MsTerry
07-05-2008, 09:21 AM
https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7485331.stm
View Full Version : Con's piracy?
Lenny
07-06-2008, 06:17 AM
https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7485331.stm
Is it "no rest for the wicked" or "no rest for the weary"?
What IF there's a group that "proves" it was "conspiracy"?
Then what?
The other group will say "physics".
No rest in either case. But thanks.
Is it "no rest for the wicked" or "no rest for the weary"?
What IF there's a group that "proves" it was "conspiracy"?
Then what?
The other group will say "physics".
No rest in either case. But thanks.
MsTerry
07-06-2008, 08:34 AM
To see a building go down so smoothly is quite astonishing.
I have only seen it done with demolition- control.
The real question is of course Why? and Who? and For what purpose?
Is it "no rest for the wicked" or "no rest for the weary"?
What IF there's a group that "proves" it was "conspiracy"?
Then what?
The other group will say "physics".
No rest in either case. But thanks.
I have only seen it done with demolition- control.
The real question is of course Why? and Who? and For what purpose?
Is it "no rest for the wicked" or "no rest for the weary"?
What IF there's a group that "proves" it was "conspiracy"?
Then what?
The other group will say "physics".
No rest in either case. But thanks.
Lenny
07-07-2008, 08:48 AM
To see a building go down so smoothly is quite astonishing. I have only seen it done with demolition- control.
Yeah, that was WAY cool. I really enjoyed it and watched it several times.
It did fall as if it was controlled. Simultaneity is a difficult effect to achieve in times of chaos, eh?
The real question is of course Why? and Who? and For what purpose?
The Purpose: money
Why: money
Who: all who love money more than......
Or we can play Pick One:
Who: Pick a group
Why: Pick that "reason"
For What Purpose: see above Group & Reason.
They all fit. At least for an idiot such as I.
Yeah, that was WAY cool. I really enjoyed it and watched it several times.
It did fall as if it was controlled. Simultaneity is a difficult effect to achieve in times of chaos, eh?
The real question is of course Why? and Who? and For what purpose?
The Purpose: money
Why: money
Who: all who love money more than......
Or we can play Pick One:
Who: Pick a group
Why: Pick that "reason"
For What Purpose: see above Group & Reason.
They all fit. At least for an idiot such as I.
Braggi
07-07-2008, 09:24 AM
Yeah, that was WAY cool. I really enjoyed it and watched it several times.
It did fall as if it was controlled. ...
Yeah, it did fall as if controlled. I can explain how the twin towers melted from the center out and imploded "controlled" style. They were huge blow torches generating temperatures in the thousands of degrees in the center while remaining cooler toward the outside layers. The centers caved in and the outsides (mostly) fell into the gap. The fact that some major pieces of debris did fall to the outside argues against controlled demo.
Building 7 is different. It collapsed from the bottom floor up, which, is actually consistent with the official story: that fires started in the lower floors and burned for hours, weakening the lower floors so it fell from the bottom first and collapsed floor by floor in a seeming upward fashion. It just looks too clean in that video, though.
I'd like to see better videos of the twin towers as well as building 7. Thing is, there are now faked videos circulating on such places as YouTube that exaggerate what actually happened. The more time that goes by, the less likely we'll ever get to the bottom of it.
I'd also like to see videos of other steel framed skyscrapers collapsing because of fires for comparison. Oh ... that never happened anywhere else. Damn.
-Jeff
It did fall as if it was controlled. ...
Yeah, it did fall as if controlled. I can explain how the twin towers melted from the center out and imploded "controlled" style. They were huge blow torches generating temperatures in the thousands of degrees in the center while remaining cooler toward the outside layers. The centers caved in and the outsides (mostly) fell into the gap. The fact that some major pieces of debris did fall to the outside argues against controlled demo.
Building 7 is different. It collapsed from the bottom floor up, which, is actually consistent with the official story: that fires started in the lower floors and burned for hours, weakening the lower floors so it fell from the bottom first and collapsed floor by floor in a seeming upward fashion. It just looks too clean in that video, though.
I'd like to see better videos of the twin towers as well as building 7. Thing is, there are now faked videos circulating on such places as YouTube that exaggerate what actually happened. The more time that goes by, the less likely we'll ever get to the bottom of it.
I'd also like to see videos of other steel framed skyscrapers collapsing because of fires for comparison. Oh ... that never happened anywhere else. Damn.
-Jeff
Lorrie
07-07-2008, 01:20 PM
I'd also like to see videos of other steel framed skyscrapers collapsing because of fires for comparison. Oh ... that never happened anywhere else. Damn.
-Jeff
Because of fires? In that sense, I think I have some extra fireworks...and there is The Bethleham Tower?
I don't know where to get a plane that big!
Just kidding...
-Jeff
Because of fires? In that sense, I think I have some extra fireworks...and there is The Bethleham Tower?
I don't know where to get a plane that big!
Just kidding...
MsTerry
07-07-2008, 02:14 PM
you bring up a good point, the video could be manufactured.
If there was a fire on the lower floor, my guess would be that one corner would collapse before another one did, which would produce a different kind of collapse. It would fall more to one side or the other.
Yeah, it did fall as if controlled. I can explain how the twin towers melted from the center out and imploded "controlled" style. They were huge blow torches generating temperatures in the thousands of degrees in the center while remaining cooler toward the outside layers. The centers caved in and the outsides (mostly) fell into the gap. The fact that some major pieces of debris did fall to the outside argues against controlled demo.
Building 7 is different. It collapsed from the bottom floor up, which, is actually consistent with the official story: that fires started in the lower floors and burned for hours, weakening the lower floors so it fell from the bottom first and collapsed floor by floor in a seeming upward fashion. It just looks too clean in that video, though.
I'd like to see better videos of the twin towers as well as building 7. Thing is, there are now faked videos circulating on such places as YouTube that exaggerate what actually happened. The more time that goes by, the less likely we'll ever get to the bottom of it.
I'd also like to see videos of other steel framed skyscrapers collapsing because of fires for comparison. Oh ... that never happened anywhere else. Damn.
-Jeff
If there was a fire on the lower floor, my guess would be that one corner would collapse before another one did, which would produce a different kind of collapse. It would fall more to one side or the other.
Yeah, it did fall as if controlled. I can explain how the twin towers melted from the center out and imploded "controlled" style. They were huge blow torches generating temperatures in the thousands of degrees in the center while remaining cooler toward the outside layers. The centers caved in and the outsides (mostly) fell into the gap. The fact that some major pieces of debris did fall to the outside argues against controlled demo.
Building 7 is different. It collapsed from the bottom floor up, which, is actually consistent with the official story: that fires started in the lower floors and burned for hours, weakening the lower floors so it fell from the bottom first and collapsed floor by floor in a seeming upward fashion. It just looks too clean in that video, though.
I'd like to see better videos of the twin towers as well as building 7. Thing is, there are now faked videos circulating on such places as YouTube that exaggerate what actually happened. The more time that goes by, the less likely we'll ever get to the bottom of it.
I'd also like to see videos of other steel framed skyscrapers collapsing because of fires for comparison. Oh ... that never happened anywhere else. Damn.
-Jeff
Lenny
07-08-2008, 02:09 PM
A simplistic view is the inverted T.
Those buildings are built that way and tied into each other. Move or weaken that connection point, via conflagration or bang, and that portion moves down. Move all four and inward collapse is guaranteed. Fun stuff for the easily amused.
Those buildings are built that way and tied into each other. Move or weaken that connection point, via conflagration or bang, and that portion moves down. Move all four and inward collapse is guaranteed. Fun stuff for the easily amused.