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.
Okay school children, Could you please point out the big heavy object that is crushing the floors below it?
Okay school children, Could you please point out the big heavy object that is crushing the floors below it?
If there was nothing within the footprint to fall upon the lower floors and core due to it all being ejected, please explain the 56' high debris pile in the footprint shown below.
Was all the debris ejected and then magically sucked back into the footprint?
Okay school children, Could you please point out the big heavy object that is crushing the floors below it?
If there was nothing within the footprint to fall upon the lower floors and core due to it all being ejected, please explain the 56' high debris pile in the footprint shown below.
Was all the debris ejected and then magically sucked back into the footprint?
that would be the floors below the impact zone...
Why did you capitalize the word "half" above. Was the half of the building in my video dropped on the lower half? No, it was three floors.
Was it HALF of the north tower, 55 floors? No it was 12 floors. Was if HALF of the south tower, 55 floors? No, it was 28.
Get your shit straight.
get your shit straight chump..The supports from three floors in the middle of the building were removed simultaneously allowing the top HALF to fall on to the bottom half that has been extensively weakened in advance with cutting torches
Are you, eots, suggesting that the laws of physics changed because the lower section of that building was weakened? Remember what TakeAStepBack says:
Kinetic energy can't be used for two separate works. So it either expelled that energy as it sheered off (meaning that the total mass of the upper section became smaller, along with its potential/kinetic energy along the way), or it used it to pulverize the section below it. One or the other, not both. You would need an energy input for that to occur and we dont have one. Unless you know something we dont.
Even though the "lower section" was weakened, it's still somewhat intact and needs a force to finish the job and completely shear the "lower section". So based on what TakeAStepBack says above, this isn't possible. How did that "upper section" section in the video have enough energy to shear the rest of the "lower section" AND shear itself into debris?
Why do you keep avoiding this?
You're contradicting TakeAStepBack's "understanding" of the laws of physics.
Also, what happened to the fact that buildings are designed to support MANY times their designed load capacity? Even though the "lower section" was weakened, it still supported the "upper section"just fine until that upper section was released. Why didn't the "lower section" stop the "upper section"?
What turned the "upper section" into debris?
15 to 20 metres of debris is miniscule compared to the mass of a WTC building.If there was nothing within the footprint to fall upon the lower floors and core due to it all being ejected, please explain the 56' high debris pile in the footprint shown below.
Was all the debris ejected and then magically sucked back into the footprint?
15 to 20 metres of debris is miniscule compared to the mass of a WTC building.If there was nothing within the footprint to fall upon the lower floors and core due to it all being ejected, please explain the 56' high debris pile in the footprint shown below.
Was all the debris ejected and then magically sucked back into the footprint?
.
15 to 20 metres of debris is miniscule compared to the mass of a WTC building.If there was nothing within the footprint to fall upon the lower floors and core due to it all being ejected, please explain the 56' high debris pile in the footprint shown below.
Was all the debris ejected and then magically sucked back into the footprint?
.
Unsubstantiated CRAP, and a complete lie!So you think the monominded murderers and mechanical mavens who masterminded and sent engineers, scientists, and doctors to guide the planes to their doom were too stupid to know exactly where to place those hits in a way that would overburden the system that was not supposed to break down for any reason? Even a vertical house of cards can flatten if you remove the right middle card. The buildings were calculated to go down with attention to where the support of the building would be damaged the most.
They're brainwashed to think life on earth doesn't matter if you are killed or kill, and that if they kill enough infidels, they will get a double reward.
Saddam Hussein had hefty checks sent to each of the 19 homicidal maniac's families for their trouble. The reinforced the desire for local women to send out more of their own to commit atrocities.
They're smart people, Mr. Day. Very smart people.
No where will you find any evidence Saddam Hussein had any links to 9/11. Put up or shut up. Wow are you ignorant!
Republicans, Democrats, even people that believe the official piece of shit line the government feeds us now know that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. GO AWAY! I HATE LIARS!
Sorry, it's a well-documented story that Sandy Berger stole original documents from the National Archive prior to his arrest for stealing documents to clear the Clinton Administration and dirty the
Bush Admiistration, for which he received a rather substantial fine, as well as being barred from going back to the National Archive to rearrange and obfuscate "facts" some more.
You have been fooled by your own Democrat Party cheaters, Mr. Beale. Don't expect conservatives to be. As they besmirched Jennifer Flowers, the Clintonistas went after star Harvard Scholar Laurie Mylroie, whom the FBI praised but the liberal Democrats in the Clinton Administration made loud noises and complaints about her findings that Saddam Hussein was linked to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing as a player that he was. He was also linked to the attempted assassination of President George H.W.Bush and wrote $25,000 checks out to the families of the 9/11 bombers.
Keep kicking and screaming.
Saddam Hussein was up to his eyeballs in 9/11, whooping it up when the news was confirmed that the hijackers had successfully hit the WTC by shooting his AK-47 into the air above the massive audience he had before the Republican Guard's victory dance after the news broke. The Democrats, still reeling from the Bush election to the White House, did everything in their power to stifle the news stories of the dancing in the streets done in Baghdad that day, but I recollect it well, as reports weren't being stifled yet, until about the time evil Hillary held up the sign at the WTC that said "Bush Gnu." All that crap, and the DNC line was 'Bush is using this as a campaign start for re-election!" (Huh? In 2001? Oh, brother!!!)
I was online that day when someone said "turn your tv on, the World Trade Center in New York City has been hit by a jetliner." By the time I got to the TV set, I watched in horror as the second plane hit a couple of minutes later. I thought, "Unlike Flight 800 to France, which crashed July 17, 1996, they can't deny that these consecutive crashes today are the work of terrorists."
