Poll

What is the truth about the 911 attack on the World Trade Center?

Hijacked Planes were flown into the two towers.  Resulting fires caused the collapse.
14 (60.9%)
The planes were CGI and it was controlled demolition
2 (8.7%)
Something other than planes were flown into the twin towers,  missiles drones etc.
2 (8.7%)
The planes were holographic projections from a special satellite, and it was a directed energy weapon
1 (4.3%)
Something else.
3 (13%)
Denspressure
1 (4.3%)

Total Members Voted: 23

Voting closed: March 06, 2017, 10:56:40 PM

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 103 104 [105] 106 107 ... 229   Go Down

911 What is the truth?

  • 6864 Replies
  • 1198814 Views
*

Bom Tishop

  • 11247
  • +12/-7
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #3120 on: March 29, 2017, 11:08:33 PM »
Quote from: Denspressure on March 29, 2017, 11:04:35 PM
Quality of thread is dropping fast.

Yeah I know...It was never that high to begin with in all honesty. No one would ever conversate...The reason it has dropped so much further is alot my fault. When I realized the type person rayzor is after his comments, I lost humanity for the guy.

The highlight, and the only time this thread was used correctly was when wolf appeared. I enjoyed that thoroughly.

Logged
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir
*

disputeone

  • 28036
  • +112/-112
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #3121 on: March 29, 2017, 11:33:22 PM »
Well, I think we can start to address how a single column failure can lead to a symmetrical collapse at freefall.

The thermal expansion model NIST used has been shown to be dubius at best. No one has been able to get their results with NIST's numbers which, imo, screams dishonesty.

I will allow the thermal expansion to cause a failure in column 79, How did the failure of a single column lead to the symmetrical free-fall collapse of an asymmetrical building subject to asymmetrical damage.

My position is that the core was destroyed by explosives before pulling the rest of the building down with smaller charges.

Video evidence supports this, we see the core collapse while the building holds steady then with a great deal of the interior left the building falls symmetrically very close to 9.81m/s2.

I am arguing that the remaining supports would cause an asymmetrical collapse or even a slow progressive collapse much slower than the acceleration of gravity. However I would predict both an asymmetrical collapse and a fall acceleration much slower than 9.81m/s2.
« Last Edit: March 29, 2017, 11:35:30 PM by disputeone »
Logged
Quote from: Crouton on July 15, 2024, 05:37:14 AM
Why would that be inciting terrorism?  Lorddave was merely describing a type of shop we have here in the US, a bomb-gun shop.  A shop that sells bomb-guns.
*

Rayzor

  • 12195
  • +0/-6
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #3122 on: March 30, 2017, 01:06:19 AM »
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 29, 2017, 10:59:24 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 29, 2017, 10:41:54 PM
Please stop calling me crazy.

Do you think strength would be proportionate to mass per volume?
Goes back to my maxi brick wall vs a concrete tilt up. The concrete tilt up is far more dense and much stronger.

Gaslighting people is a very poor debate tactic indeed, you are acting very poorly.

Still calling people crazy I see.... I would expect nothing more from such a small inferior little man.

I give it to you, in the attempts to be nice...When I lost the humanity for him I was out..That shit was too far.

I was talking about density...That was one part...The metal is thicker, bigger, Simply more of it, then add the cross sectioned supports, then the box frame etc etc...Simply more shit than up top I could keep going but don't care to. Speaking for it in terms of density was a nice easy round word that took care of many variables..

I was speaking to an architect... We had zero issue communicating...It was pleasant, a nice change.

He knew how I was rounding...He made comments as well that were "improper" by text book, but just fine in the field..I knew 100 percent what he was saying. People use slang individually different, then you add in different counties.

No one gives a shit when you are working, we aren't there to impress each other with words...We are there to get shit done. If everyone used the entire phrase for every single thing, we would get nothing done, spend all day flapping our gums.

I have used abbreviations here as well, no one knows what the fuck those are, at least here. That is the main way I communicate, especially in the M.E. side..So I have tried to use more neutral languages for dipshits like yourself.

It's cool...You will keep splitting hairs on everything possible you can..It's your game and all you have...Small is what small does

You do it every time you attempt a subject with any technical content,  even now you are still misusing the term density,  and "cross sectioned"  when I assume you actually meant "cross braced"

The steel is not more dense because there is more of it,   that's as silly as dispute claiming the steel was compressed 15 times. 

