9/11

If you consider that reasonable, you clearly have no idea how a skyscraper is constructed.

 

I'll chalk it up to a lack of imagination. I guess you guys think skyscrapers are just big rectangles in the sky.

 

Imagination ???
You couldn't make it up could you !

 

Your qualifications are ?

 

I'm not an idiot, that's my qualification. Anyone who isn't STUPID knows that the official explanation is bogus. Certainly anyone who isn't an idiot knows that damage from falling debris isn't going to cause a skyscraper to collapse at free fall speed 7 hours later.

 

So in conclusion 99% of the western world is STUPID ? or an IDIOT
And a few You tubers With weird voices are the real Geniuses

 

I find it difficult to believe also that people are dumb enough to believe that fires did this. In the case of the South Tower less than an hour after being "engulfed in flames."

It's totally preposterous. You are a dunce if you believe it, yes.

 

Like Mally said. Give us your qualifications. You must be an architect, an engineer, a weapons professional, demolition expert. My God you are a genius with all those hats to wear.

 

I didn't say that I know what he meant. I said that I assume what he meant. You're getting jumpy, and you're just looking for something to talk about in the hope that everyone will forget that you can't explain how the upper block of the North Tower passed through the core structure below it at just 40 feet shy of freefall speed through the first 360 feet of drop. I don't blame you for trying to change the subject. If I were you, I wouldn't want readers to know that I had to even ask what the height of the core was. Apparently, you don't understand what that did to your credibility.

And not that I owe you an explanation, but I assume that that is what camlok meant because there has always been strong evidence that it was not a commercial airliner that struck the South Tower. However, I did subsequently private message him to ask him whether or not he thinks a plane hit the Tower. And he informed me that he believes that it wasn't a commercial airliner. So I hope that this relieves you of your conspiratorial belief that camlok and I are the same person plotting against you.
____________________________________________________________________

Now, when we last left off, I was trying to get you to answer a question.

So the question remains:

Is it reasonable to assume that the more heat damaged upper block would maintain it's integrity to the extent that it would destroy the intact core structure below at virtual freefall speed? Try not to get sidetracked between now and when you hit the reply button.

 

Answer Mine First ! ( there is a point to it )

 

That's like asking me to be an expert on thermodynamics to know that my toaster will toast bread. You don't have to be an expert to be a truther. All you need is common sense.

 

Well, you being one of 99% should qualify you to answer the following question:

Is it reasonable to assume that the more heat damaged upper block would maintain it's integrity to the extent that it would destroy the intact core structure below at virtual freefall speed?

 

That post you're answering was not even addressed to you. You should slow down and focus on your surroundings.

 

Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation

 

Another VG baldfaced lie. Always with zero evidence.

 

And all the other impossibilities that sink the USGOCT.

1. Molten/vaporized WTC steel.

2. Molten molybdenum.

3. Vaporized lead.

4. Iron microspheres.

5. US nanothermite.

6. No jolt for WTC1/free fall for first 6/7?? seconds.

7. ...

 

Your like a cracked record

 

You still have never ever provided any evidence, mallyboppa. Did you look it up to see what it means?

Professor Leroy Hulsey of UofA Fairbanks says you are lying. WTC7 was brought down by a controlled demolition. The free fall for the FIRST 2.25 seconds, 105 feet, 8 storeys tells us that because free fall cannot occur without a controlled demolition.

Discuss, mallyboppa.

 

Since the gist of the contents of that link is based on the speculation concerning fires, here's something to put that into perspective.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/e/VisualizationAidsWTCTowers.pdf