Not to worry, Beale. Idiots will believe your screaming-sized purple bullshit.
I HATE LIARS![/
No you don't. You should have heard the "poor guy" schtick about Sandy Berger before and after his conviction of stealing from the National Archives. He raided the national archives to ensure that Bush and not the Clinton administration paid the price for Clinton's State Department notes augmented by the Clinton White House papers.
For ever more. Berger even had papers stuffed in his shoes.
Shame on the Demmies for stealing papers to make themselves look good so they could scream "liar!" to anyone like me who read and remembered stuff from Clinton's negligence-filled administration, including Saddam Hussein's involvement in the WTC that would make Jimmy Carter look like a liar and Bush look like a hero.
Naughty, naughty, naughty.
Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda link allegations
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is about issues concerning allegations of pre-invasion links between Iraq and al-Qaeda. For the al-Qaeda presence involved in the Iraqi insurgency, see Al-Qaeda in Iraq.
Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda link allegations were made by U.S. Government officials who claimed that a highly secretive relationship existed between former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and the radical Islamist militant organization Al-Qaeda from 1992 to 2003, specifically through a series of meetings reportedly involving the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS).[1] In the lead up to the Iraq War, U.S. President George W. Bush alleged that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and militant group al-Qaeda might conspire to launch terrorist attacks on the United States,[2] basing the administration's rationale for war, in part, on this allegation and others. The consensus of intelligence experts has been that these contacts never led to an operational relationship, and that consensus is backed up by reports from the independent 9/11 Commission and by declassified Defense Department reports[3] as well as by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, whose 2006 report of Phase II of its investigation into prewar intelligence reports concluded that there was no evidence of ties between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.[4] Critics of the Bush Administration have said Bush was intentionally building a case for war with Iraq without regard to factual evidence. On April 29, 2007, former Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet said on 60 Minutes, "We could never verify that there was any Iraqi authority, direction and control, complicity with al-Qaeda for 9/11 or any operational act against America, period."[5]
get your shit straight chump..The supports from three floors in the middle of the building were removed simultaneously allowing the top HALF to fall on to the bottom half that has been extensively weakened in advance with cutting torches
Are you, eots, suggesting that the laws of physics changed because the lower section of that building was weakened? Remember what TakeAStepBack says:
Kinetic energy can't be used for two separate works. So it either expelled that energy as it sheered off (meaning that the total mass of the upper section became smaller, along with its potential/kinetic energy along the way), or it used it to pulverize the section below it. One or the other, not both. You would need an energy input for that to occur and we dont have one. Unless you know something we dont.
Even though the "lower section" was weakened, it's still somewhat intact and needs a force to finish the job and completely shear the "lower section". So based on what TakeAStepBack says above, this isn't possible. How did that "upper section" section in the video have enough energy to shear the rest of the "lower section" AND shear itself into debris?
Why do you keep avoiding this?
You're contradicting TakeAStepBack's "understanding" of the laws of physics.
Also, what happened to the fact that buildings are designed to support MANY times their designed load capacity? Even though the "lower section" was weakened, it still supported the "upper section"just fine until that upper section was released. Why didn't the "lower section" stop the "upper section"?
What turned the "upper section" into debris?
Still waiting for you to address this eots...
15 to 20 metres of debris is miniscule compared to the mass of a WTC building.If there was nothing within the footprint to fall upon the lower floors and core due to it all being ejected, please explain the 56' high debris pile in the footprint shown below.
Was all the debris ejected and then magically sucked back into the footprint?
.
The towers were about 95% air. Or can you refute that?
Are you, eots, suggesting that the laws of physics changed because the lower section of that building was weakened? Remember what TakeAStepBack says:
Even though the "lower section" was weakened, it's still somewhat intact and needs a force to finish the job and completely shear the "lower section". So based on what TakeAStepBack says above, this isn't possible. How did that "upper section" section in the video have enough energy to shear the rest of the "lower section" AND shear itself into debris?
Why do you keep avoiding this?
You're contradicting TakeAStepBack's "understanding" of the laws of physics.
Also, what happened to the fact that buildings are designed to support MANY times their designed load capacity? Even though the "lower section" was weakened, it still supported the "upper section"just fine until that upper section was released. Why didn't the "lower section" stop the "upper section"?
What turned the "upper section" into debris?
Still waiting for you to address this eots...
it would appear to some form of explosives
15 to 20 metres of debris is miniscule compared to the mass of a WTC building.
.
The towers were about 95% air. Or can you refute that?
They were air..no I do not think so..the towers were concrete and steel no air was used in the construction of the towers
Still waiting for you to address this eots...
it would appear to some form of explosives
WRONG!
There were no explosives used in the verinage demolition video I posted.
Try again.
What turned the upper section of that building into debris?
it would appear to some form of explosives
WRONG!
There were no explosives used in the verinage demolition video I posted.
Try again.
What turned the upper section of that building into debris?
I was not referring to your verinage video
more than 1 million tons of dust enveloped lower Manhattan
The dust "was unlike any dust and smoke mixture I had ever seen before," Lioy said. The fluffy, pink and gray powder "was basically a complex mixture of everything that makes up our workplaces and lives." Six million sq ft of masonry, 5 million sq ft of painted surfaces, 7 million sq ft of flooring, 600,000 sq ft of window glass, 200 elevators, and everything inside came down as dust, said Greg Meeker of USGS. The only thing that didn't get pulverized was the WTC towers' 200,000 tons of structural steel. That was just bent, Meeker said.
C&EN: COVER STORY - CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF A DISASTER
was this building steel framed or reinforced concrete ?