And no,  people don't communicate at any level of discussion by misusing basic terms like you do,  it leads to confusion and mistakes,   You keep digging that hole deeper every time you try.

Either you know the topic and have sub standard communication skills,  or you don't know shit and are faking it. Failing any evidence otherwise, I'm going with the latter.
Logged
Quote from: Space Cowgirl on March 01, 2018, 01:35:42 PM
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.
*

disputeone

  • 28036
  • +112/-112
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #3123 on: March 30, 2017, 01:17:51 AM »
I never claimed the steel was compressed by a factor of fifteen Rayzor, steel is far too dense already to compress by a factor of fifteen.

Having more steel and concrete increases the density and strength of a structure, what are you even arguing against?

Please stop twisting peoples words, I don't appreciate it and it's not helping your position.

Can you please address my post above?

If people are genuinely interested in the truthers position, this video explains our evidence well, by professionals in their fields. There are heaps of PhDs on the video explaining mine and Bhs main arguments.

It even addresses the psychological issues involved with questioning the official story.



Rayzor please stop the ad hominems.
« Last Edit: March 30, 2017, 01:23:06 AM by disputeone »
Logged
Quote from: Crouton on July 15, 2024, 05:37:14 AM
Why would that be inciting terrorism?  Lorddave was merely describing a type of shop we have here in the US, a bomb-gun shop.  A shop that sells bomb-guns.
*

Denspressure

  • 1947
  • +0/-0
  • What do you, value?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #3124 on: March 30, 2017, 01:21:39 AM »
It could be worse. At least we aren't arguing about acceleration and if the acceleration rate can be constant. That would be absolutely mental.

Hahaha.

....

Oh....
Logged
):
*

disputeone

  • 28036
  • +112/-112
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #3125 on: March 30, 2017, 01:24:24 AM »
Quote from: Denspressure on March 30, 2017, 01:21:39 AM
It could be worse. At least we aren't arguing about acceleration and if the acceleration rate can be constant. That would be absolutely mental.

Hahaha.

....

Oh....

Do you think the truth position on 9/11 is stupid too?

It's cool if you do but please throw in an argument for the O/S.
Logged
Quote from: Crouton on July 15, 2024, 05:37:14 AM
Why would that be inciting terrorism?  Lorddave was merely describing a type of shop we have here in the US, a bomb-gun shop.  A shop that sells bomb-guns.
*

Denspressure

  • 1947
  • +0/-0
  • What do you, value?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #3126 on: March 30, 2017, 01:31:47 AM »
Would it make you feel good about your truther self if I said I believe it was a controlled demolition or something?
Logged
):
*

disputeone

  • 28036
  • +112/-112
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #3127 on: March 30, 2017, 01:36:11 AM »
Not at all.

I want you to consider the evidence and make your own opinion.

Just justify it.
Logged
Quote from: Crouton on July 15, 2024, 05:37:14 AM
Why would that be inciting terrorism?  Lorddave was merely describing a type of shop we have here in the US, a bomb-gun shop.  A shop that sells bomb-guns.
*

disputeone

  • 28036
  • +112/-112
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #3128 on: March 30, 2017, 01:38:38 AM »
Here is a rather good argument imo.

Quote from: disputeone on March 29, 2017, 11:33:22 PM
Well, I think we can start to address how a single column failure can lead to a symmetrical collapse at freefall.

The thermal expansion model NIST used has been shown to be dubious at best. No one has been able to get their results with NIST's numbers which, imo, screams dishonesty.

I will allow the thermal expansion to cause a failure in column 79, How did the failure of a single column lead to the symmetrical free-fall collapse of an asymmetrical building subject to asymmetrical damage.

My position is that the core was destroyed by explosives before pulling the rest of the building down with smaller charges.

Video evidence supports this, we see the core collapse while the building holds steady then with a great deal of the interior left the building falls symmetrically very close to 9.81m/s2.

