9/11

[_Res Ipsa]

So tell me, have you observed collapsing skyscrapers before so that you know what they look like? I don't let delusional people tell me what to think.

[_The Man in Black]

So tell me, have you observed collapsing skyscrapers before so that you know what they look like? I don't let delusional people tell me what to think.

Yes, I've seen many... here's a building 'collapse' (in fact, this is a pancake collapse, which we were told was what happened to the WTC's:



Now compare that to this:




See the problem and difference?

[_Res Ipsa]

Yes, the problem is that you think you can draw conclusions based on a few pictures and some "common sense," when in fact you don't know what the f*** you are talking about. I know you know that the two buildings aren't comparable, but you just don't care about the facts. I've been through this dozens of times with you deluded truthers. The truth is out there, but it doesn't fit in with your paranoid delusions.

[_Bond James Bond]

Not that I recall so knock yourself out. by the way I think the Al-Queda guys did it.

By the way BJB... I LOVE MASH... I'm surprised you don't have a Col. Flagg quote... he was a classic character with classic quotes and one for the ages of TV!

Only so many characters for signatures.

[_Sethbag]

Oh Jesus damned Christ, get a life.

By the way, I've seen plenty of videos of buildings being imploded on purpose to make way for new buildings. They destroy a few load-bearing beams and whatnot around the base of the buildings and they just collapse in on themselves not unlike the WTCs did. And they create huge dust clouds just like the WTCs did. And they result in mounds of twisted rubble, just like the WTCs did.

So the WTCs collapsed. This is nothing new. That you believe there is a difference in how the WTCs would have looked collapsing due to the explanations given officially, as opposed to having been collapsed by the gubment, is completely unjustifiable. You have no idea how they'd look. Here's a hint: look at the pictures. That's how it looked.

[_Sethbag]

Lest anyone read what I just posted and think I'm agreeing with the lame truther, I'm not. I saw the videos of the towers falling. I watched it live on TV. They fell after being hit by airliners loaded with tens of thousnds of gallons of jet fuel crashed into them at hundreds of miles an hour, and after this fuel and other combustibles already in the towers burned for some period of time. The upper stories above the impact sights then started to collapse, which created a collapse momentum which the lower stories couldn't resist, and they all went tumbling down, turning to powdery rubble in the same way old casinos do when they're imploded to make way for shinier new casinos.

[_Bret Ripley]

I refuse to get sucked into this thread unless the Illuminati is implicated. Or Bigfoot. Preferably both.

(Aside to Ceeboo: reckon this would be a good place for a raccoon?)

[_lulu]

It's not a matter of being right or wrong ajax... it's a matter of truth

Definately sig worthy.

Might one argue that the truth is right and what is wrong is not truth?

[_The Man in Black]

Yes, the problem is that you think you can draw conclusions based on a few pictures and some "common sense," when in fact you don't know what the f*** you are talking about. I know you know that the two buildings aren't comparable, but you just don't care about the facts. I've been through this dozens of times with you deluded truthers. The truth is out there, but it doesn't fit in with your paranoid delusions.

Believe what you want - I'm just trying to awaken and inform others as to the truth about this issue. And using the term f*** on an LDS discussion forum? Nice.

[_The Man in Black]

Oh Jesus f*****g Christ, get a life.

You sure you belong on an LDS discussion forum?

By the way, I've seen plenty of videos of buildings being imploded on purpose to make way for new buildings. They destroy a few load-bearing beams and whatnot around the base of the buildings and they just collapse in on themselves not unlike the WTCs did. And they create huge dust clouds just like the WTCs did. And they result in mounds of twisted rubble, just like the WTCs did.

We're getting somewhere... ... the key term here being 'destroy'. What causes those big billowing dust clouds from buildings that are demo'd? Right... explosives. Are you putting 2 and 2 together yet?

So the WTCs collapsed. This is nothing new.

They didn't 'collapse'... they were incinerated from the top down into disintegrating piles of dust and pulverized concrete and I hate to break it to you, but gravity cannot do that. And how do you explain the molten steel 'flowing like lava' in the basements and the smoking pile of rubble that lasted for months after 9/11? Jet fuel is 75% kerosene and does NOT burn hot and 90% of the fuel was consumed in the fireballs outside of the buildings anyway. Think man... use your God-given noggin.

That you believe there is a difference in how the WTCs would have looked collapsing due to the explanations given officially, as opposed to having been collapsed by the gubment, is completely unjustifiable. You have no idea how they'd look. Here's a hint: look at the pictures. That's how it looked.

I'm smart enough to know how basic laws of physics work and what the WTC's did was break the law of conservation of momentum... 110 stories... pulverized... in almost perfect symmetry... at literally free fall speed... in 10-12 seconds... a physical impossibility, unless they had a LOT of help (which they did). Tell me... how does 10-12 stories crush 100 floors in 10-12 seconds and go through it all as if there weren't any perfectly in-tact structure below, all while bursting into powder? Gravity isn't explosive. Good luck.