Who Is Really Responsible For The Chemical Attack In Syria? #2 (Page 78): No demo video from China is needed to see a "banana peel" demolition. Watch any video of the twin towers. They...

This topic was split up because it has reached high page count.
You can find the follow-up topic here.

payne1000

emarine wrote:

you need a better link... no demo from china

No demo video from China is needed to see a "banana peel" demolition.
Watch any video of the twin towers. They are much better examples, anyway.

payne1000

America Only wrote:

"If you were posting under your real name, you'd be extremely embarrassed by the absurdity of the lies you post",...Muslim Moe!

You copied that line from one of my posts.
Originality does not often come from morons.

payne1000

America Only wrote:

You have neither the background, experience, nor e... (show quote)

You're a yellow-bellied coward, AO.
You hide behind cowardly anonymity in order to post lies and insults.
Ask Emarine if my name is Larry Payne.
He had a commercial people finding company trace me down.
He knows where I live.
It's exactly the same as what my Facebook page says.
Does cowardice run in your family?
Does lying run in your family?

eagleye13 Loc: Fl

payne is a liberal; so he does have some short comings in intelligence.
BUT
On 911 he is right. It was covered up by the PTB.
Even the MSM says it was the Saudis and identified some of them; yet we invaded Iraq on false pretenses.
USA CFR foreign policy sucks.

You have no answers for the Middle East foreign policy BS.
Wesley Clark Told The Truth
https://youtu.be/LAFHOHIiFZA

The Covert Origins of ISIS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMjXbuj7BPI&feature=player_detailpage

The Syrian War What You're Not Being Told
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkamZg68jpk

Then there is this little gem;
Top Illuminati Grand Wizard: “We Control Islam and We'll Use It to Destroy the West.” (WW3)
https://youtu.be/0dXD2H0m74g
(For the root of the planning, go to minute 6)

Inside this ''Illuminati Temple'' will shock you! (R$E)
https://youtu.be/uuT_4XElXOU

After actually doing a bit of study, I have much more.

payne1000

emarine wrote:

The outer frame work of the tower "peeled" outward because it had no other place to go... simple logic & gravity proves this...The top section of tower that fell overloaded the floor truss connections allowing the outer frame to loose its connection to the core... the floor system held the towers together...F=m*a & gravity proved 911 to be an explosive event... your sheetrock didn't stand a chance & you can't prove chemical explosives... putz...

The outer wall structure peeled outward because powerful explosives blew it outward.
The top section could not fall without being weakened by thermite. The outer column structure was designed to have 2200% reserve strength. The center core was designed to have 400% reserve strength. The fires were not large enough, hot enough and did not burn long enough to weaken any of the steel columns. No skyscraper in the 100-year history of skyscrapers had fallen from fires which were larger, much hotter and burned for much longer. Hundreds of skyscrapers have been brought down by controlled demolition. The three skyscrapers which came down on 9/11 all showed the main characteristics of controlled demolitions.
Isn't the visible presence of explosive debris clouds proof of chemical explosives?

payne1000

eagleye13 wrote:

payne is a liberal; so he does have some short com... (show quote)

You believe in ancient superstitions. Is that a sign of intelligence?

eagleye13 Loc: Fl

payne1000 wrote:

You believe in ancient superstitions. Is that a sign of intelligence?

Beats believing pollywog's progeny are designing microchips.

payne1000

eagleye13 wrote:

Beats believing pollywog's progeny are designing microchips.

Doesn't your imagined God's vindictiveness scare you a bit?

amadjuster Loc: Texas Panhandle

payne1000 wrote:

The outer wall structure peeled outward because po... (show quote)

The next big news Larry will push is the Israelis have developed drywall made out of C4 instead of gypsum and that is how the explosives were planted.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

quote=payne1000 The outer wall structure peeled outward because powerful explosives blew it outward.
The top section could not fall without being weakened by thermite. The outer column structure was designed to have 2200% reserve strength. The center core was designed to have 400% reserve strength.

The accumulated mass of the collapsing upper portion of the tower shattered the outer perimeter walls and forced the walls away from the building with extreme violence. The "reserve" vertical strength of the building was far exceeded by the dynamic force of several hundred thousand tons of MASS IN MOTION.

FYI: The demolition industry DOES NOT use thermite to cut steel columns. Thermite is not necessary, it is expensive, and requires special connectors and mounting tools to install on a vertical face. The industry standard explosive for cutting steel columns in a building implosion is RDX. RDX delivers a detonation velocity of 27,000 ft/sec. For this application, RDX is produced in shaped charges that direct the blast directly into the steel. (same principle as an armor piercing anti-tank round) An RDX charge will cut a steel column like a hot knife cuts butter.

If, as you claim but cannot prove, the perps installed both explosive and thermite charges ON EVERY FLOOR, the work to do that would have taken months and the cost would have been enormous. It could not have been done without shutting the towers down completely, including shutdown of all electric, gas, water, steam, sewer, and other services lines. Moreover, some deconstruction within the building is necessary, such as removal walls, sheetmetal, pipes, electrical conduit to gain direct access to the columns, removal of elevator cables and cars, removal of sections of stairwells, and even some pre-cutting or removal of support structures.