I am arguing that the remaining supports would cause an asymmetrical collapse or even a slow progressive collapse much slower than the acceleration of gravity. However I would predict both an asymmetrical collapse and a fall acceleration much slower than 9.81m/s2.
Logged
Quote from: Crouton on July 15, 2024, 05:37:14 AM
Why would that be inciting terrorism?  Lorddave was merely describing a type of shop we have here in the US, a bomb-gun shop.  A shop that sells bomb-guns.
*

Denspressure

  • 1947
  • +0/-0
  • What do you, value?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #3129 on: March 30, 2017, 01:46:36 AM »
There is a 9/11 thread on a dutch forum with 1380 pages. This thread is nothing.
Logged
):
*

disputeone

  • 28036
  • +112/-112
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #3130 on: March 30, 2017, 01:48:45 AM »
Quote from: Denspressure on March 30, 2017, 01:46:36 AM
There is a 9/11 thread on a dutch forum with 1380 pages. This thread is nothing.

Thanks for your opinion.

It wasn't what I asked but I will accept it.
Logged
Quote from: Crouton on July 15, 2024, 05:37:14 AM
Why would that be inciting terrorism?  Lorddave was merely describing a type of shop we have here in the US, a bomb-gun shop.  A shop that sells bomb-guns.
*

Denspressure

  • 1947
  • +0/-0
  • What do you, value?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #3131 on: March 30, 2017, 01:55:03 AM »
The collapse was asymmetric and not 9,xx m/s

The approach taken by NIST is summarized in Section 3.6 of the final summary report, NCSTAR 1A (released Nov. 20, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf) and detailed in Section 12.5.3 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 (available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-9%20Vol%202.pdf).

The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:

    Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
    Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
    Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity


This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.
Logged
):
*

disputeone

  • 28036
  • +112/-112
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #3132 on: March 30, 2017, 02:05:36 AM »
I've read the NIST report.

Thanks again.

gravitational acceleration = 9.8m/s2
Logged
Quote from: Crouton on July 15, 2024, 05:37:14 AM
Why would that be inciting terrorism?  Lorddave was merely describing a type of shop we have here in the US, a bomb-gun shop.  A shop that sells bomb-guns.
*

disputeone

  • 28036
  • +112/-112
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #3133 on: March 30, 2017, 02:08:06 AM »
I'd really like someone to try to address this if possible.

Quote from: disputeone on March 29, 2017, 11:33:22 PM
Well, I think we can start to address how a single column failure can lead to a symmetrical collapse at freefall.

The thermal expansion model NIST used has been shown to be dubious at best. No one has been able to get their results with NIST's numbers which, imo, screams dishonesty.

I will allow the thermal expansion to cause a failure in column 79, How did the failure of a single column lead to the symmetrical free-fall collapse of an asymmetrical building subject to asymmetrical damage.

My position is that the core was destroyed by explosives before pulling the rest of the building down with smaller charges.

Video evidence supports this, we see the core collapse while the building holds steady then with a great deal of the interior left the building falls symmetrically very close to 9.81m/s2.

I am arguing that the remaining supports would cause an asymmetrical collapse or even a slow progressive collapse much slower than the acceleration of gravity. However I would predict both an asymmetrical collapse and a fall acceleration much slower than 9.81m/s2.
Logged
Quote from: Crouton on July 15, 2024, 05:37:14 AM
Why would that be inciting terrorism?  Lorddave was merely describing a type of shop we have here in the US, a bomb-gun shop.  A shop that sells bomb-guns.
*

Denspressure

  • 1947
  • +0/-0
  • What do you, value?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #3134 on: March 30, 2017, 02:11:14 AM »
The fall was not symmetrical.
It did not fall at 9.81m/s2
Logged
):
*

disputeone

  • 28036
  • +112/-112
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #3135 on: March 30, 2017, 02:23:08 AM »
Thanks again for your opinion.



Quote from: NIST
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)

https://www.nist.gov/el/faqs-nist-wtc-7-investigation

Quote from: Google
Gravitational acceleration (symbolized g) is an expression used in physics to indicate the intensity of a gravitational field. It is expressed in meters per second squared (m/s 2 ). At the surface of the earth, 1 g is about 9.8 m/s 2 .
Logged
Quote from: Crouton on July 15, 2024, 05:37:14 AM
Why would that be inciting terrorism?  Lorddave was merely describing a type of shop we have here in the US, a bomb-gun shop.  A shop that sells bomb-guns.
*

MaNaeSWolf

  • 2623
  • +1/-3
  • Show me the evidence
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #3136 on: March 30, 2017, 03:48:13 AM »
So FYI. I am going through the engineering drawings of WTC 7 while I am running renders. Turns out almost all (not all) of the cross bracing was in the external skin (outer walls) I am finding very little bracing in the core.
Seems the design theory was to brace the building with the outer skin. It seems very stiff actually. And the internal structure was just to provide vertical support.
This increases usable floor area internally, reduces columns without having the bracing take up floor space.
The elevator shafts do not seem to be a braced core.

