What really brought down the twin towers! | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 911383 United States 10/17/2010 04:02 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 1132746 Australia 10/17/2010 04:31 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 998486 United States 10/17/2010 04:35 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Swissy User ID: 959947 Switzerland 10/17/2010 04:41 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 878570 United States 10/17/2010 04:43 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 1130801 United Kingdom 10/17/2010 04:44 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Okay simpler is, GRAVITY. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1132746GRAVITY (ironically) would keep your symmetrical building standing, i.e. not EXPLODING THROUGH its path of greatest architectural resistance. There is no FORCE great enough to push the top of the WTC all the way down through the resistive force of the remainder. Der! Come on, shills and supporters of 'smouldering office fires' exploding steel buildings and evaporating core columns. Try again, and with feeling this time. Aren't they paying you enough? |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 643026 United Kingdom 10/17/2010 04:53 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | "....Also, we know that not all of the jet fuel ignited immediately and that it leaked down the inside of the building. If that were to be ignited in a small enclosed space the explosion would be massive." Do you know how much actual jet fuel there was? Compared to the size of the towers it was a tiny amount. And how could it have leaked into an 'enclosed' space? And even if it did, how could it have been ignited? |
TheJuiceisLoose (OP) User ID: 1129173 United States 10/17/2010 06:05 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | "....Also, we know that not all of the jet fuel ignited immediately and that it leaked down the inside of the building. If that were to be ignited in a small enclosed space the explosion would be massive." Quoting: Anonymous Coward 643026Do you know how much actual jet fuel there was? Compared to the size of the towers it was a tiny amount. And how could it have leaked into an 'enclosed' space? And even if it did, how could it have been ignited? when a building gets hit with the equivalent of 600 tons of tnt close to the middle of a building there will be MASSIVE structural damage. there would be holde and cracks throughout the building. as for igniting, the fucking thing was on fire. The point is, they did not need to blow it up to start a war. so why would they? they wouldn't We have what is called a massive retaliation policy and flying the planes alone justifies the war according to law. [link to en.wikipedia.org] Im dangerous like a fire in a nursing home |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 1132987 Australia 10/17/2010 06:06 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 1044438 United States 10/17/2010 06:32 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 1122201 Australia 10/17/2010 09:02 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | when a building gets hit with the equivalent of 600 tons of tnt close to the middle of a building there will be MASSIVE structural damage. there would be holde and cracks throughout the building. as for igniting, the fucking thing was on fire. Quoting: TheJuiceisLooseThe point is, they did not need to blow it up to start a war. so why would they? they wouldn't We have what is called a massive retaliation policy and flying the planes alone justifies the war according to law. [link to en.wikipedia.org] "when a building gets hit with the equivalent of 600 tons of tnt" Where did you get this BS from? The point is, they did not need to blow it up to start a war. so why would they? The buildings were obsolete and unsuitable for modern offices as they were never cabled for computers, as well they were full of asbestos which by law had to be removed (at enormous cost). It was much easier for Larry Silverstein if they were blown up. Do some research. |
Mr Spock User ID: 1133052 Australia 10/17/2010 09:16 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 1133148 United Kingdom 10/17/2010 10:25 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Any amount of burning kerosene WOULDN'T EVEN BEND A STEEL BUILDING let alone explode it to smithereens half an hour after most of the kerosene fires had been extinguished! You could pour burning kerosene on the same steel building all day for days and days and days and nothing would happen. Otherwise all cooking implements would MELT on the stove, FFS. WHAT PART OF REALITY ARE YOU F***ING IDIOTS MISSING? Sorry ... I mean, come on! Please! |
][nƒeRnaL User ID: 820518 Puerto Rico 10/17/2010 10:48 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 1133173 United States 10/17/2010 10:53 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 1133173 United States 10/17/2010 10:54 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 1133173 United States 10/17/2010 10:56 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 1133173 United States 10/17/2010 10:59 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | OP can't explain away how much worse and much larger fires have occured in other skyscrapers, and yet NOTHING LIKE 9-11 EVER HAPPENED in any of these instances. [link to 911research.wtc7.net] |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 1133153 United States 10/17/2010 11:13 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
TheJuiceisLoose (OP) User ID: 1129173 United States 10/17/2010 11:20 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | YOU KNOW I'M RIGHT Im dangerous like a fire in a nursing home |
TheJuiceisLoose (OP) User ID: 1129173 United States 10/17/2010 11:21 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 1010900 Canada 10/17/2010 11:23 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | The point is, they did not need to blow it up to start a war. so why would they? they wouldn't Quoting: TheJuiceisLooseWe have what is called a massive retaliation policy and flying the planes alone justifies the war according to law. [link to en.wikipedia.org] |
FreeDumb User ID: 1049247 United States 10/17/2010 11:25 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Okay simpler is, GRAVITY. Quoting: Free PlanetGRAVITY (ironically) would keep your symmetrical building standing, i.e. not EXPLODING THROUGH its path of greatest architectural resistance. There is no FORCE great enough to push the top of the WTC all the way down through the resistive force of the remainder. Der! Come on, shills and supporters of 'smouldering office fires' exploding steel buildings and evaporating core columns. Try again, and with feeling this time. Aren't they paying you enough? Since they were hit off center, my "guess" along with alot of others guesses would have them tipping to one side, and falling over. NOT straight down. Also, since 2 planes brought down the twin towers, what happened to 7? Last Edited by FreeDumb on 10/17/2010 11:26 AM "Majority of Amerika is too awash in its own mediocrity to commit to fighting for freedom" Mojo |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 1010900 Canada 10/17/2010 11:35 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | The buildings were obsolete and unsuitable for modern offices as they were never cabled for computers, Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1122201LOL -- What a joke! No computers at the World Trade Center, ha ha ha, Morgan Stanley was operating completely by courier, ha ha ha! as well they were full of asbestos which by law had to be removed (at enormous cost). It was much easier for Larry Silverstein if they were blown up. Do some research. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1122201LOL -- Comedy non-stop! Every high-rise must be insulated with fire retardant, ITS THE LAW, or any fire that takes place on any floor can devastate and destroy the whole high-rise threatening other buildings in the area as well. Aside from comedy, Insurance companies don't like paying claims, they would gladly have presented the evidence to deny the owner any claim if there was any truth to this non-sense. |
TheJuiceisLoose (OP) User ID: 1129173 United States 10/17/2010 02:23 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | The point is, they did not need to blow it up to start a war. so why would they? they wouldn't Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1010900We have what is called a massive retaliation policy and flying the planes alone justifies the war according to law. [link to en.wikipedia.org] Im dangerous like a fire in a nursing home |