fiatlux

My hero... Childish idiots, these theorists.

payne1000

The jet only affected a few floors at most.

payne1000

It wouldn't be difficult to recognize explosions going off.
Fireman Schroeder and many others in the news clips I linked backed that up.

payne1000

Rather than seeking flames and accepting lies instead, you should seek the truth.

Jean Deaux

I believe your heart is pure and your intentions noble, but you're all eaten up with the swelled head and an overwhelming ego. But lots of people are. I have quoted references, but nothing seems to make an impression on you. Lets let it go as each having unchangeable beliefs. By the way, I appreciate your service and particularly if you were a member of Seal Team 3. I believe you are every bit as patriotic as I am. However, I don't think that makes you an expert on every topic at hand, particularly when repudiated by experts. But if you are happy, carry on. Farewell

America Only Loc: From the right hand of God

They can, however, take just one of the small mini nukes....just for you......and yep, you can use it for a rhoid cushion...for a few minutes.....

America Only Loc: From the right hand of God

You can do some of your own research and find out that ALL the testing done with any nukes that are small, have all been included into SEAL training. No "swelled head" about factual reality. Aside from what you do not know, as a SEAL and having that documentation behind me, that does make me an "expert" in regards to explosive devices, weaponry, and the use of such. To "split" an atom to then have the result as a "nuclear" explosion, you have to be able to use enough explosive material that is shaped and directed towards the core of the bomb that holds the uranium.. The small nukes that have been mentioned are as small as they come and can barely provide the necessary force to actually split an atom. Further, the more nuclear matter involved, the more resulting destruction would take place. If a number of small nukes goes off, the result is not just a bunch of small nukes going off...you'd have results that would be like one larger nuke going off.

As it was, no reports of windows shattering miles away, no few dozen buildings near "ground zero" being vaporized, no people being instantly vaporized for even a mile circumference from "ground zero". I do not think you can even comprehend the immediate release of energy and destruction any nuke gives off. Just one small nuke in the twin towers and the entire building would have been gone...a puff of smoke...dust...and do not think they have nukes the size of a pencil of some other fictional garbage.

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/CriticalMass.html


Here is a formula for what it takes using weapons grade Uranium for reaching critical mass, which is needed for the nuclear reaction of splitting an atom.

Some idiots in Pakistan claim to have made a nuke bomb the size of a tennis ball, it was debunked by the US Navy Weapons experts....SEALS!

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

There is one thing about the twin towers that the 9/11 truthers don't talk about--Metal Fatigue.

The twin towers were designed with a certain resilience to the effects of wind and storms, they were built to give a little when the wind blew. The construction engineers tested this in wind tunnels using models and subjected volunteers to sway movement tests to see what was tolerable. As it turned out, under moderate winds, the towers would sway as much as 3 feet off their center lines. And, in high winds they could sway as much as six feet.

Now, considering the history of winds coming off the Atlantic and being channeled into NY Harbor, the incidence of sway in the towers was quite high. For thirty years, those babies rocked and rolled, 3 feet this way and 6 feet that way. This action of course means that all that steel was bending back and forth. Thirty years is a long time to be subjected to such bending, however slight 3 to 6 feet might seem, without the steel experiencing fatigue. Simple concept, bend a paper clip back and forth maybe a quarter of a half inch each way. Do this for a couple hours each day for 3 weeks, see what happens.

It is impossible to calculate the extent of metal fatigue the towers sustained over those 30 years, but any metallurgist or mechanical engineer worth his salt would tell you that the steel that went into those towers in the 70s was not the same steel when they were hit on 9/11. The steel was a hair tired. And, when they sustained such catastrophic damage from the impacts and fires, like snapping the paper clip hard over, they just said, "F*ck this" and collapsed.

America Only Loc: From the right hand of God

Not true. Further unless YOU were there to do an instant inspection just on what internal damages to the structure was, you would have ZERO data to base any theory on....


You can also note in all these conspiracy stories, it is always made mention about the building being built to withstand a hit from a jet. The building designer makes mention that it was something given thought to when designing and later having the building built....but not one single actual mention that it was in fact built to that specification...and...there is no known "MODEL" to have used as a true reference to even know what that level of engineering would be to achieve such a safe guard, in any building as large as the Twin Towers. As soon as the first jet hit, everything building wise, started to fracture below and above it, and that weakening created a chain reaction of failures of the integrity of the infrastructure of the building....allowing jet fuel to work down into floors below the original impact site. The amount of weight to be above the fractured infrastructure coming apart can and did make sounds like explosions and that is what was reported.

America Only Loc: From the right hand of God

Very true. In the 1960's metal fatigue on the rotor shafts on some older model helicopters caused them to crash, those helicopters were being used to transport people to Disneyland in California.

Most people have NO idea of the weight of the Twin Towers. Any nuke (even one small one) and the damage would have been so fast and so violent, there would not be anyone alive in or around the twin Towers, everyone would have simply been vaporized. But the damages created by the jets and fires are consistent with having a large fueled up jet hit it at a fairly high speed and then bringing the building down as it happened.

America Only Loc: From the right hand of God

Millions of tons of building material collapsing is going to make some serious noise...you ever hear what just two speeding cars sounds like from a head on collision? Imagine that a few million times more when you have all the material of that building falling onto the building inside, outside above and below the site of impact.

payne1000

If what you claim were true, all the skyscrapers built before the 1980s would have to be condemned. Why haven't they?

Also, like most cover-up trolls, you ignore the fact that WTC7 was only 47 floors tall, was not hit by an airliner, and yet fell like a classic controlled demolition. This video totally destroys your argument: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxm8lB-V2uI

payne1000

What about Barry Jennings, fireman John Shroeder and William Rodriquez, who testified that explosions were going off in the towers before the planes hit and before the towers fell?

zillaorange

The load bearing structure of the towers were the outer walls. They don't use a steel skeleton & build around that much more. Instead consider "controlled demolition". The Towers literally fell straight down. In a catastrophic collapse there would have been far more damage to the surrounding area. St. Paul's church was hardly scratched. 2 questions to consider are: 1.) where'd all the silver & gold stored there go ?, 2.) why did building 7 collapse ?

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

You and your f*cking youtubes.

All skyscrapers built before the 1980s weren't 110 stories tall, 99% of them half that at most. The twin towers were unique in design and construction. The older, lower, and unimproved skyscrapers were not designed to flex in winds. Metal fatigue was not a factor. And, as you conveniently ignore, none of them sustained a catastrophic hit by a fast flying, loaded jetliner.

I have never ignored "the fact that WTC7 was only 47 floors tall" or that it "was not hit by an airliner". Both of these statements are a given. There is no need to repeat ad infinitum what we already know. And yet you incessantly use these facts as a crutch to support your controlled demo theory.

Moreover, since you insist on ignoring what actually damaged WTC7 and its subsequent collapse, it is futile to belabor this point.

L'ancien complexe WTC a disparu, dude, il n'existe plus. C'est l'histoire. R.I.P..

Whatever your objective may be in attempting to rewrite the story to fit your ideological agenda, it is nothing more than a fantasy. Your entire argument is loaded with the phantoms and gremlins of a perverse imagination. You are a man possessed, seeing ghosts. Maybe you should secure the services of an exorcist.