If the law of physics were hired.....then why are the plenty of physicists who dont believe the official story?
Look at some INDEPENDENT research. You will find that the science presented in the official story doesn't add up.
look for yourself, dont let me, others and especially the gov't tell you what happened.
2007-03-05 06:13:22
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
5⤋
By Arthur Scheverman, Batt. Chief FDNY (Retired)
To enter the debate as to whether the plane crashes or the resultant fires caused the collapse of World Trade Center Towers I and 2, I would like to weigh in on the side of the fires. These buildings were designed to take the impacts of large plane crashes, and I doubt whether either building would have collapsed and whether multitudes of people would have been trapped above the crash floors except for the fire, smoke and heat. Apparently the effects of the inevitable explosion and fire after the simulated plane crashes were not considered in the design of the building. The point is; these buildings didn’t immediately collapse, they took almost an hour for Tower 2 and well over an hour for Tower 1 the North Tower to collapse. According to Ronald Hamburger a structural engineer investigating the disaster, “We have reason to believe that, without the fire, the buildings could have stood indefinitely and been repaired.” The fire caused most of the life loss and building damage and the buildings were evidently deficient in fire protection. Further on in the report it gives the times of the collapse at one hour and longer.
What about Bush hiring all the suicide bombers and he really must be busy cordinating all the other terrorist attacks around the World. Gee I wonder where he was when the Kobar Towers and The U.S.S. Cole was attcaked. He probably did that just to make Clinton look bad. Monica was probably hired by the House managers. If we go on your goofy scenario and premise then Billary was responsible for the first W.T.T. bombings. Stupidity is it's own reward.
2007-03-05 14:29:39
·
answer #2
·
answered by ohbrother 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
Again, I am going to say:
I would love to agree with you that 911 was an inside job. I really, really would. However, I am going to need the following information:
1. If there was a consipiracy, how have that many people been SOOO quiet after all this time. Surely there was some lefty in the demo company, or one of the air passengers was anti-war, or someone in the loop would have had a fit of conscience by now.
2. How many people do you think it would require to pull off a job like this?
3. If houses can be built to code in Oklahoma to be "tornado resistant", but tornados can still wipe them out, why could not a massive impact and fire bring down a large building. Lets also look at a house with internal load bearing walls...remove one and the house sags in the middle. What would have happened if there was structural damage, and the heat weakened what was left. Not melted, but weakened...then with the weight.
4. If you really want to PROVE to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that a building like that could not be downed with a airliner crash, build one or buy one and do an reinactment.
Provide more information please.
2007-03-05 14:17:50
·
answer #3
·
answered by El Gato Volador 3
·
5⤊
0⤋
I am not into all this conspiracy theory crud and like one other person said, how would you keep this many people so quite for so long??
But just incase you have never seen it... you can google Alex Jones, Prison Planet TV, Loose Change or any of the other shtuff that is out there regarding landing on the moon, 911, or concentration camps here and now in the U.S.
Those are the places that people who share your same thoughts get their info... (you probably watched one of those videos and that caused your rant?)
BTW, where did all those people on those "missing" commercial jet liners go? Because if your theory or Alex Jones' theory had a leg to stand on, you'd know that there are people out there that say the planes were military planes with bombs strapped to the bellies. How 'bout them apples?
2007-03-05 14:55:37
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
0⤋
The only 'independant' research done was by those hired by conspiracy nuts.
Look, for a steel, not iron, core building (where do you get the iron from anyway, another piece of sloppy research by conspiracy nuts), the temperature required to damage the integrity is somewhere in the region of 600 degrees. It would not have to melt the frame, just destroy the integrity of the core. Aviation fuel burns at 1500 degrees, more than the required temperature, 2 and a half times the required temperature. Case Closed!
2007-03-05 14:22:10
·
answer #5
·
answered by Elizabeth Howard 6
·
4⤊
0⤋
If by controlled demolition you mean a 747 loaded with enough jet fuel to make trans-continental flights, then my answer to you would be that al-Quaida hired it. I think this could be correlated by the fact that they have taken full public credit for it since 9/11 happened.
2007-03-05 14:12:03
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anthony M 4
·
4⤊
0⤋
NO BODY hired anyone to blow up the World
Trade Center. This was done by Osama bin Laden and the Al Qaida Terror Network and not the US Government!!
2007-03-05 14:23:17
·
answer #7
·
answered by Vagabond5879 7
·
3⤊
0⤋
Heat hat, Lisa:
http://www.designboom.com/trash/img/30.jpg
2007-03-06 08:53:04
·
answer #8
·
answered by anywherebuttexas 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Oh, please, oh wise one, since you are so knowledgeable about chemistry, can you alleviate my ignorance by explaining why the periodic table would tell me that Jet Fuel, aided by combustable materials found in offices, would not be able to melt iron, or even cause it to soften?
As for the 90 seconds, please can you explain how you know it would take 90 seconds? Please explain to us, you expert of physics and engineering, why it would take 90 seconds?
[I'll agree - I see no logical arguments in your question]
And were people actually standing on the floors the plane impacted? Can you provide documented proof of this?
I'm sure you can explain this...
2007-03-05 14:23:13
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
0⤋
I think that there's stuff about 9/11 that should be public knowledge, but still isn't, like the tapes from different buildings showing what happened at the Pentagon. Some stuff just doesn't add up, like how quickly the towers fell. (Don't tell me it looks like a controlled demolition though, because it didn't.) I don't, however, think that it's a government conspiracy.
I think that in one sense you're right, that all the facts aren't available to the public, and should be; but in another, that is, blaming the government, you're totally wrong.
2007-03-05 14:24:21
·
answer #10
·
answered by serious troll 6
·
0⤊
3⤋
Rather than insult you as others have done, I will agree with you that governments do conspire against citizens to achieve results they cannot achieve otherwise. Our borders being open and not willing to fight to win a declared war are rooted in power over country. I have no idea if your example is real or not...but the border and winning a war are issues that are very real.
2007-03-05 14:16:27
·
answer #11
·
answered by Robert E. Lee 1
·
1⤊
2⤋