I would puy my money that dog is still so desperate for my attention that he is still talking to himself.which would be addressing me thinking I read his moronic posts.am I right or right? oh come on people,dont avoid the question and be a coward that I made a good point there,give me an answer? I see everybody chose to be a coward and not answer that question on that other thread I posed that on. 🙄
okay I finally have a little time on my hands so I have the proof to give you now that according to what the engineers said.the towers could only have come down by explosives.first though I am going to post facts that prove this.I am reading the book TOWERS OF DECEPTION the media cover up of 9-11 by Barry Zwicker..this is a must read if you really want to know the truth about 9-11.page 657 it addresses this-the title is WTC collapses reveal 11 feautures of controlled demolition.
the towers fell straight down through themselves.
the twin towers tops mushroomed outward into vast clouds of pulverized concrete and shattered steel-totally inconsistant with just a tower merely collapsing and the pictures show that.
the collapses exhibited demolition squibs "puffs of dusts" shooting out of the towers.
the towers came down completely-as i have said time and time again,you wont see that in a mere collapse of a building,you guys always ignore that point though.
the towers fell at a rate only slightly slower than freefall in a vacume.
there wa oral testimony published on the NYT website of people hearing explosions by intense blast waves that shattered windows in buildins 400 feet away.
the steel skelitons were consistantly shredded into short pieces,common in sophisticated demolitions,so they could easily be carried away by the equipment used to dispose of debris.
eyewitnesses reported explosions before and at the outset of the collapses.
molten steel was found at the base of the twin towers 3 weeks after 9-11 indicating much more energy was involved in the destruction than that associated with aircraft impact,burning jet fuel and a mechanical pancaking collapse.
okay page 67.this gets better because the title is WTC twin towers were designed to withstand impact of a Boeing 707.
it goes on to state Robert MacNamara president of the engineering firm MacNamara and Salvia,was quoted on scientificamerican.com oct 9th 2001 saying-the wolrd trade center was probably one of the more resistant tall building structures.Nowadays,they just dont build them as tough.
it also goe on to say -Hyman Brown,the construction manager of the twin towers said-they were over designed to withstand almost anything,including hurricanes...bombings and an airplane hitting them.you can find that quote by him by going to www.911research.wtc7.net there you will his words under the title Designers anticipated jet impacts like september 11th.
the nist report goes on to say-the towers would have remained standing were it not for the dislodged insulation and the subsequent multi floor fires.so nists official theory-talk about conspiracy theoryits,LOL.they are them if any are,THEY'RE theory is a fire theory.yet fire never has caused large steel framed buildings to collapse before or after 9-11.
Kevin Ryan was the site manager of the environmental health laboratories which certified the steel components used of the WTC buildings.He wrote an open letter to a government scientist,frank gayle at NIST,questioning NISTS on oct 19th 2004 report that fuel fires caused the three towers to collapse.the letter pointed out that the steel in the towers tested up to its certified standard and so would easily withstand temperatures caused by burning jet fuel.a chemist by profession Ryan wrote The three WTC buildings in question werent all designed the same way and werent all hit by airplanes.The only thing they seemed to have in common were relatively small and manageable fires.
One week later after sending that letter to NIST,Ryan was fired.seems thats happening all over the country in schools and businesses when a person such as ryan speaks out against the official version.well thats a start for what I have right now,I will indeed be posting more later.but the thing that proves beyond a doubt that explosives were used was the eyewitness testimony by survivors and firfighters,thats no exxagerration when I say they all heard EXPLOSIONS going off and thought that bombs had been set off.some who were there in 93 when bombs were set off then,were saying it was the same kind of explosions they heard back in 93 and thought it was the act of terrorists setting off bombs again.Thats all documented in tapes they have released with them all saying things like-oh my god,EXLOSIONS are being set off.in mere collapse of a building,your not going to have explosions going off like the witnesses reported hearing and its sure as hell not going to freefall over a fire.jesus christ.
Originally posted by Mr Parker
I would puy my money that dog is still so desperate for my attention that he is still talking to himself.which would be addressing me thinking I read his moronic posts.am I right or right?