There is some bracing internally, but the main bracing truss seems to be connecting column 74 to 80. The idea seems to be to spread the lateral forces to the outer wall. (Yes, the outer wall was super stiff!)
From what I can see with my quick assessment, critical columns where
74, 77, 80 - connected to one girder
79, 76 - another girder
59, 62 - I think another girder, but have not found the drawings of it
60, 63 - I think another girder, but have not found the drawings of it

Those columns have bracing between them, almost functioning as girders that would distribute lateral forces to the outer skin.
This building was not designed like the WTC 1+2 buildings at all. Completely different structural system
It seems to be a typical domino structure braced on the other skin.

Babyhighspeed, unless I am missing a lot of bracing, this building did not have a stiff inner core.
Logged
If you move fast enough, everything appears flat
*

disputeone

  • 28036
  • +112/-112
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #3137 on: March 30, 2017, 03:53:57 AM »
Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on March 30, 2017, 03:48:13 AM
So FYI. I am going through the engineering drawings of WTC 7 while I am running renders. Turns out almost all (not all) of the cross bracing was in the external skin (outer walls) I am finding very little bracing in the core.
Seems the design theory was to brace the building with the outer skin. It seems very stiff actually. And the internal structure was just to provide vertical support.
This increases usable floor area internally, reduces columns without having the bracing take up floor space.
The elevator shafts do not seem to be a braced core.

Correct.

Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on March 30, 2017, 03:48:13 AM
There is some bracing internally, but the main bracing truss seems to be connecting column 74 to 80. The idea seems to be to spread the lateral forces to the outer wall. (Yes, the outer wall was super stiff!)
From what I can see with my quick assessment, critical columns where
74, 77, 80 - connected to one girder
79, 76 - another girder
59, 62 - I think another girder, but have not found the drawings of it
60, 63 - I think another girder, but have not found the drawings of it

Awesome research.

Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on March 30, 2017, 03:48:13 AM
Those columns have bracing between them, almost functioning as girders that would distribute lateral forces to the outer skin.
This building was not designed like the WTC 1+2 buildings at all. Completely different structural system
It seems to be a typical domino structure braced on the other skin.

The question I would then ask is how a steel framed concrete reinforced building built from the outside in have a 2.25 second symmetrical free-fall of its outer structure caused by fire?(1)

The house of cards analogy is inept, I think, because of the symmetry of the free-fall.

(1)https://www.nist.gov/pba/questions-and-answers-about-nist-wtc-7-investigation

Edit for reference.
« Last Edit: March 30, 2017, 03:58:58 AM by disputeone »
Logged
Quote from: Crouton on July 15, 2024, 05:37:14 AM
Why would that be inciting terrorism?  Lorddave was merely describing a type of shop we have here in the US, a bomb-gun shop.  A shop that sells bomb-guns.
*

MaNaeSWolf

  • 2623
  • +1/-3
  • Show me the evidence
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #3138 on: March 30, 2017, 04:17:57 AM »
Quote from: disputeone on March 30, 2017, 03:53:57 AM
The question I would then ask is how a steel framed concrete reinforced building built from the outside in have a 2.25 second symmetrical free-fall of it's outer structure caused by fire?1

The house of cards analogy is inept, i think, because of the symmetry of the free-fall.

1https://www.nist.gov/pba/questions-and-answers-about-nist-wtc-7-investigation

It was a steel frame building.
The concrete did not play much role in the structure from what I can tell.

So dont think of the building as being reinforced from the inside vs outside. It is one structural system that works together.
An engineers has to primary work against 2 forces (very basically) the vertical forces from the weight of the building and internal loading. And then the lateral forces from wind. The whole thing has to work together to distribute all the forces together down to the foundations.
In WTC7 the outer skin provided most of the lateral strength against wind, while the internal columns provided almost all of the vertical support.

