Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,802 Year: 4,059/9,624 Month: 930/974 Week: 257/286 Day: 18/46 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Was the destruction of the twin towers scientifically possible on 9/11
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 443 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 81 of 151 (417601)
08-23-2007 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by lost-apathy
08-18-2007 7:43 PM


Pure BS
This is the biggest bunch of poopey on the net, forget it, the buildings fell on their own from the planes crashing into them.
However i find this very hard to believe since the buildings did collapse at near free fall speed.
Did they collapse, or did the free fall, which was it?
The key word in your incorrect statement, is NEAR free fall speed.
It does not seem like the concrete can be pulverized to dust just from collapsing.
The concrete had almost no structural value in holding the building up, it was used only as protection from fire, and for the floors.
Being a total dumbass, you can plainly see that the buildings collapsed from the top down, and if the supporting columns throughout the building were demolished, then the whole building would have fell at the same time, not from the top down, collapsing each floor with an unbelievable force.
Ever see a building being demolished? The whole building falls at the same time, not from the top down.
I spent 11 years fireproofing NYC hospitals, and everything I saw, as it happened is consistent with everything I learned about the way a building collapses in a fire. I even predicted the collapse to my wife on the phone, almost to the minute, as we watched the buildings burn. This was easy to predict, knowing that the fireproofing has been stripped from the beams, and that the fire was burning hot enough to warp the metal. It is simple science. The only thing I got wrong was, I thought the buildings were going to fall over, due to the angle of the slice in the building, because I did not know they were designed to fall straight down.
What I never understood, is why the fire dept. sent the firefighters into that inevitable collapse. They are the ones who gave us the training on why buildings collapse, and fill with smoke.
You are accusing the government of pulling this all off? I think you give them much more credit, than they deserve.
Calling it a conspiracy theory, or whatever, is a discredit to everyone who lost their lives that day. Both my mother and brother worked there, and just missed being killed. I was also there exactly one week before the collapse, and drove right past them every day.
{ABE}
Do you have any idea, the amount of work it would require to set charges in the Twin Towers? It would take them months of preparation to do something like this. Do you know how many people would have to be involved? And this would all go unnoticed by anyone who actually gave a crap about the people who worked there.
Edited by riVeRraT, : unbelievable

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by lost-apathy, posted 08-18-2007 7:43 PM lost-apathy has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 443 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 82 of 151 (417603)
08-23-2007 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Archer Opteryx
08-23-2007 9:40 AM


Re: Omg- I'm off topic!
Just curious. Do you question the moon landings, too?
I worked with a guy who did. What he said to me was, if we weren't on the moon already, then who took the picture of Neil Armstrong coming off the lunar lander?
I told him, there must have been a camera on an arm or something. He just pointed at me, and with an authoritative voice said "YOUR RIGHT!"
He also claimed to be sitting in the middle of the 69 Mets, after they won the world series, in a bar.
What a quack.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-23-2007 9:40 AM Archer Opteryx has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 443 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 105 of 151 (432479)
11-06-2007 8:31 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by subbie
08-24-2007 2:54 PM


Re: ok
These images show that it did not fall straight down, but was falling toward the south.
The did fall with a tendency towards one direction, but they were designed to fall straight down, so as not to take out other buildings. That was about the only thing that surprised me, as I did not know this, and though they were going to fall more towards one side then they did.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by subbie, posted 08-24-2007 2:54 PM subbie has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024