World Trade Center Dust Contains Evidence of Explosives
- Thread starter SexyGreyFox
- Start date
Actually yes it is a debate heh you have people who are too scared to even consider the possibility that it was anything but what the official statements say, you have people who are deludedly swallowing every CT going and people who are somewhere inbetween but being painted as being in one corner or the other by the people in the 2 extremes.
And some people just posting for a laugh to stir things up.
And some people just posting for a laugh to stir things up.
That you couldn't be further from the truth. As I have said before untill a CT can show any evidence to back up there theorys, then I will stick with the theory which has all evidence backing it
I think acid, may have a background in civil engineering or at least a physics based subject, due to the fact that he saying sense.
The idea that a building can be pre-weakened is ludicrous due to the average stress and strains that a building has to fight daily.
Also i believe what i see, i saw a building hit by a plane, a building not designed to with stand earthquakes let alone a plane hitting it so far up.
Also a pretty old built building that didn't use a floating structure support system like the newer style buildings.
The force of a solid aircraft can transfer into a building is immense coupled with the momentum force that was applied to the base of the structure. could easily buckle the main supports of the building.
Also the force of the impact was shown to have splintered the concrete on supports, which when introduced to a flash heating and extreme pressure change can easily strip the concrete of the steel.
this results in the compression capablities of the supports being superoirly reduced. which ended with the collaspse.
Sure and meanwhile I'm still not seeing anything that moves me from my viewpoint that while the theory that has the most evidence backing it is the most plausible, it doesn't comprehensively deny the possibility of not entirely unreasonable alternative theories.
Unfortunately for you i have physics on my side and shes a cruel bitch...
Associate
It's a known fact that the buildings were destroyed by explosives & that the planes which appeared to hit the towers were in fact holograms
I dunno about ludicrous but I agree it doesn't seem likely but that wasn't my point, my point is that theres plenty of possibilities, I'm not saying this is how it was done, but for instance maybe they plugged the supports with another material (composite) as they went that was strong enough to take the load but easier to break down via another method (this might take a bit of imagination to conceptualise how it could be done).
I just don't think anyone has enough information to make such absolute statements one way or another.
Last edited:
Soldato
Yes, but physics could be wrong and the CT's could be right. You haven't considered that have you? No, because the truth scares you
Soldato
do you want me to explain the physic behind how they collapsed or do you want to troll?
Soldato
Yes, but physics could be wrong and the CT's could be right. You haven't considered that have you? No, because the truth scares you
And I will ask you again which report do you back?
I know you have read them or you would not post here
or are you just trying to get your post count up.
Soldato
Soldato
No you've got me - I'm trying to get my post count up
My beliefs are not relevant to this thread, but as I think you have worked out by now, I have not seen any evidence from the posts on this thread that there was any kind of conspiracy going on.
Associate
go find another playground to play in
My post is no more ludicrous than some of the others posting tripe on here
Associate
I have not read any report but jet fuel burns off really quick with big flames and stuff (especially the stuff bit). So how did the steel all break up with heat ????. It was red hot when they were taking it away to be recycled (far too quickly imo)
Or are they saying it was that fire but it wasn't buring for that long was it ??
Or are they saying it was that fire but it wasn't buring for that long was it ??
They are saying that the fire proofing was dislodged from the main supports and that the burning jet fuel and office debris made it hot enough for the metal to soften to a point where it was no longer able to take the load, it doesn't need to actually break or melt.
Soldato
Nist states the fires where the planes hit only went uo to 500c
you need constent 1000c for it to give way.
and again Nist SAID in thire final report(which cost $20,000,000)
" WE CAN'T EXPLAIN THE TOTAL COLLAPSE "
Caporegime
Sanity, logic and rational thought won the battle about 10 pages ago. Now they're just dancing on the grave.