English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Funny how buildings could fall at free fall speed with no resistance. The only logical explanation for this is explosives. It was a controlled demolition people. Watch the videos and do the research and learn this. Its important for the future of our country!

Here is a video: http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003&q=911

2007-03-21 12:50:17 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Law & Ethics

Pay no attention to the below people as they are the same paid Government bloggers that spread lies and pounce all over any questions about 9/11. Thats what they are paid to do!

Do the research. You will see. Once you watch the video. Also google the phrase '1.6 billion in fake news' . That explains these same guys pouncing all over these questions.

2007-03-21 12:56:27 · update #1

It's official. I used to ask these questions and real people would get to see them and many would agree. Its so strange how I get the same guys all over my questions now and they all come with their BS. Steel does not lose strength until heated well into red hot which it wasn't.

You paid fags ought to be ashamed of yourselves. 911 Mysteries is the best documentary on 911 and if you actually watched my video link you would see.

Its so obvious Yahoo is just corporate run as they have deleted many of my accounts for asking these questions. This is important for our future and I won't stop.

You evil disgusting pigs that are paid sitting in a room waiting to post anything against 911 Truth will go down with this Titanic.

2007-03-21 16:49:31 · update #2

It's official Yahoo is 100% dominated by censorship and has rendered itself totally useless. Go to hell Yahoo!

2007-03-21 16:50:49 · update #3

22 answers

LOL. PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN! I AM THE GREAT AND POWERFUL OZ!!!!!!

It's true because I say so! And if you don't believe my flake-nuts website, YOU ARE A GOVT PAGE STOOGE!!!

Geee, I wish I WAS being paid by the gov't. I could use the cash!

2007-03-21 13:14:13 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

Conspiracy theorists!
Sorry. If you know a little about structure.. even just a little... you know that steel loses its strength when it gets hot.

Simple house fires are a good example.. the timber floor framing can be scorched, charred, flaking.. parts burnt through but the floor above still sitting there.... but the steel beam exposed is all buckled and twisted out of shape...it has lost its structural integrity by reason of the heat.

Steel framed buildings are at risk of collapse by exposure to severe heat for extended periods of time, unless the steel is protected/insulated adequately.

I sat waching it on television minutes after the first plane struck and waited for the fire men (bless them all) to either put the fire out or for the building to collapse. It was the latter.

Now if the CIA are sending cheques for this.. they obviously know where in Australia to find me.... I like the folding stuff... and hurry cause the US dollar is spiralling down at the moment compared to the Aussie buck.

2007-03-21 22:35:44 · answer #2 · answered by Icy Gazpacho 6 · 1 0

I didn't watch the video...I watched it live.

The laws of physics played no part in the collapse. It was the law of gravity, and the laws of heat.

Jet Fuel Maximum burning temperature: 980 °C (1796 °F)

Iron: Melting Point: 1535.0 °C (1808.15 K, 2795.0 °F)

Structural steel to keep below critical temperature ca. 540°C

Another prime example of this is the fact that walls constructed of lost plastic forms, which are filled on site with concrete cannot withstand the testing required of a loadbearing Firewall (construction). During the fire test, these walls are subjected to a load, which then leads to such a forceful explosion as to shear the wall with thunderous noise. A hydrocarbon fire is much more rapid and severe than a typical building fire. Consequently, concrete is much more vulnerable and must be protected in order to remain operable during a hydrocarbon fire.

The web is a very useful tool. But only if you are willing to do the footwork to provide as much information to refute or quantify your observations.

2007-03-21 20:32:33 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

This is written by a so called " Liberal Democrat"...
I've heard some interesting, some crazy, and some just plain weird conspiracy theories before but....

lately I've keep hearing this conspiracy theory about President Bush that he was behind the 9/11 attacks
so that he would have an excuse to invade Afganistan.

So my question is.... does anyone actually believe this C+ college student, who has difficulty pronouncing
every 5th word, somehow engineered the crime of the century, and in addition to that got at least 10-20
other like minded conservative religious republicans people to go along with it , killing 3,000+ Americans,
cost his own country hundreds of Billions, all so he would have an excuse to invade a country that has
absolutely nothing (not even oil), but dirt and a bunch of poor muslims? (Afganistan) .
And in addition to above, he did it so well that no evidence exists, just a bunch of conspiracy therories.

Now really, does this make any sense what-so-ever?

I keep asking you conspiracy theorists this question, but NONE of you has bothered to answer.
What makes *you* think you're immune from the govt? Certainly a govt who would slaughter
3000 people just for showing up at work one day would NOT hesitiate to kill anyone who tried to
speak out against it.....YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS!
OOOOOOO...Look out....you're next!!

2007-03-21 19:53:22 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3 1

The laws of physics were not suspended, nor were there explosives. Please make the effort to show the actual physics involved instead of this.

The studies have been made, the photos analyzed by experts on all sides of the issue. NO one has evidence of it that would even begin a court case, let alone win one.

I don't mind the question, but educate yourself first, people.

2007-03-21 19:54:44 · answer #5 · answered by mckenziecalhoun 7 · 3 0

Speaking of physics, I think you should try taking general physics and look at the temp that the steel used in the TT begins to loose stensil strength, then talk to a fire expert on what temps a fire of this ype would generate, then do the math on mass X force = acceleration of the TT...the answer will hit you right in the face you dimwit.

2007-03-21 19:55:50 · answer #6 · answered by Steelhead 5 · 4 0

I suppose a plane with a full tank of gas contributed something to the cause. The controlled demolition theory is for those who cannot accept the evilness of the human heart.

2007-03-21 19:55:41 · answer #7 · answered by maybelline512 3 · 2 0

Yours is a Republican non scientific piece with one thing in mind, to use any excuse to say that you were told the truth about 9/11! There are very few people who actually know the truth about 9/11 and you aren't one of them, and neither is your friend!

Still waiting for a picture of that 100 ton, 1/2 football field long, 757-200 with 10 ton Titanium Rolls Royce engines!

And the answer is Yes, illiterate Americans!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnnjIzamnJo&NR

2007-03-21 20:02:16 · answer #8 · answered by cantcu 7 · 0 2

The World Trade Center towers are structurally different from other skyscrapers. The outer skin (walls) of the twin towers are the ones actually carrying the majority of the load of the building. It will behave differently from other buildings.

2007-03-21 19:58:53 · answer #9 · answered by miokti 3 · 2 0

Stop it now.

Watch some half-baked crud on YouTube and suddenly you think you know everything.

The crackpot conspiracy theories have been examined by independent scientist-types, and found lacking.

Here's a link to a well researched refutation of the nutjob conspiracy theor done by the folk at Popular Mechanics...

2007-03-21 19:56:38 · answer #10 · answered by chocolahoma 7 · 3 0

fedest.com, questions and answers