9/11

Here's a one-size-fits-all question. You could be the first to actually answer it.

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?

Here's a hint: Only an idiot would answer yes. Everyone else understands that, and that's why they refuse to answer. So what do you think? You want to commit to an answer?

 

every one is entitled to their opinion, and belief what happened that day.

calling people names does not gain you points, it just shows frustration, ever thought you might be wrong?

 

How would he know? And is it really any of his business?

 

The science of more than 3,000 architects and engineers, 1000s of scientists, the sworn testimony of 118 firemen attesting to bombs and explosions in the twin towers, the seismic record that shows huge subterranean explosions in the twin towers before the plane strikes, the impossible to the USGOCT molten WTC steel, the impossible to the USGOCT molten molybdenum, the impossible to the USGOCT vaporized lead, the impossible to the USGOCT US government nanothermite, the impossible to the USGOCT free fall of WTC7, ... .

What makes you an expert, morrow? Certainly not the zero evidence you provide for the USGOCT.

 

Will you Answer the question I originally put forward about the number of people that would need to be involved to pull off this kind of demolition ? kind of of stumbling block with me See ! I cant believe the conspiracy theorists after all these years have not come up with the guy that pushed the button

You come up with all these Cut and paste facts and figures but cant answer a Simple Question that Doesn't really take a lot of thinking about

 

Bed Time !

 

then im an idiot... in your eyes... your paranoid but i sympathize for you... you cant make it right, and you cant believe that your government did it in such a way to kill terrorists, its too big a loss

 

Oh hey, now that I've got you on the horn again, 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? I get the feeling that you really don't want to answer this. Am I correct?

 

That is what bothers you, isn't it, the facts and the figures, mallyboppa? The facts are simple - to wit, there is no court room quality evidence that supports the USGOCT. No one who supports the USGOCT has given any.

Just focus on one thing, and think about it - how did alleged hijackers melt [2800F] and vaporize [4900F] WTC steel when the only fuels available to them according to the USGOCT reach a maximum temperature of 1800F, and that temperature is being very very generous to the USGOCT. That is 1000 degrees F lower than the temps needed just to melt steel.

 

Right. We have an impossible collapse event, and anyone who asks questions about it is paranoid. I see where you're coming from.

 

What does this jumble of words mean, morrow?

 

you think because your american its just yours? do you know how many foreign nationals were in that attack that day?

why is it so important to you? why do you need people to back you?

why can you not see the truth?

 

your not very good at being sarcastic are you lol

 

No Arab hijackers, that is crystal clear.

Because it an evil crime for the US government to murder people in their false flag events and destroy billions of dollars in property. If an arsonist did this to your house you'd be mortified.

Why do you cling to the USGOCT when there is no evidence for it?

 

First of all that post was in jest. He said "do I fuck." So I made a joke. Why is everyone so jumpy that they see things that aren't there. By the way, you never did answer whether or not you think it is reasonable to assume that the more heat damaged upper block of the North Tower would maintain it's integrity to the extent that it would destroy the intact core structure below at virtual freefall speed? Can I add you to the list of people who are afraid to go down that road?

Also, after 9/11, George Bush gave several speeches where he said that Iraq had ties to Al-Qaeda and that they had weapons of mass destruction, hoping that everyone would infer that Iraq was going to give terrorists a nuclear weapon. Of course everyone who believed that lie was more inclined to look the other way when we just bombed the shit out a country and people. And of course I don't have to tell you that there were no weapons of mass destruction, even though we were assured that there was.

So, why can you not see the truth?

 

if you lool back storch, you will see i did answer, you just pay no attention to others, which is fine, your call

 

Lol, whoops, sorry Mal, quoted wrong post

 

No, you didn't. Perhaps you're not paying attention to others.

If you did post an anser, why don't you repost that answer?

 

Errors are your thing, VG, keep up YOUR good work.

 

↑
Here's a one-size-fits-all question. You could be the first to actually answer it.

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?

Here's a hint: Only an idiot would answer yes. Everyone else understands that, and that's why they refuse to answer. So what do you think? You want to commit to an answer?

<......................>
then im an idiot... in your eyes... your paranoid but i sympathize for you... you cant make it right, and you cant believe that your government did it in such a way to kill terrorists, its too big a loss