I wonder why they didn't use I beams all the why down then?For the intent of this conversation the I beams(used in the upper half of the buildings) were just as sturdy as the boxes.
Hmmmm......
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I wonder why they didn't use I beams all the why down then?For the intent of this conversation the I beams(used in the upper half of the buildings) were just as sturdy as the boxes.
Why don't you Google it and find out for us?I wonder why they didn't use I beams all the why down then?
Hmmmm......
So NOW you're admitting you were wrong? That the columns were NOT massive box columns made of 2" thick steel plate from top to bottom?For the intent of this conversation the I beams(used in the upper half of the buildings) were just as sturdy as the boxes.
Right. And you know how the towers were constructed. Good grief...Why don't you Google it and find out for us?
Nobody has remotely debunked the premise of this thread which is that two large airplanes that hit the Twin Towers did not cause the towers to collapse all the way to the ground in controlled demolition fashion at near freefall speed in an accelerated motion that would have been stopped by each towers' 47 massive steel core columns.
Building 7 which collapsed later in the afternoon, was probably black ops HQ..... then they cleared everybody out and blasted it to destroy the evidence.
They didn't come out with the last firefighters.... they left through the basement.
Koko, you better step in for Angelo before he makes any more idiotic statments.For the intent of this conversation the I beams(used in the upper half of the buildings) were just as sturdy as the boxes.
You're as much of a truther as I am being paid to be on this forum to "hide the truth".I'm not a truther, agent gammy.
RUNNNN Angelo, RUNNNNNN!!!!See you around little boy.
Is it common sense Angelo?All you have to do is watch the videos of the twin towers collapsing......
Keeping in mind that each tower had 47 massive steel columns from the ground up surrounding the Elevator Shafts like 47 separate little indestructible redwood trees.... no amount of weight could crush through those the way this happened.....NO way-- think about it --it's just common sense.
I step in when you make idiotic statementsKoko, you better step in for Angelo before he makes any more idiotic statments.
By the way ,despite the trolls' ad hominem attacks at me....
Nobody has remotely debunked the premise of this thread which is that two large airplanes that hit the Twin Towers did not cause the towers to collapse all the way to the ground in controlled demolition fashion at near freefall speed in an accelerated motion that would have been stopped by each towers' 47 massive steel core columns.
Building 7 which collapsed later in the afternoon, was probably black ops HQ..... then they cleared everybody out and blasted it to destroy the evidence.
They didn't come out with the last firefighters.... they left through the basement.
Hey Angelo. Look at your two quotes above and the parts I highlighted in red.How do you explain both twin towers falling at equal freefall speed given the difference in the total weight collapsing from above between the two ?
it what the nazi says true, that official lie is the truth?Koko, I have a simple question for you.
Is Angelo correct in saying that the 47 core columns of the twin towers were ALL, from bottom to top, massive box columns constructed of 2" thick steel plate?
Is that true?
How the fuck is that relevant outside of being a distinction with no practical difference?Hey Angelo. Look at your two quotes above and the parts I highlighted in red.
At free fall versus NEAR free fall? Why did you change your tune?
![]()
Ah yes. Typical Koko. When he knows the answer is detrimental to him or another fellow truther, avoid at all costs and post something completely irrelevant.it what the nazi says true, that official lie is the truth?
He is still looking for 50 tons of scrap x 4 for the alleged planes, do you agree with nazi that the gubmint gets a free pass and needs no evidence?
Coming to Angelo's rescue once again!!!How the fuck is that relevant outside of being a distinction with no practical difference?
Why did he change the wording then Koko?How the fuck is that relevant outside of being a distinction with no practical difference?
you look to me to validate Angelo, I look to you to validate nazi, whats the matter gam, dont you enjoy losing at your own game again?Ah yes. Typical Koko. When he knows the answer is detrimental to him or another fellow truther, avoid at all costs and post something completely irrelevant.
![]()
what practical difference does it make or are you being your typical grammar nazi self?Why did he change the wording then Koko?
![]()
Who's losing Koko?you look to me to validate Angelo, I look to you to validate nazi, whats the matter gam, dont you enjoy losing at your own game again?