done. Is it possible that the impact of the airplanes and/or heat from the fires could have detonated the explosives? It seems unlikely that that would be possible, but I'm no scientist either -- I'm just throwing shit out.
There are some who make the excuse that there is only one kind of controlled demolition and that "top-down' demolitions don't exist This is a top down demolition. Controlled demolitions are not restricted to one technique only. Looks the same doesn't it?
|
|