Your hard-on for me is creepy.
Originally posted by Mr Parker
oh come on people,dont avoid the question and be a coward that I made a good point there,give me an answer? I see everybody chose to be a coward and not answer that question on that other thread I posed that on. 🙄
So says the coward who will not engage me in any debate whatsoever.
As for your ridiculous claims, http://www.debunking911.com/ pretty much wipes them all out.
Originally posted by KharmaDogAs for your ridiculous claims, http://www.debunking911.com/ pretty much wipes them all out.
It's funny that you dismiss deano's arguments whenever he Copies & Paste articles. But, it's perfectly okay to link to a site whenever points are brought up. Besides, that site simply refutes arguments from 911truth organization.
Originally posted by Sandai Kitetsu
It's funny that you dismiss deano's arguments whenever he Copies & Paste articles. But, it's perfectly okay to link to a site whenever points are brought up.
It's not funny at all, and posting that link is perfectly o.k. Let me tell you why:
I dismiss deano's posts because he is unable to communicate any thought or intelligent argument in his own words. He continually posts extensive quotes and posts numerous links becuase he is completely unable to defend his position or points on his own and relies on the oft-misguided words of others.
I post my own thoughts, formulate my own arguments and debate using my own words more often than not. There is no shame in posting a link or quote to either back your argument or contradict the point of another, it is a completely different thing to base your entire posting history on posting the thoughts and words of others. There is a big difference. I would think you could recognise it as such.
Originally posted by Sandai Kitetsu
Besides, that site simply refutes arguments from 911truth organization.
In a clear, concise, and scientifically accurate manner without stooping to fabricating evidence or intentionally misrepresenting facts or quotes as many of Deano's or Parker's resources have in the past.
That site also explains away many of Parker's lame arguments and soft points, that is why I posted it.
Originally posted by KharmaDog
It's not funny at all, and posting that link [b]is perfectly o.k. Let me tell you why:
I dismiss deano's posts because he is unable to communicate any thought or intelligent argument in his own words. He continually posts extensive quotes and posts numerous links becuase he is completely unable to defend his position or points on his own and relies on the oft-misguided words of others.I post my own thoughts, formulate my own arguments and debate using my own words more often than not. There is no shame in posting a link or quote to either back your argument or contradict the point of another, it is a completely different thing to base your entire posting history on posting the thoughts and words of others. There is a big difference. I would think you could recognise it as such.[/B]
Where he gets his sources from is entirely irrelevant to a debate. That's a genetic fallacy to dismiss an argument because it did not originate from Deano. Also, where were your thoughts when you posted that link? You simply linked to a site, and that was your argument. What exactly is original about that?
Originally posted by KharmaDog
In a clear, concise, and scientifically accurate manner without stooping to fabricating evidence or intentionally misrepresenting facts or quotes as many of Deano's or Parker's resources have in the past.
That site also explains away many of Parker's lame arguments and soft points, that is why I posted it.
Unless parker supports the theory's concocted by Steven Jones then that link is pointless.
Originally posted by Sandai Kitetsu
Where he gets his sources from is entirely irrelevant to a debate.
The main jist of my point is that he doesn't have a point at all. He has others make his point for him.
Originally posted by Sandai Kitetsu
That's a genetic fallacy to dismiss an argument because it did not originate from Deano.
Originally posted by Sandai Kitetsu
Also, where were your thoughts when you posted that link? You simply linked to a site, and that was your argument. What exactly is original about that?
Once again, you miss the point. I am saying that posting a link or quote is not a bad thing. Using the words of others as your sole mode, method or means of communication is.
Originally posted by Sandai Kitetsu
Unless parker supports the theory's concocted by Steven Jones then that link is pointless.
Unless of course the theories that Parker supports and espouses are addressed in link I provided.
Originally posted by Sandai Kitetsu
I see, so you want to legitamately get to know Deano's opinion rather than what an article claims. I understand, I would be upset as well if my friend were to give me a response that does not include his opinion.
Exactly. And thank you for taking the time to try and understand the point that I was trying to make.