So using the domino structure as an example.
Imagine building a domino tower. The dominos are very good at taking a vertical load, but if you pushed the tower even slightly it would topple.
So to fix this, you wrap the tower with paper all around. The paper cant take much vertical load, but is stiff enough to hold the tower together if you give it a slight push. It all works very well, until one day someone pulls a domino piece out from inside. The whole inside would collapse first, then the paper would stand for a bit before crumbling in, because it cant stand by itself.
You can test this yourself at home.
(if anyone find a problem with my metaphor because it does not exactly match the conditions of WTC7, go have a long hard look in a mirror first, before you tell me otherwise, it was a metaphor)
This is more or less what seems to have happened here.

It was not a silly design choice either, the Architects try to provide as much open floor space as possible for a variety of tenant requirements. This was one way to achieve long floor spans and few internal braced columns.
Logged
If you move fast enough, everything appears flat
*

disputeone

  • 28036
  • +112/-112
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #3139 on: March 30, 2017, 04:28:35 AM »
Emphasis on more or less.

The free-fall and symmetry of collapse should not have happened. I would have paid it if it folded in on itself, but nope, straight down through itself at free-fall.

I'm not sure if you have done any reading on demolitions but in my gif above you can see clear squibs from the intact columns on the right in the model.



You said yourself you expected the collapse to stop based on the model, and it does actually stop, they didnt model the whole collapse at all, NIST actually admits they can't explain the complete destruction of the three towers they only explain the collapse initiation.
« Last Edit: March 30, 2017, 04:32:42 AM by disputeone »
Logged
Quote from: Crouton on July 15, 2024, 05:37:14 AM
Why would that be inciting terrorism?  Lorddave was merely describing a type of shop we have here in the US, a bomb-gun shop.  A shop that sells bomb-guns.
*

MaNaeSWolf

  • 2623
  • +1/-3
  • Show me the evidence
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #3140 on: March 30, 2017, 04:37:32 AM »

The collapse makes a bit more sense to me after having gotten hold of the plans.
That said, it is still a very strange collapse.
I have the manufacturers drawings, I want to look at the joints between the floor beams and the outer columns.
I feel there should have been more support provided from the outer skin.


I completely understand why people dont think it should have fallen.

I will try respond properly after I have gone over some more stuff.
But for now I have to go.


edited because South Africa's lingo is not international



« Last Edit: March 30, 2017, 04:39:24 AM by MaNaeSWolf »
Logged
If you move fast enough, everything appears flat
*

disputeone

  • 28036
  • +112/-112
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #3141 on: March 30, 2017, 04:38:24 AM »
You're awesome man, thanks.
Logged
Quote from: Crouton on July 15, 2024, 05:37:14 AM
Why would that be inciting terrorism?  Lorddave was merely describing a type of shop we have here in the US, a bomb-gun shop.  A shop that sells bomb-guns.
?

totallackey

  • 4526
  • +0/-0
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #3142 on: March 30, 2017, 05:14:51 AM »
Quote from: Rayzor on March 29, 2017, 05:08:15 PM
Quote from: totallackey on March 29, 2017, 09:17:15 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 29, 2017, 12:49:30 AM
That's just your opinion,  what you need is evidence,  all the available evidence says it collapsed due to debris damage and fire.   If you want to prove that it was controlled demolition you need proof not opinions.

All the available evidence does not point collapse due to debris and fire.
Um,  yes it does,   there is video and photographic as well as numerous witness statements testifying to the damage caused by debris from WTC1 and the subsequent fires. 
Whereas there is no evidence of controlled demolition,  none,  zip,  nada,  that parrot won't zoom with a million volts.

Quote from: totallackey on March 29, 2017, 09:17:15 AM
There is the fact that buildings made of steel and concrete do not collapse in and on themselves due to debris and fire.

This one did.   

The only plausible argument for controlled demolition is opinion based not evidence based.  The dipstickone arguments,  "it looked like a controlled demolition"  the brain damaged "free fall"  "loss of structural resistance"  arguments.

Not to mention for the nth time that there is no logic in demoing a building already on the verge of collapse.

So,  no evidence,   no logic,   no hidden conspiracy  then the crazies start with the personal attacks,  easy to see why that is, they've got nothing else.
"The only plausible argument for controlled demolition is opinion based not evidence based..."

