You got a link to this because I heard him saying on tv that it could withstand a plane crashing into it but they hadn't taken on board the amount of fuel that would be present, to torch a whole floor.
its in the video I just posted Medro if you actually watched it, which is clear you dont, you dont want to know anything against your official theory 6.15 [video=youtube;uQkr_WOUwXc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQkr_WOUwXc[/video]
Even if it was said, it was just a guy talking up his design to impress the higher ups and the public much like the creators of the Titanic did.
do you think the people who produced this magnificent feat of engineering designed them to withstand plane carshes, thought the planes where going to be flying with no fuel? what did they think? the wind was going to carry a plane into it? think how ******ed your statement is.
Eddiiveee think clearly for a moment and look at this link, it describes how famous 9/11 theorists made 'tons of money' selling 9/11 The Real Truth' videos, selling advertising and merchandise seems you and many other theorists were literally 'buying into it' http://ae911truth.info/wordpress/
yeah because the creators of the titanic said, this ship is built to withstand icebergs? totally different age of technology, totally irrelevant, try again
the collapse of the buildings is attributed to the fires and not the planes as such. Of course the impact of the planes is thought to have played a role. However NIST's whole paper/theory is based on fires fires which didnt even burn hot enough to blow the windows out even FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) are said to have said it had "only a low probability of occurrence."
How is it totally irrelevant? The designers of anything will always say that it is the biggest and best. Architects will always say their buildings are best, ship builders will always say their ships are unsinkable. Their pride and bias on their project cannot be trusted 100%. That was my point.
It is usually a federal offense to remove anything from a crime scene. But here the removal of over 100 tons of steel, the biggest destruction of evidence in history, was carried out under the supervision of federal officials, how do you explain that
Ok Eddievee and fellow conspirators time to put you all to bed literally now read carefully as people on this thread have said the same things on here People in caves could not carry out the attack. This racist comment ignores the education and training of the terrorists. Bin Laden graduated from college a civil engineer and some of the terrorists are out of college You don't need government help or a university degree to scare passengers into thinking you have a bomb onboard. You don't need government help to turn off an airliner transponder and hide among hundreds of other airliners in the area The towers were built to withstand more than one airliner impact!!!! The NIST never said the impact collapsed the towers The towers DID withstand the impact. It was a combination of fire, impact damage and lack of fireproofing over the steel in the impact levels which collapsed the towers. Plans were drawn up in 1949(WTC) , planes are heavier and faster than back then. People heard explosions indicating explosives were used Each floor had about an acre of 3" - 4 " concrete flooring. The sound of that plus office furniture and equipment collapsing on an office below would make a very loud boom. Steel snapping under tension would make a very loud boom. Large transformers exploding in the building would make a very loud boom.
The 3 buildings falling all defy physics, no one has come up with an explanation as to why those building fell, let alone why they fell the way they did, at free fall speed, and turning into dust, firing 2 ton steel beems hundreds of feet. Have you got any idea what type of energy it would take to do that,to fire that kind of weight so far? The use of explosives would explain everything, yet you dont want to even consider it. That to me is insane.
agree with some of that, and that is why we should question for me the explanation of the steel beams warping is plausible, not the 47 steel core that went through the whole building. They should have stood, or bent at the extreme, not fall in on themselves
Utter poppycock. And why did no-one get to see Bin Bags body before they dumped it in the sea. DNA of some distant relative my ****in arse
Again I will debunk you and hope this is the last I hear: The floors of the towers fell straight down while the perimeter columns leaned out These buildings could not collapse any other way due to the design of the building. It was not a solid block. Neither building had the tube in a tube design used at the WTC Unlike the towers, both buildings had their steel columns encased in concrete The steel which was not protected with concrete in the Madrid towers also collapsed early on just like in the towers The towers fell at free fall/near free fall speed In every video and photo you can see the perimeter columns far outpacing the collapse. The building took over 12-16 seconds to completely collapse. The actual event was covered by debris so no one can say for sure. One rare video has the south tower collapsing at about 22 seconds. Conspiracy theorists cut their videos out when the perimeter columns hit the ground and not the building.
computers and phones falling down one floor sounded like an explosions wahhahabhahahaha awww u have made my day already with that effort calatron ****in epic Can i ask you something cal, this is pretty irrelevant beacause the temps were not even half of what required to melt bare steel, but do you know what expiriment nist done to work out how the fireproofing was dislodged? i do, im just asking if you do, seen as you have copy and pasted 2 small paragraphs and think you achieved something
Explain why it is Poppycock come on debunk what I told you and we are not talking about Bin Laden's body here we are talking about the twin towers.