Originally posted by KharmaDog
Your hard-on for me is creepy.So says the coward who will not engage me in any debate whatsoever.
As for your ridiculous claims, http://www.debunking911.com/ pretty much wipes them all out.
ive been to that site a fair few times and its false at BEST. i wudnt expect any more of one which has an edited picture of the collapse anyway. caught at an angle where no camera could see through the debris cloud at the top of the building nor was the building bending in the real footage the way it showed. its simply a site to put people under the illusions that SOMEHOW, unplanned collapses of LARGE buildings are by their nature systematic and cant TOPPLE any ways but down. or that in extraordinarily chaotic force induced systems debris and towers can{hit on different places at different times by different planes} easily fall at the rate of nearly 9.8 metres per second squared. or that somehow, explosive exhaust, which are physically impossible in building collapses plus the explosive sounds and visual radiation emittion just HAPPENS to be in the exact physical weakspots a demolition expert would choose and detonated exactly as a systematic collapse would require. NOOOOO these are ALL coincidences{unique to the twin towers collapse until now} which can be EASILY explained with a little knowhow of engineering and physics written by people who if, pre 9-11 proposed these ideas to any builder or architect/angineer would be given a smack on the head. or how about the fact that buildings which wer hit at the top COLLAPSED from the bottom UP. or ythe fact that the explosive jets seen could NOT have been amitted by debris as even in a HOLLOW cylinder debris cant travel faster than the acceleration due to gravity and could not have gotten so far down in ANY case. not to mention the twin towers were anything BUT hollow towers. for cryin out loud they had FLOORS which were undamaged and mre than enough to stop/slow the passage of ANY debris inside the building which could possibly cause those jets. im not even gonna TRY and comment on the molten steal explanation of mushrooming. its so utterly ridiculous {not to mention despite their claims, NEVER happened in any other collapse of any recordable building, yay another first for 9-11} that it deserves to be avoided. this isnt an attack at you personally. but honestly the world needs to grow a BRAIN.
actually the reason for this is the media{and american government}'s ability to SPIN the story. first off they overwhelmingly portray the untrue side of the story without even MENTIONING{reguardless of popularity in the world which woul in itself warrant a media story} the other side. this is true for almost all networks, liberal and conservative. then the ruling patriots among them officially {but illogically} discredit any1 who tries to speak out even a lil as the majority right wing people and leaders dont care for logi but rather for emotionally explosive speaches. and then online{with sites like u mentioned} they warp the story up so much given tons of false counter evidence which is psuedo scientific{but not to the untrained eye} that even the average conspiracy theorist or curious person is confused on what to believe and leaves the matter as such. because to THEM theres no conclusive argument they can UNDERSTAND. its like a kid coming up and telling you sum1 beat him up and you saw it. but then you ask the kid a ton of lawer like question {which he doesnt really have the resources to address in a timely manner} concerning his mental state at the time, hypersensitivity to pain, delusions, cry for attention and have convinced half of the ONLOOKERS to the incident, that either the other boy just chaked his hands or that the victim dreamt it up or that the victim actually BEAT up the other guy and has turned the incident on its heals.{after all, all you saw was a tussle maam, can you be ABSOLUTELY sure that it wasnt the other boy being beat up}. its a bit like establishing doubt in a jury in a murder trial when all the evidence leads to the victim being guilty. if the jury can no get to the conclusion WITHOUT ALL POSSIBLE DOUBT then the person goes free even if every jurour believes he is guilty. thats the tactic overloading your brain with counter psuedo scientific info. in the end youl be indifferent and wont suppor the bleedingly obvious viewpoint. in the end people just end up believing what is most convenient ot them without any care for the truth. and thats what sites like this provide, a CONVENIENT truth for americans.
Certainly the towers were designed with aircraft impacts in mind, especially being as large as they were, but do you honestly think that the designers ever thought that someone would fly an aircraft as big as a Boeing 737, topped off with jet fuel, flying at 600 mph, into the towers? I don't think any sort of structural design could protect any building from an impact like that. Robert MacNamara was right, they were extremely strong buildings, but no building could withstand an impact like the World Trade center withstood.