I do not know how many times it needs to be repeated before you understand this:

The ARGUMENT FOR CONTROLLED DEMOLITION IS EVIDENCE BASED!

Many experts have looked at the collapse of WTC 7.

They stated, "It looks like a controlled demolition."

You see?

When you see something with your own eyes THAT CONSTITUTES FUCKING EVIDENCE!

WHAT THE FUCK IS THE MATTER WITH YOU!?!?
Logged
*

disputeone

  • 28036
  • +112/-112
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #3143 on: March 30, 2017, 05:15:56 AM »
Quote from: totallackey on March 30, 2017, 05:14:51 AM
Many experts have looked at the collapse of WTC 7.

2836 architects and structural engineers1 at last count.

Edit. Citation.
« Last Edit: March 30, 2017, 05:19:58 AM by disputeone »
Logged
Quote from: Crouton on July 15, 2024, 05:37:14 AM
Why would that be inciting terrorism?  Lorddave was merely describing a type of shop we have here in the US, a bomb-gun shop.  A shop that sells bomb-guns.
*

Definitely Not Swedish

  • rutabaga
  • 8309
  • +0/-1
  • Flat Earth Inspector General of High Fashion Crime
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #3144 on: March 30, 2017, 10:05:49 AM »
Quote from: disputeone on March 30, 2017, 05:15:56 AM
Quote from: totallackey on March 30, 2017, 05:14:51 AM
Many experts have looked at the collapse of WTC 7.

2836 architects and structural engineers1 at last count.

Edit. Citation.

I thought they'd be there with full name so I could write an email to some of them. But it's just a number, nothing more. Worthless garbage.
Logged
Quote from: croutons, the s.o.w.
You have received a warning for breaking the laws of mathematics.

Member of the BOTD
Sign up here.
?

totallackey

  • 4526
  • +0/-0
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #3145 on: March 30, 2017, 10:18:04 AM »
Quote from: User324 on March 30, 2017, 10:05:49 AM
I thought they'd be there with full name so I could write an email to some of them. But it's just a number, nothing more. Worthless garbage.

Why can't you write them?
Logged
*

disputeone

  • 28036
  • +112/-112
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #3146 on: March 30, 2017, 02:40:07 PM »
Quote from: User324 on March 30, 2017, 10:05:49 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 30, 2017, 05:15:56 AM
Quote from: totallackey on March 30, 2017, 05:14:51 AM
Many experts have looked at the collapse of WTC 7.

2836 architects and structural engineers1 at last count.

Edit. Citation.

I thought they'd be there with full name so I could write an email to some of them. But it's just a number, nothing more. Worthless garbage.

http://www.ae911truth.org/contact-us.html

2342 Shattuck Avenue Suite 189
Berkeley
CA 94704

It's ok to be scared.

Real bravery isn't not being scared, bravery is being scared but doing what is right regardless of fear.
Logged
Quote from: Crouton on July 15, 2024, 05:37:14 AM
Why would that be inciting terrorism?  Lorddave was merely describing a type of shop we have here in the US, a bomb-gun shop.  A shop that sells bomb-guns.
?

Twerp

  • Gutter Sniper
  • Flat Earth Almost Believer
  • 6540
  • +0/-0
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #3147 on: March 30, 2017, 03:17:18 PM »
I'd say this investigation could help themselves by getting into the current century.
Logged
“Heaven is being governed by Devil nowadays..” - Wise
*

disputeone

  • 28036
  • +112/-112
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #3148 on: March 30, 2017, 03:18:24 PM »
Which one?
Logged
Quote from: Crouton on July 15, 2024, 05:37:14 AM
Why would that be inciting terrorism?  Lorddave was merely describing a type of shop we have here in the US, a bomb-gun shop.  A shop that sells bomb-guns.
?

Twerp

  • Gutter Sniper
  • Flat Earth Almost Believer
  • 6540
  • +0/-0
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #3149 on: March 30, 2017, 04:21:20 PM »
The one that requires you to go buy an envelope and paper and write a letter and then buy a stamp and stick it on the envelope in order to contact them.

Edit: I thought that was all the options available from that link. Now I see you can call them or send an email from their page. So, I guess I'll retract my comment.  :)
Logged
“Heaven is being governed by Devil nowadays..” - Wise
Pages: 1 ... 103 104 [105] 106 107 ... 229   Go Up
« previous next »