Even if you eliminate the shutdown of the towers, the utilities, and even the day to day business, your phantom perps would still have had to do considerable deconstruction in the core to access the columns. The placement of both thermite and explosive charges would have required a rather sophisticated installation to make it work properly. It is not possible this could have been accomplished on every floor without creating a huge mess and arousing considerable suspicions.

The fires were not large enough, hot enough and did not burn long enough to weaken any of the steel columns.
This is your escape route. This is your rationalization for ignoring the facts about the fires. I cannot fathom this level of denial.

No skyscraper in the 100-year history of skyscrapers had fallen from fires which were larger, much hotter and burned for much longer.
This is another of your escape routes, one that you have persisted in taking on a regular basis. Again, you ignore the most critical difference between your "100 year history" and the events on 9/11. Apples and oranges.

Hundreds of skyscrapers have been brought down by controlled demolition. The three skyscrapers which came down on 9/11 all showed the main characteristics of controlled demolitions.
The collapse of the twin towers bore no resemblance whatsoever to the "characteristics of controlled demolition."

Isn't the visible presence of explosive debris clouds proof of chemical explosives?
No, it isn't.

Mr Shako Loc: Colo Spgs

payne1000 wrote:

Skyscraper mass doesn't go into motion unless explosives are involved. Check out the history of skyscrapers. They've been around for more than a hundred years.
The only force which has ever brought one down is controlled demolition. When three fall on the same day all showing the main characteristics of controlled demolition, what would a thinking person determine to be the cause?

I'd be the first to admit I know pretty much zilch about proper construction methods; howver, the couple of times I've been to the observation platform in the Empire State Bldg I could feel it "swaying in the wind' Same for Rockefeller plaza bldg. Does that count as going "in motion?' Just askin'.

eagleye13 Loc: Fl

Mr Shako wrote:

I'd be the first to admit I know pretty much zilch about proper construction methods; howver, the couple of times I've been to the observation platform in the Empire State Bldg I could feel it "swaying in the wind' Same for Rockefeller plaza bldg. Does that count as going "in motion?' Just askin'.

How about sideways, Mr. Shako?

payne1000

amadjuster wrote:

The next big news Larry will push is the Israelis have developed drywall made out of C4 instead of gypsum and that is how the explosives were planted.

Keep thinking, David. You may figure out how they did it. You're certainly closer than emarine or BR.

payne1000

Blade_Runner wrote:

quote=payne1000 The outer wall structure peeled outward because powerful explosives blew it outward.
The top section could not fall without being weakened by thermite. The outer column structure was designed to have 2200% reserve strength. The center core was designed to have 400% reserve strength.

The accumulated mass of the collapsing upper portion of the tower shattered the outer perimeter walls and forced the walls away from the building with extreme violence. The "reserve" vertical strength of the building was far exceeded by the dynamic force of several hundred thousand tons of MASS IN MOTION.

FYI: The demolition industry DOES NOT use thermite to cut steel columns. Thermite is not necessary, it is expensive, and requires special connectors and mounting tools to install on a vertical face. The industry standard explosive for cutting steel columns in a building implosion is RDX. RDX delivers a detonation velocity of 27,000 ft/sec. For this application, RDX is produced in shaped charges that direct the blast directly into the steel. (same principle as an armor piercing anti-tank round) An RDX charge will cut a steel column like a hot knife cuts butter.

If, as you claim but cannot prove, the perps installed both explosive and thermite charges ON EVERY FLOOR, the work to do that would have taken months and the cost would have been enormous. It could not have been done without shutting the towers down completely, including shutdown of all electric, gas, water, steam, sewer, and other services lines. Moreover, some deconstruction within the building is necessary, such as removal walls, sheetmetal, pipes, electrical conduit to gain direct access to the columns, removal of elevator cables and cars, removal of sections of stairwells, and even some pre-cutting or removal of support structures.

Even if you eliminate the shutdown of the towers, the utilities, and even the day to day business, your phantom perps would still have had to do considerable deconstruction in the core to access the columns. The placement of both thermite and explosive charges would have required a rather sophisticated installation to make it work properly. It is not possible this could have been accomplished on every floor without creating a huge mess and arousing considerable suspicions.

The fires were not large enough, hot enough and did not burn long enough to weaken any of the steel columns.
This is your escape route. This is your rationalization for ignoring the facts about the fires. I cannot fathom this level of denial.

No skyscraper in the 100-year history of skyscrapers had fallen from fires which were larger, much hotter and burned for much longer.
This is another of your escape routes, one that you have persisted in taking on a regular basis. Again, you ignore the most critical difference between your "100 year history" and the events on 9/11. Apples and oranges.

Hundreds of skyscrapers have been brought down by controlled demolition. The three skyscrapers which came down on 9/11 all showed the main characteristics of controlled demolitions.
The collapse of the twin towers bore no resemblance whatsoever to the "characteristics of controlled demolition."

Isn't the visible presence of explosive debris clouds proof of chemical explosives?
No, it isn't.

quote=payne1000 The outer wall structure peeled ... (show quote)

All that denial and obfuscation does not explain why this tower shows all the characteristics of being blown up with powerful explosives:

payne1000

Mr Shako wrote:

I'd be the first to admit I know pretty much zilch about proper construction methods; howver, the couple of times I've been to the observation platform in the Empire State Bldg I could feel it "swaying in the wind' Same for Rockefeller plaza bldg. Does that count as going "in motion?' Just askin'.

How many skyscrapers have been blown over by the wind? Just askin'?