And, it wasn't just fire alone that caused the collapse, I'm still not sure why people say this. It's as if the airplanes didn't even exist to some people... the fires were jet fuel fires, and very, very hot. Not only that, but they occurred AFTER the impact of a massive passenger airliner, carrying thousands of gallons of the stuff, since the aircraft were all travelling nonstop across the United States. Don't discount the massive amounts of damage these impacts cause and cite the collapse as have been caused by a fire alone. Steel can't withstand the fire and hold the building up if it's been smashed and crushed by the impact of a jetliner.
relatively small and manageable fires
HAHAHA, ok, I'm done. Sorry. Just think about this for a second.
Now I do respect, Parker, that you did in fact get this information, and there are in fact three names there. However, none of them openly came out and said that it was impossible for the towers to have collapsed under the circumstances. Ryan sent a letter expressing his concern, yes, but if he was so certain this was a massive government cover-up he's been awfully quiet for the past 6 years.
Originally posted by Sandai Kitetsu
Where he gets his sources from is entirely irrelevant to a debate. That's a genetic fallacy to dismiss an argument because it did not originate from Deano. Also, where were your thoughts when you posted that link? You simply linked to a site, and that was your argument. What exactly is original about that?Unless parker supports the theory's concocted by Steven Jones then that link is pointless.
yeah great point. 😄 the thing that he cant get around by posting that laughable link is the recordings that were captured that day and have been released thanks to a freedom of information act that was filed where in those recordings that you hear at that moment, you hear the firefighters saying in those recordings that the fires are manageable and they should have them out soon,and then they are on the tape saying things like-Oh my god,there are explosions going off,there are bombs that have been planted.I have heard those recordings myself.dont know why you even bother him with ashtar,he is not interested in the truth.he keeps swallowing all this propaganda by the media.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
actually the reason for this is the media{and american government}'s ability to SPIN the story. first off they overwhelmingly portray the untrue side of the story without even MENTIONING{reguardless of popularity in the world which woul in itself warrant a media story} the other side. this is true for almost all networks, liberal and conservative. then the ruling patriots among them officially {but illogically} discredit any1 who tries to speak out even a lil as the majority right wing people and leaders dont care for logi but rather for emotionally explosive speaches. and then online{with sites like u mentioned} they warp the story up so much given tons of false counter evidence which is psuedo scientific{but not to the untrained eye} that even the average conspiracy theorist or curious person is confused on what to believe and leaves the matter as such. because to THEM theres no conclusive argument they can UNDERSTAND.its like a kid coming up and telling you sum1 beat him up and you saw it. but then you ask the kid a ton of lawer like question {which he doesnt really have the resources to address in a timely manner} concerning his mental state at the time, hypersensitivity to pain, delusions, cry for attention and have convinced half of the ONLOOKERS to the incident, that either the other boy just chaked his hands or that the victim dreamt it up or that the victim actually BEAT up the other guy and has turned the incident on its heals.{after all, all you saw was a tussle maam, can you be ABSOLUTELY sure that it wasnt the other boy being beat up}. its a bit like establishing doubt in a jury in a murder trial when all the evidence leads to the victim being guilty. if the jury can no get to the conclusion WITHOUT ALL POSSIBLE DOUBT then the person goes free even if every jurour believes he is guilty. thats the tactic overloading your brain with counter psuedo scientific info. in the end youl be indifferent and wont suppor the bleedingly obvious viewpoint. in the end people just end up believing what is most convenient ot them without any care for the truth. and thats what sites like this provide, a CONVENIENT truth for americans.
great point leon. thought I would space out your post for you because if you dont put it in paragraph form,it will go unread.that first part of your paragraph that I spaced out for you, hits the nail right on the head and is so true.
