9/11

Careful Irms...
Don't get yourself banned...

 

Good lookin' out.

 

I'll get us back on track.

When a moving body collides with a body of the same composition, two things happen. The moving body is slowed down, and the stationary body is moved. Does anyone disagree with that?

 

As I said before...............only on Tuesdays.........any other day of the week we'd call you insane.......oh wait

 

Wow! I ask again, Irmnsul, what do you have against science and the truth?

What you have written above is total drivel. The twin towers were designed to take the hit of a fully loaded 707/DC8. Never in the history of steel framed high rises has ANY building ever collapsed but you think it normal that three collapse on the same day, in the same city. That is the height of gullibility. Wanna buy a bridge?

=================
Statements by Engineers
Engineers who participated in the design of the World Trade Center have stated, since the attack, that the Towers were designed to withstand jetliner collisions. For example, Leslie Robertson, who is featured on many documentaries about the attack, said he "designed it for a (Boeing) 707 to hit it." 2 Statements and documents predating the attack indicate that engineers considered the effects of not only of jetliner impacts, but also of ensuing fires.

John Skilling
John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the World Trade Center. In a 1993 interview, Skilling stated that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a large jetliner such as Boeing 707 or Douglas DC-8.

Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there. 3
A white paper released on February 3, 1964 states that the Towers could have withstood impacts of jetliners travelling 600 mph -- a speed greater than the impact speed of either jetliner used on 9/11/01.

The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact. 4

9-11 Research: Towers' Design Parameters

 

As always, impressive evidence from the USGOCT conspiracy theorists.

 

How is that science? It's rediculous. It's the most pathetic argument I've ever heard on the subject. That warped steel means that there were no hijackers. They are two totally different scenarios that don't even belong in the same sentence. What happened to a building after it collapsed has absolutely no result or influence on whether or not a plane was hijacked 1000 miles away.

Now you might have your reason for conspiracy, but just because you're science and mathematics equations are suspect to whatever your arguing against, doesn't confirm that a plane could not have been hijacked.

Two planes hit the buildings. Everybody saw it. Hijacked or not, doesn't matter, you are not going to find any evidence in a pile of rubble.

 

When a moving body collides with a body of the same composition, two things happen. The moving body is slowed down, and the stationary body is moved. Does anyone disagree with that? And if so, explain.

Anyone?

 

You're a loser dude. If youve spent so much time on this you're just a loser. A pathetic loser. Lol.

Please continue to write long posts that I won't read so it gives you some purpose and resolve in your life. I'll be laughing, at you not with you.

 

Was that your answer to my question?

 

No. Lol.

 

Are you done yet? Fuck it I'm tired. Have fun parrotin'. Yes Polly wants a cracker

 

A lot of ranting, Irm, but no evidence and no rational discussion. [and bad spelling]

The steel wasn't warped. It was melted and vaporized. Why are you so ignorant on the science and the facts?

 

Yes, my question was complete.

When a moving body collides with a body of the same composition, two things happen. The moving body is slowed down, and the stationary body is moved. Does anyone disagree with that?

That's the entire question being asked. So, do you disagree with that statement?

 

English is not my first language. And your agurment is not rational either.

Its like saying "that house over there caught on fire so it must mean that a car was driving past it"

Everything you've posted, has nothing to do with anything.

 

Then you should be able to provide some evidence that two planes hit the buildings, or not. You haven't been able to provide any evidence at all. Nobody can provide any evidence for the USGOCT because there isn't any evidence.

 

Everything you've posted, has nothing to do with anything. All your posts suggest the building did not collapse because of the fire which has nothing to do with whether or not a plane was hijacked.

And if you can't see any planes hitting the building, you should have gone to specsavers.

 

Thanks for the heads up on the EFL/ESL.

Your story makes no sense, Irm.

FEMA, which is a branch of the US government studied and described the molten/vaporized WTC structural steel. The fuel sources that the "hijackers" had available to them could not have melted steel even if the towers burned for a century, let alone vaporize it.

US government/military nanothermite, which was discovered by US military scientists in the 1990s, was found in abundance in WTC dust. It had no legal or legitimate reason to be there. The explosive residue/by products of these nanothermite reactions were also found in WTC dust. Iron microspheres, a major by product of thermitic reactions was found to be about 6% of WTC dust, which means that a lot of nanothermite was used.

All this means that there were no Arab hijackers.

 

Should have gone to specsavers.

 

There isn't any conclusive evidence for planes hitting the buildings in this post of yours, Irm. There isn't any evidence at all that the planes that the USGOCT says hit the buildings actually did hit the buildings.