Have you seen this?
#11
10-27-2007, 11:37 AM
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 1,658
Originally Posted by Consider
Originally Posted by Double R
Originally Posted by Consider
Originally Posted by Double R
And there are black helicopters flying overhead :roll:
(not meant for UTURN but the post above his) It's hard to follow because it's so expert-like. Being written by architects and engineers. Also it's long. But if you were to look at it, you would find yourself thinking... Look up, there are black helicopters everywhere :roll: sorry, but it's over 200 pages long. you are either a speed reader or you didn't read it... how do you explain the fact it fell down precisely into its own foot print? Why is this demolition expert so unbelieving? http://www.ae911truth.net/ppt/ae911-51.php (you have to click on his picture, I think, to watch the video) I can see why you don't want to believe it. Plus, I have seen this before you posted it. Just because you post something dosn't mean that it is new to the web. So, yes I have seen the whole thing before. And once again: Look out for the Black Helicopters over head Big brother is watching you They are ever where :roll: And who cares if I don't believe the "Conspericy Theroy". Just because you believe it does not mean that I have to.
#12
10-27-2007, 11:39 AM
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New Mexico, USA
Posts: 643
oh. right. I see your point.
But are you trying to say that the cable internet thing explains how BBC was reporting the collapse of building 7 with building 7 standing in the background? and, what about the Silverstein angle?
__________________
http://www.health-boundaries-bite.com Your fingernails reflect your health -- Learn some warning signs -- Karen Kline
#13
10-27-2007, 11:42 AM
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 1,658
Originally Posted by Consider
oh. right. I see your point.
But are you trying to say that the cable internet thing explains how BBC was reporting the collapse of building 7 with building 7 standing in the background? and, what about the Silverstein angle? I DON"T CARE ABOUT THE "CONSPERICY THEROY"!!!!!!!!!!!
#14
10-27-2007, 11:48 AM
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New Mexico, USA
Posts: 643
Originally Posted by Double R
Originally Posted by Consider
oh. right. I see your point.
But are you trying to say that the cable internet thing explains how BBC was reporting the collapse of building 7 with building 7 standing in the background? and, what about the Silverstein angle? I DON"T CARE ABOUT THE "CONSPERICY THEROY"!!!!!!!!!!! Yes, I can understand not wanting to face the conspiracy... not a fun thing to think about.
__________________
http://www.health-boundaries-bite.com Your fingernails reflect your health -- Learn some warning signs -- Karen Kline
#15
10-27-2007, 11:54 AM
Consider, the severed columns are from a jumbo jet hitting the buildings at nearly 600 mph, those metal wings moving that fast are like a knife. I remember a tower just outside DC collapsing years ago, it pancaked onto itself just like the WTC's did. By the time a 100 story building finishes pancaking, there is enough force at the bottom of outward air pressure that is the same as a very large bomb going off. That would also explain the "falling within it's footprint" and demolishing Building 7. The fire's were also burning at over 2,000 degrees Celsius, in Farenheit terms, that is nearly 4,000 degrees aka, HOT. Steel melts at a much lesser temp. Once one floor gave out due to the steel melting thru the support columns, it was game over for each building. Each floor supports the next as they go up when one goes, each floor above goes and causes that pancake effect.
These people are nuts who are afraid of the truth, you cannot deny the video of a plane hitting the Towers.
#16
10-27-2007, 12:03 PM
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New Mexico, USA
Posts: 643
oh dear, Mr. Ford... you read it?
the severed columns were way down, 7 stories under ground, by elevator shafts. and the severing is precise. absolutely precise... the same way it always is in demolitions. http://www.ae911truth.net/ppt/ae911-125.php look at the pictures and listen to the guy who works with controlled demoltion... the fire thing is shown to not have been anywhere near as hot as you believe it to have been. Plus, it was nearly put out in building 7, and when you listen to the firefighters on the tapes, they are reporting having the fire in the other building just about put out. It's a really hard presentation to go through... it's sort of dry. But if you go through it, page by page... it certainly raises uncomfortable questions.
__________________
http://www.health-boundaries-bite.com Your fingernails reflect your health -- Learn some warning signs -- Karen Kline
#17
10-27-2007, 01:04 PM
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New Mexico, USA
Posts: 643
Originally Posted by Mr. Ford95
Consider, the severed columns are from a jumbo jet hitting the buildings at nearly 600 mph, those metal wings moving that fast are like a knife. I remember a tower just outside DC collapsing years ago, it pancaked onto itself just like the WTC's did.
http://www.ae911truth.net/ppt/ae911-173.php This is the page showing pancaking, vs what was seen at the WTC By the time a 100 story building finishes pancaking, there is enough force at the bottom of outward air pressure that is the same as a very large bomb going off. There's a whole section to the presentation composed of eye witnesses that day talking about explosions... That would also explain the "falling within it's footprint" and demolishing Building 7. Yes, that's pretty much what the experts appear to be saying, that it was a "demolishing" effect... and for building 7, there was no plane that hit it and the fires were nearly out... The fire's were also burning at over 2,000 degrees Celsius, in Farenheit terms, that is nearly 4,000 degrees aka, HOT. This is the part I found the hardest to understand. It's the most dense type of information. Plus, there were the fires from the planes, and that's where it's been shown that fires of that nature could not have melted the steel. And then there's all the info about the thermite, which is the only way to get the temperatures needed to melt the steel... (I've had to watch about a hundred pages again, in order to grasp that there were two kinds of fires) Steel melts at a much lesser temp. Once one floor gave out due to the steel melting thru the support columns, it was game over for each building. Each floor supports the next as they go up when one goes, each floor above goes and causes that pancake effect. Yes, were it the floors pancaking, then there would have been a pile of pancaked floors at the bottom, but instead there was a crater formed by explosion.... These people are nuts who are afraid of the truth, you cannot deny the video of a plane hitting the Towers.
