The difference between buildings that are burning and buildings that are being blown up.
Mar 6, 2014 15:17:42 #
The images at the top show the Windsor Tower in Spain which burned for 20 hours and remained standing.
The image below shows one of the World Trade Towers as it starts to explode. Where is the fire that could have brought the tower down.
There is no fire visible even in the part that is exploding. Note the small explosion exiting the building below the large explosions.
This building fell at near free fall speed even though the 284 massive vertical steel beams that had held it up for almost a half century had not been weakened at all. Only explosives can cause that.
The image below shows one of the World Trade Towers as it starts to explode. Where is the fire that could have brought the tower down.
There is no fire visible even in the part that is exploding. Note the small explosion exiting the building below the large explosions.
This building fell at near free fall speed even though the 284 massive vertical steel beams that had held it up for almost a half century had not been weakened at all. Only explosives can cause that.
Windsor Tower burned for 20 hours
where's the fire
Mar 6, 2014 15:35:32 #
What controls the "New Topic" designation?
I've posted two topics and neither has that designation?
Thanks.
I've posted two topics and neither has that designation?
Thanks.
Mar 6, 2014 15:39:37 #
If the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition, how does that fit with the conspiracy theory that 19 Arabs were responsible for bringing the buildings down?
Could the 19 Arabs have placed the explosives as well?
Could the 19 Arabs have placed the explosives as well?
Mar 6, 2014 16:55:53 #
No steel-framed building had ever fallen from fire.
Three steel-framed buildings fell straight down into their footprints on 9/11. What are the odds against that?
One mathematicians figured it at about 10 billion to one.
Three steel-framed buildings fell straight down into their footprints on 9/11. What are the odds against that?
One mathematicians figured it at about 10 billion to one.
Mar 7, 2014 15:08:10 #
larrypayne wrote:
No steel-framed building had ever fallen from fire.
Three steel-framed buildings fell straight down into their footprints on 9/11. What are the odds against that?
One mathematicians figured it at about 10 billion to one.
Three steel-framed buildings fell straight down into their footprints on 9/11. What are the odds against that?
One mathematicians figured it at about 10 billion to one.
The burning building in Spain did not have an airplane full of aviation fuel burning in its middle. The flames are diffuse and caused by furnishings, etc. In the WTC, once the steel columns were sufficiently weakened by the intense local heat and began bending, the structure above with its immense weight and inertia when moving became unstoppable.
If this were implausible, thousands of steel structure engineers across the country and world would have complained. Few or none did. A mathematician is not a structural engineer.
Mar 7, 2014 18:27:49 #
Violameister wrote:
The burning building in Spain did not have an airp... (show quote)
Thousands are complaining.
Over 2,000 on this site: http://www.ae911truth.org/
Thousands more on this site: http://patriotsquestion911.com/
Firefighters don't believe the official conspiracy theory either: http://web.archive.org/web/20110911032318/firefightersfor911truth.org/
If you watch the videos of the planes hitting the buildings you will see that most of the jet fuel burned up in the air outside the towers.
No plane hit the 47 story WTC7 yet it fell at free fall speed just like a classic controlled demolition
Mar 7, 2014 19:28:28 #
larrypayne wrote:
Thousands are complaining. br br Over 2,000 on th... (show quote)
Also the planes hit off center. But the buildings came straight down. It does not add up for me.
Mar 7, 2014 19:39:33 #
Building 7 did it for me. There is no reason whatsoever a) the building should have caught fire, and b) the building should have dropped.
Mar 7, 2014 20:31:34 #
TrainNut wrote:
Also the planes hit off center. But the buildings came straight down. It does not add up for me.
Isn't it amazing that so many in the world don't understand physics enough to see through this big lie. It's basic high school physics.
Even if you missed high school physics common sense should tell you the way the buildings fell is impossible without explosive demolition.
Mar 7, 2014 20:41:14 #
Ambrose wrote:
Building 7 did it for me. There is no reason whatsoever a) the building should have caught fire, and b) the building should have dropped.
If the small fires in the lower floors of WTC7 could have caused the building to drop a couple of floors the 40 undamaged floors above would have stayed together. How can anyone be made to believe that those small fires could cause the entire building to disintegrate straight down into its own footprint like a classic controlled demolition. Rudy Guliani's Office of Emergency Management was in the building. Could it be possible that office contained equipment for sequencing the explosives that brought down the twin towers? Once WTC7 was blown up, the evidence was destroyed along with a lot of Enron records.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.