Originally posted by J-Beowulf
Certainly the towers were designed with aircraft impacts in mind, especially being as large as they were, but do you honestly think that the designers ever thought that someone would fly an aircraft as big as a Boeing 737, topped off with jet fuel, flying at 600 mph, into the towers? I don't think any sort of structural design could protect any building from an impact like that. Robert MacNamara was right, they were extremely strong buildings, but no building could withstand an impact like the World Trade center withstood.And, it wasn't just fire alone that caused the collapse, I'm still not sure why people say this. It's as if the airplanes didn't even exist to some people... the fires were jet fuel fires, and very, very hot. Not only that, but they occurred AFTER the impact of a massive passenger airliner, carrying thousands of gallons of the stuff, since the aircraft were all travelling nonstop across the United States. Don't discount the massive amounts of damage these impacts cause and cite the collapse as have been caused by a fire alone. Steel can't withstand the fire and hold the building up if it's been smashed and crushed by the impact of a jetliner.
HAHAHA, ok, I'm done. Sorry. Just think about this for a second.
Now I do respect, Parker, that you did in fact get this information, and there are in fact three names there. However, none of them openly came out and said that it was impossible for the towers to have collapsed under the circumstances. Ryan sent a letter expressing his concern, yes, but if he was so certain this was a massive government cover-up he's been awfully quiet for the past 6 years.
actually thats not true at all.He gave an extensive interview in rock creek free press about a couple of months ago -a newspaper devoted to the truth about 9-11 where he goes into all kinds of details why the pupular mechanics investigation of 9-11 is full of lies and distortions,just like screw loose change is which lord xyz so blindly worships as the truth.also J,those things you posted were posted AFTER 9-11.what a couple more enginners and designers said who i will be posting soon said BEFORE 9-11 is nothing what they said there.that part that you qouted was by one of the engineers AFTER 9-11 but BEOFRE it all,his toon was totally different.They obviously got to him with threats and made him change his story because thats not what he said ORIGINALLY.Also as you can see in the pics,the south tower begins to tilt right before it implodes upwards.totally inconsistant with what a jet fuel fire would do is cause an IMPLOSION upwards.that imposion of bombs set off,conviently kept the tower from tilting to the right and falling off away from the collapse because the tapes clearly show it tilting away from the collapse before the implosions of bombs that were set off.also they were small managable fires because the majority of the explosions took place outside the towers when the planes struck.whne they first hit,you see a big flame of orange,where after its been there for a while as those photos show,the fire was not intense enough to cause any majot damage because it is just showing black smoke coming out of the blds,seriously think about it for once,if its just black smoke coming out of the buildings,then the fire is not that intense and is not that dangerous.where if it was like the madrid buildings,where it was a blaze of orange everywhere its an intense fire and again that madrid building in spain burned for 5 days without falling,and please done use that lame excuse of it was the jets also that caused it to collapse because thats not what the engineers said BEFORE 9-11 which i wii show soon.
okay if you REALLY want to know the truth about 9-11 unlike people like Kharma Dog,J-Beoulf,,then you really should read this book by David Ray Griffin called Debunking 9/11 Debunking, an answer to popular mechanics and other defenders of the official conspiracy theory.
He really knows his stuff.He wrote a couple of other books also on the topic that just shread to pieces the offical version called The New Pearl Harbour. Disturbing questions about the Bush administration and 9/11. "2004" and also,The 9/11 Commission Report.Omissions and Distortions."2005" and 9/11 and the american empire. "2006" but THIS book -Debunking 9/11 Debunking shoots down that pathetic Popular Mechanics theorys that embrace the offical version.Its a MUST read book if you want to know the truth.I should ALSO point out that people really take him seriously unlike some people do with alex jones because he is much more calm when he gives his lectures unlike alex jones.a lot of people dont take jones serious because of how he gets so excited in his videos,but david ray griffith they defenetely listen to because like i said,unlike jones he is calm when he gives his lectures about 9/11.so hold on and I will be posting some other names for you soon as well.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