__________________
http://www.health-boundaries-bite.com Your fingernails reflect your health -- Learn some warning signs -- Karen Kline
#18
10-27-2007, 01:09 PM
Originally Posted by Consider
Originally Posted by Mr. Ford95
Consider, the severed columns are from a jumbo jet hitting the buildings at nearly 600 mph, those metal wings moving that fast are like a knife. I remember a tower just outside DC collapsing years ago, it pancaked onto itself just like the WTC's did.
http://www.ae911truth.net/ppt/ae911-173.php This is the page showing pancaking, vs what was seen at the WTC By the time a 100 story building finishes pancaking, there is enough force at the bottom of outward air pressure that is the same as a very large bomb going off. There's a whole section to the presentation composed of eye witnesses that day talking about explosions... That would also explain the "falling within it's footprint" and demolishing Building 7. Yes, that's pretty much what the experts appear to be saying, that it was a "demolishing" effect... and for building 7, there was no plane that hit it and the fires were nearly out... The fire's were also burning at over 2,000 degrees Celsius, in Farenheit terms, that is nearly 4,000 degrees aka, HOT. This is the part I found the hardest to understand. It's the most dense type of information. Plus, there were the fires from the planes, and that's where it's been shown that fires of that nature could not have melted the steel. And then there's all the info about the thermite, which is the only way to get the temperatures needed to melt the steel... (I've had to watch about a hundred pages again, in order to grasp that there were two kinds of fires) Steel melts at a much lesser temp. Once one floor gave out due to the steel melting thru the support columns, it was game over for each building. Each floor supports the next as they go up when one goes, each floor above goes and causes that pancake effect. Yes, were it the floors pancaking, then there would have been a pile of pancaked floors at the bottom, but instead there was a crater formed by explosion.... These people are nuts who are afraid of the truth, you cannot deny the video of a plane hitting the Towers.
#19
10-27-2007, 01:10 PM
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New Mexico, USA
Posts: 643
This was just posted on another forum where I posted the link:
On Sep.11 I was staying in a building located approximately 300 yards away from the Twin Towers.
That day changed my whole life and ever since then I started to study into it and many things just don't make any sense. Right before the South Tower came down, I was at the bottom floor of my building and I remember feeling major rumbling under my feet to the point that a person next to me feared the subway was going to blow up. I hope one day the real truth comes out.
__________________
http://www.health-boundaries-bite.com Your fingernails reflect your health -- Learn some warning signs -- Karen Kline
#20
10-27-2007, 01:13 PM
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New Mexico, USA
Posts: 643
Originally Posted by BigDiesel
Originally Posted by Consider
Originally Posted by Mr. Ford95
Consider, the severed columns are from a jumbo jet hitting the buildings at nearly 600 mph, those metal wings moving that fast are like a knife. I remember a tower just outside DC collapsing years ago, it pancaked onto itself just like the WTC's did.
http://www.ae911truth.net/ppt/ae911-173.php This is the page showing pancaking, vs what was seen at the WTC By the time a 100 story building finishes pancaking, there is enough force at the bottom of outward air pressure that is the same as a very large bomb going off. There's a whole section to the presentation composed of eye witnesses that day talking about explosions... That would also explain the "falling within it's footprint" and demolishing Building 7. Yes, that's pretty much what the experts appear to be saying, that it was a "demolishing" effect... and for building 7, there was no plane that hit it and the fires were nearly out... The fire's were also burning at over 2,000 degrees Celsius, in Farenheit terms, that is nearly 4,000 degrees aka, HOT. This is the part I found the hardest to understand. It's the most dense type of information. Plus, there were the fires from the planes, and that's where it's been shown that fires of that nature could not have melted the steel. And then there's all the info about the thermite, which is the only way to get the temperatures needed to melt the steel... (I've had to watch about a hundred pages again, in order to grasp that there were two kinds of fires) Steel melts at a much lesser temp. Once one floor gave out due to the steel melting thru the support columns, it was game over for each building. Each floor supports the next as they go up when one goes, each floor above goes and causes that pancake effect. Yes, were it the floors pancaking, then there would have been a pile of pancaked floors at the bottom, but instead there was a crater formed by explosion.... These people are nuts who are afraid of the truth, you cannot deny the video of a plane hitting the Towers. http://www.health-boundaries-bite.co...he-Garden.html
__________________
http://www.health-boundaries-bite.com Your fingernails reflect your health -- Learn some warning signs -- Karen Kline |
