> bigpotplant said on
11-24-2009 at
12:22:
lol of course i am,but if you watch the demolition shows on discovery channel it seems to take them guys a hell of a lot of work to bring buildings down pancake style,so was just wondering what the odds were for the buildings on 911 coming down the way they did,i am not saying planes did not do it,just that it was a bit strange..
> fxrams said on
11-24-2009 at
06:02:
You are aware that planes were flown into two of them. The third had massive damage from pieces of other buildings falling on it.
> Transfectingood said on
11-23-2009 at
23:31:
Also, the man in this video thinks he can walk through walls.
> Transfectingood said on
11-23-2009 at
23:27:
Absolutely! I would love to see some literature.And I'd also love my question answered - what changed with 2 planes and 1 cruise missile vs 3 planes?
> TruthFamineFloater said on
11-23-2009 at
18:43:
if you really really want me to... I can bring the links up. Do I feel like finding them, no, but if it would tickle your fancy then I can.
> Transfectingood said on
11-22-2009 at
22:08:
Haha, and what universities did the "scientific studies"? Does web of science or pubmed host these studies?
> Transfectingood said on
11-22-2009 at
22:07:
Ok so i have a question.What is the fucking point of flying 2 planes into buildings then lying about a third going into the pentagon ? What fucking difference does it make, why not just use 3 planes and that way you dont have to hope and pray that someone doesnt see or film a cruise missile or whatever? Whats the fucking point? Why doesnt anyone ever say that?
> 55758 said on
11-13-2009 at
12:32:
i agree with you,no nuclear bombs.but you telling people something about physics....boy,guess you have to learn more about it.a big building that pancake collaps,wouldn't collaps in free fall time cause the undamaged floors would brake the upperfloors and the collaps will need much more time."Learn your physics" ;-)
> jjiggydoc said on
11-06-2009 at
08:09:
ive never seen anything that said people actually saw the plane hit the pentagon i read about people seeing a plane but never actually seen it hit look it up some more because i dont thing anyone actually seen a plane hit probably jsut said it or assumed it considering you see a plane and then boom but the evidence is clear no plane hit the pentagon
> nws113 said on
11-06-2009 at
04:51:
this guy is makin some sense... only problem: what about the dozens of people who saw the plane actually hit the pentegon
> bigpotplant said on
10-22-2009 at
09:58:
So what would the maths be for three buildings falling in on themselfs on the same day,as forgive my stupidity i thought it was pretty rare for it to happen just once?
> WhatCanIsay100 said on
10-15-2009 at
01:51:
If this is true are government is evil.Because of 9/11 2 wars...
> TruthFamineFloater said on
10-13-2009 at
18:17:
what about when 90 percent of the jet fuel is blown away on impact? 10% of what was fueling those planes brought down a skyscraper? Do some real investigating. Stop using the "weakened steel" phrase its getting old and is a hasben arguement, if you would like I can send you about 15 links of scientific study disproving the weakened steel theory. Please dont respond and tell me im an nutjob or to put my tin foil hat back on. Instead respond with facts and check out eye witnesses to the pentagon.
> Vinniemaclaker said on
09-27-2009 at
21:56:
Was Bruno interviewing him? lol.
> sacredgeometry said on
09-22-2009 at
03:14:
completely agree with that people need to wake up to the world around them and stop being blind sighted.
> monkaboy said on
09-22-2009 at
02:13:
steel*, sorry, I'm a bit tired right now.
> monkaboy said on
09-22-2009 at
02:00:
There is something I absolutely agree with you there. The actions taken by the US government prior to the attacks on 9/11 were absolutely against our constitution. They stripped many from their laws, and natural born rights. However, this does in no way prove that the towers were brought down by the government, nor that 9/11 was an inside job.This is where I feel many people do a bad "Correlation = Causation" equation, you would know from your scientific mind that Correlation =/= Causation.
> monkaboy said on
09-22-2009 at
01:54:
But these buildings did not collapse vertically, steam beams slowly began to impact inwards and the beams that were damaged by the initial impact eventually lead to a general Tower collapse. In the video "First Tower collapse view from 6th avenue" you clearly see that one side begins to impact and the rest of the building follows suit. Once the building did follow suit, you would consider it that of a "pancake effect"
> sacredgeometry said on
09-21-2009 at
18:38:
... the thing is this is part of the past, and i have no problem forgetting it because what the British and American government have done as a result of this event is strip you of your voice, opinion and basic human rights. This is disgusting more so than the whole of new york collapsing.I will state now my heartfelt condolences to the families torn apart in this event...but i feel more sorry to the world left alive to cope with the bullshit we have had to endure from government since
> sacredgeometry said on
09-21-2009 at
18:30:
firstly i dont know either way. But my brain is very logical and pragmatic when concerning physics. I know the effort it takes (and sometimes that isnt enough) to get a building to collapse vertically... let alone two buildings.i know that the way that building was collapsing wouldnt have happened unassisted. Whether it was a hard decision to save lives by the government to blow it up as a precaution or a plot i dont know...at this point who cares....