ive been to that site a fair few times and its false at BEST. i wudnt expect any more of one which has an edited picture of the collapse anyway. caught at an angle where no camera could see through the debris cloud at the top of the building nor was the building bending in the real footage the way it showed. its simply a site to put people under the illusions that SOMEHOW, unplanned collapses of LARGE buildings are by their nature systematic and cant TOPPLE any ways but down. or that in extraordinarily chaotic force induced systems debris and towers can{hit on different places at different times by different planes} easily fall at the rate of nearly 9.8 metres per second squared. or that somehow, explosive exhaust, which are physically impossible in building collapses plus the explosive sounds and visual radiation emittion just HAPPENS to be in the exact physical weakspots a demolition expert would choose and detonated exactly as a systematic collapse would require. NOOOOO these are ALL coincidences{unique to the twin towers collapse until now} which can be EASILY explained with a little knowhow of engineering and physics written by people who if, pre 9-11 proposed these ideas to any builder or architect/angineer would be given a smack on the head. or how about the fact that buildings which wer hit at the top COLLAPSED from the bottom UP. or ythe fact that the explosive jets seen could NOT have been amitted by debris as even in a HOLLOW cylinder debris cant travel faster than the acceleration due to gravity and could not have gotten so far down in ANY case. not to mention the twin towers were anything BUT hollow towers. for cryin out loud they had FLOORS which were undamaged and mre than enough to stop/slow the passage of ANY debris inside the building which could possibly cause those jets. im not even gonna TRY and comment on the molten steal explanation of mushrooming. its so utterly ridiculous {not to mention despite their claims, NEVER happened in any other collapse of any recordable building, yay another first for 9-11} that it deserves to be avoided. this isnt an attack at you personally. but honestly the world needs to grow a BRAIN.
not only that folks but witnesses that were there that day have gone gone to these 9/11 conventions such as firefighters saying that the medis has twisted their words and havent reported what they really said.again all you got to do to stop litening to those kinds of sites and START reading books like the one I mentioned TOWERS OF DECEPTION the media coverup of 9/11 and Debunking 9/11 debunking. and listen to all the guests that alex jones brings on his radio shows. 🙄
somthing that also amazes me is how my point was ignored that your not going to have molten steel STILL melting 3 weeks later AFTER it was sprayed down and hosed no less by the fire department over just a fire caused by an aircraft. 🙄
Originally posted by J-Beowulf
Certainly the towers were designed with aircraft impacts in mind, especially being as large as they were, but do you honestly think that the designers ever thought that someone would fly an aircraft as big as a Boeing 737, topped off with jet fuel, flying at 600 mph, into the towers? I don't think any sort of structural design could protect any building from an impact like that. Robert MacNamara was right, they were extremely strong buildings, but no building could withstand an impact like the World Trade center withstood.And, it wasn't just fire alone that caused the collapse, I'm still not sure why people say this. It's as if the airplanes didn't even exist to some people... the fires were jet fuel fires, and very, very hot. Not only that, but they occurred AFTER the impact of a massive passenger airliner, carrying thousands of gallons of the stuff, since the aircraft were all travelling nonstop across the United States. Don't discount the massive amounts of damage these impacts cause and cite the collapse as have been caused by a fire alone. Steel can't withstand the fire and hold the building up if it's been smashed and crushed by the impact of a jetliner.
HAHAHA, ok, I'm done. Sorry. Just think about this for a second.
Now I do respect, Parker, that you did in fact get this information, and there are in fact three names there. However, none of them openly came out and said that it was impossible for the towers to have collapsed under the circumstances. Ryan sent a letter expressing his concern, yes, but if he was so certain this was a massive government cover-up he's been awfully quiet for the past 6 years.
thats where your way off base and totally wrong besides the fact that you ignored all my other points I made in my first post that prove that could never happen like steel girders weighing tons are not going to fly out of the buildings several miles away from just a collapse of a building.use some logic and common sense for god sakes. 🙄 I would expect xyz or DOG to be stupid enough to believe something like that,but come on J YOU should be smarter than that.
not only that,this according to Griffiths book on page 146 he states-according to one anaysis,the Boeing 707 and 767 are very similiar aircraft,with the main differences being that the 767 is slightly heavier by about 20% and the 707 is faster.In all the likely variations of an accidental impact with the WTC,The Boeing 707 would be traveling faster.In terms of impact damage,this higher speed would more than compensate for the slightly lower weight of the Boeing 707.so if the twin towers were designed to survive the impact of a Boeing 707,then they were necessarily designed to survive the impact of a Boeing 767.Griffith goes on to say.
