Honest question about 911

[daws101]

"Planes did not cause the WTC buildings to collapse but rather the damage from high speed impact combined with HOURS of "chaotic fires" "

The South Tower collapsed 56 minutes after impact = 56 minute fire
The North Tower collapsed 102 minutes after impact. = 102 minute fire

You even capped HOURS for emphasis!

"HOURS of "chaotic fires" "

You have no shame, there is no end to your deceitful ways.

"stop pretending you actually know something. "

it was hours 2 hours and 17 min to be accurate. they burned for days even weeks weeks after the collapse..

"Planes did not cause the WTC buildings to collapse but rather the damage from high speed impact combined with HOURS of "chaotic fires" "

The South Tower collapsed 56 minutes after impact = 56 minute fire
The North Tower collapsed 102 minutes after impact. = 102 minute fire

You even capped HOURS for emphasis!

"HOURS of "chaotic fires" "

You have no shame, there is no end to your deceitful ways.

"stop pretending you actually know something. "

it was hours 2 hours and 17 min to be accurate. they burned for days even weeks weeks after the collapse..

You pull that time out of your arse? Your credibility is going the way of Sklyar and some of your other myther friends.
8:46 Flight 11 crashes into the North Tower
10:28 The North Tower of the World Trade Center collapses, approximately 102 minutes after being struck by Flight 11

9:03 Flight 175 crashes into the South Tower
9:59 The South Tower of the World Trade Center collapses, 56 minutes after the impact of Flight 175

do the math shit head the combined time was 2 hours 17 mins..
also your comments about credibility are hilarious .
you're a CT nut sack that all by itself means you have zero credibility now and forever.

wtc 1 and 2 and 7 are all the same event no matter how2 hard you wish it to be different.

Larry Silverstein begs to differ.
Your a joke.

false you just wish he did ..typical!

 

[daws101]

daws101 can bench press 300 lbs
He just did 4 reps of 75 lbs!

in total that 300 and didn't fuck up my back or get hemorrhoids doing it.

 

[n0spam4me]

What appears to be presented as debate here, isn't! what a CROCK!
Can we PLEASE focus on the topic at hand, and in this case for this tread, its about finding a legit academic paper that supports the idea of hijacked airliners being used as weapons, &or the concept that the twin towers & 7 could have "collapsed" in the manner that they did without the help of being an engineered event.
what do we have? Besides the already totally discredited Bazant paper, what is there? any new info here?

 

[Faun]

What appears to be presented as debate here, isn't! what a CROCK!
Can we PLEASE focus on the topic at hand, and in this case for this tread, its about finding a legit academic paper that supports the idea of hijacked airliners being used as weapons, &or the concept that the twin towers & 7 could have "collapsed" in the manner that they did without the help of being an engineered event.
what do we have? Besides the already totally discredited Bazant paper, what is there? any new info here?

Sure, let's get back on topic ... link a video which shows the south side of the south tower exploding without a plane flying into it .......

 

[n0spam4me]

This thread has been on since August 23rd and so far, nobody has managed to come up with any actual academic paper ( or?) that supports the official story. I'm quite certain that there are a few, and indeed what it does is call into question the academic peer-review process, because even the infamous BAZANT paper was "peer-reviewed" but indeed if it was reviewed by anybody, then why was it published with the fan-fair that somehow this answered questions about how the tower(s) fell, its a FARCE, and to release a "peer-reviewed" paper into the realm of published work, and with the obvious glaring errors/faults that this paper has, doesn't this cast the whole peer-review process in a bad light?
Thoughts anyone?

 

[Faun]

Thoughts are you're completely fucking insane. There's a wealth of supporting documentation, starting with the video evidence recorded by dozens and dozens of eyewitnesses. You have yet to prove they are were ALL tampered with. You have yet to prove the existence of even one video you believe was not tampered with. You have completely and utterly failed to present a compelling case why any of that should be dismissed in favor of your fervent hallucinations. Yet you persist nonetheless, thus cementing the thought that you are firmly batshit insane.

There ... hope that answered your question for you.

 

[n0spam4me]

Once one floor gave way the rest was inevitable.

and this is what passes for discussion of the subject?
You do understand that there are all sorts of alternatives,
total collapse was NOT inevitable after collapse initiation.
anybody ever take statistics & probability 101 in school?
what? The whole bit about saying that total collapse was inevitable, is illogical.

 

[Faun]

Once one floor gave way the rest was inevitable.

and this is what passes for discussion of the subject?
You do understand that there are all sorts of alternatives,
total collapse was NOT inevitable after collapse initiation.
anybody ever take statistics & probability 101 in school?
what? The whole bit about saying that total collapse was inevitable, is illogical.

You fail. Just because it was not inevitable doesn't mean it didn't happen.

And again, I am still waiting for you to link to a video showing nothing hitting the WTC where a plane is seen hitting it in EVERY single video which captured the event.

Shirley, had there been no planes, at least 1 of the 10 million or so people in the area caught that on video, right??

 

[n0spam4me]

I am glad to see some evidence in favor of the more sensible. All I had seen before was the conspiracies and their 'proofs.'

If you are still reading this forum, I'm rather curious as to what sort of "proofs"
you have been shown such to provoke such a remark, there are all sorts of
facts about the events of 9/11/2001 that point directly to false flag operation.
however I'm curious as to what it is that you have been given previously so as
to motivate that sort of 'proofs' statement.