MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
another look at terrorism
- Thread starter kawilt
- Start date
RPD
New Member
Didn't see any compelling evidence in the video. Quotes from people I've never heard and testimonies from the same.
It's also hard for me to trust that dude's hairline.
It's also hard for me to trust that dude's hairline.
There's more compelling evidence out there than you are aware of. Of course you know that NOTHING hit building 7, and the government has already admitted they don't know how that could have happened (free fall demolition). But if you want a long read and understand a little of explosives and chemistry and need to see a little evidence from the sight, you may want to take a look at this.
Consider that the NYPD discovered several tons of molten metal in the debris, which office fires have never historically produced. What I consider to be some of the most compelling evidence was published in a peer-reviewed study issued by the Open Chemical Physics Journal in 2009 that confirmed the presence of highly explosive thermitic chips present in the dust samples produced by the destruction of the World Trade Centre.
http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.pdf
Be patient while this downloads, there's quite a bit of.
Last edited:
RPD
New Member
Yeah, I didn't mean to sound like a close-minded kind of guy if I did. I listen to evidence for this or that when I hear it, but to date everything I've heard can be debunked pretty easily in my mind. I'll always listen, but I never buy in without taking a long hard look.
The controlled demolition talk about the towers does not compel me. From what I've seen, the towers falling seems consistent with the structural steel becoming soft and weak from the heat of the jet fuel and flexing. Once enough load-carrying supports become heated to a point that they are weak, that mother will come down. Quick.
Notice I didn't mention "melting point," or the temperature at which jet fuel burns in comparison. The structural supports don't need to melt. They just need to heat up.
I hear people scream about how it had to have been a controlled blast because of blah blah blah.
Forging a sword:
Burning coals (made mostly of pure carbon) in an enclosed space, provided enough oxygen, will produce temperatures adequate for bending and manipulating metal. Sounds kind of like the situation at the WTC, except you used jet fuel (which burns a hell of a lot hotter than coals) and you put millions of pounds on top of the structural supports that were being heated. The wind at that altitude is often extremely strong; there's your continuous incoming oxygen source.
It's completely believable to me that perhaps even just one of the remaining beams that held the building erect became superheated just enough to put too much weight on the others, causing it all to crumble. Remember, also, that many of those huge beams would have been heavily damaged on impact, greatly increasing the load on the remaining structural supports.
What I just said seems reasonable and plausible, doesn't it?
I'll look at what you have though.
The controlled demolition talk about the towers does not compel me. From what I've seen, the towers falling seems consistent with the structural steel becoming soft and weak from the heat of the jet fuel and flexing. Once enough load-carrying supports become heated to a point that they are weak, that mother will come down. Quick.
Notice I didn't mention "melting point," or the temperature at which jet fuel burns in comparison. The structural supports don't need to melt. They just need to heat up.
I hear people scream about how it had to have been a controlled blast because of blah blah blah.
Forging a sword:
Burning coals (made mostly of pure carbon) in an enclosed space, provided enough oxygen, will produce temperatures adequate for bending and manipulating metal. Sounds kind of like the situation at the WTC, except you used jet fuel (which burns a hell of a lot hotter than coals) and you put millions of pounds on top of the structural supports that were being heated. The wind at that altitude is often extremely strong; there's your continuous incoming oxygen source.
It's completely believable to me that perhaps even just one of the remaining beams that held the building erect became superheated just enough to put too much weight on the others, causing it all to crumble. Remember, also, that many of those huge beams would have been heavily damaged on impact, greatly increasing the load on the remaining structural supports.
What I just said seems reasonable and plausible, doesn't it?
I'll look at what you have though.
It's good to have an open mind about all this. Remember now, where talking about building No.7. The Governments argument put forth by NIST left out a lot of crucial evidence and made conflicting statements. They finally conceded to the fact that the building did indeed go into free fall. Here's an article that addresses NIST original, then modified position. And even if your not familiar with structural steel framing, shear studs, composite steel beams and deck, and the meaning of free fall (I've been working in the structural steel industry for over 20 years), just watch the video of the collapse of the building as it falls into it's own footprint.
If you have any friends in the demolition business ask them what they see.
There is an organization of architects, engineers and physicist who are trying to have the investigation reopened, not to mention a couple of senators.
I myself have no more to say on this subject and will go on to something else.
"It's completely believable to me that perhaps even just one of the remaining beams that held the building erect became superheated just enough to put too much weight on the others, causing it all to crumble. Remember, also, that many of those huge beams would have been heavily damaged on impact, greatly increasing the load on the remaining structural supports."
What I just said seems reasonable and plausible, doesn't it?
No. It's not reasonable what you said nor plausible. It's not possible.
9/11 Truth: The Mysterious Collapse of WTC Seven | Global Research
If you have any friends in the demolition business ask them what they see.
There is an organization of architects, engineers and physicist who are trying to have the investigation reopened, not to mention a couple of senators.
I myself have no more to say on this subject and will go on to something else.
"It's completely believable to me that perhaps even just one of the remaining beams that held the building erect became superheated just enough to put too much weight on the others, causing it all to crumble. Remember, also, that many of those huge beams would have been heavily damaged on impact, greatly increasing the load on the remaining structural supports."
What I just said seems reasonable and plausible, doesn't it?
No. It's not reasonable what you said nor plausible. It's not possible.
9/11 Truth: The Mysterious Collapse of WTC Seven | Global Research
Last edited:
RPD
New Member
Fuck me, right?
Similar threads