another author has written he says,quantifying the comparison,has written the kinetic energy released by the impact of a Boeing 767 at cruise speed is 3.706 billion ft lbs force.so under normal flying conditions,a boeing 707 would smash into the WTC with about 10 percent more energy than would be the slightly heavier Boeing 767.That is under normal flying conditions,a Boeing 707 would do more damage than a Boeing 767.Griffith got that information from www.whatreallyhappened.com quoted from Jim Hoffman-whom I have met and is very intelligent with the section headed -the world trade center demolition and at www.911research.wtc7.net under the title The WTC was designed to survive the impact of a boeing 767.
Griffith ALSO goes on to state this-the difference between the impacts of the boeing 767's on 9/11 and the impact of a 707 envisaged in the report from the 1960's,would,in fact,be even greater,because the 767's that hit the North and South towers were said to be traveling at 440 and 540 mph,respectively,whereas the report from the 1960s spoke of a 707 traveling at 600mph."that was made in the final report of NIST back in 2005 about how the towers were designed to withstand a hit from a boeing 707 back in the 60's at 600 mph" which Griffith pointed out the 767 was NOT traveling the speed of.so that kinda shoots down your theory J that it was flying at 600mph and sorry but the towers WERE built to withstand the hit from the boeing 767 airliner and the steel WAS strong enough to EASILY withstand the heat from the jet fuel fires and contrary to what you have been told,the fires were NOT hot at all.the pictures prove that.if the fires were hot as you like to believe,the buildings would have been in a gulf of orange throughout inside the entire buildings,the pics show people on the upper level of the towers looking out with no danger of fire at all.
Not only that but NIST but also-and you can find this out yourself just by going to the library and asking them for this tape which was made BEFORE 9-11 called MODERN MARVELS a pre 9/11 documentary where Fran De Martini -the on site construction manager of the twin towers,says on there- and I have seen this tape myself before I might add,he says-The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it,that was the largest plane at the time.I believe that the building could probably could sustain MULTIPLE impacts of jet airliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door-this intense grid-and the plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting.It really does nothing to the screen netting. like griffith goes on to say-so,whereas the port authority had said that the impact of a single boeing 707 would cause only local damage,De Martini said that this would also be true if there were MULTIPLE impacts.sorry J but i will listen to what these engineers say than links from a propaganda site from some government plant that Kharma refers to anyday of the year.if you were smart,so would you.
finally not only that,but John skilling who was responsible for the structural design of the twin towers back then said in "1993 after the bombing of the world trade towers,"that his analysis showed that if one of these buildings were to suffer a strike by a jet plane loaded with jet fuel,"there would be a horrendous fire" and "a lot of people would be killed" but "the building structure would still be there.." Leslie Robertson the lead engineer of that firm-skilling was his second in command is the ONLY one of those people involved in the construction of the towers who has gone on record and said that they could not have aniticipated the jet fuel and the 707 doing the amount of damage it did which caused it to collapse.he said that in the governments propaganda series WHY THE TOWERS FELL on that show by his INITITAL comments back in 93 were in line with skillings though that the towers were built to withstand the impact of a boeing 707 and that the fires would not cause damage.They obviously later got to him and threatened him when he said that on Nova because again,his comments on that towers back in 93 were the same as Skillings were.
the evidence there is overwhelming that the jet airliners and the jet fuel could not possibly have caused it to collapse.also if your not going to listen to what the engineers said when they constructed it,you cant ignore the tapes of the firefighters and witnesses on the scenes where you can here them in the firemens recordings that day saying the fires are not that big and manageable,the live footage confirms that. 🙄 because AGAIN,if your going to have a fire that is immensely hot,its going to be a blaze of orange in that building and the firefighters are not going to be able to go through it .that wasnt the case on 9/11 when it was just billowing smoke.duh.thats just logic and common sense.so enough of this crap that the towers collapsed was caused because the heat was really intense from the jet fuel which is impossible to get hot enough to mel steel crap and the jet airliners combined with that caused it crap i keep hearing because that has been proven by me to be complet Bull$hit.