A Cruise Missile Slammed Into the Pentagon on 911

Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
What is Really Happening In This Thread :



these conspiracy theories are all an elaborate mindfuck, to keep the conspiracy loons out on the fringe, distracting everyone who wastes time telling them how out on the fringe they are, while the REAL CONSPIRACY advances behind our backs...
 
tobinates559

tobinates559

Well-Known Member
in the history of the world, no highrise steel buildings have ever collapsed from fire except the 3 Silverstien buildings on 9/11/01

in 1991 8 floors in the middle of the highrise Meridian building in Philadelphia burned for 20 hours! according to the official fire report " beams and grinders sagged and twisted--some as much as 3ft--under severe fire exposures. Despite this extraordinary exposure, the colums continued to support their loads without obvious damage" and stood for many years later
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
tobinates559 said:
in the history of the world, no highrise steel buildings have ever collapsed from fire except the 3 Silverstien buildings on 9/11/01

in 1991 8 floors in the middle of the highrise Meridian building in Philadelphia burned for 20 hours! according to the official fire report " beams and grinders sagged and twisted--some as much as 3ft--under severe fire exposures. Despite this extraordinary exposure, the colums continued to support their loads without obvious damage" and stood for many years later
Click to expand...
the meridian building was 38 stories, not 110.
it was steel framed yes, but it had a GRANITE CURTAIN WALL not a lattice of cantilevered supports around a central load bearing column

Protip: the WTC towers were built with experimental architectural ideas. turns out theres a reason those ideas werent popular.

not many buildings have been built using that design, and so far only 2 have been hit by jumbo jets.

go figure.
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
tobinates559 said:
in the history of the world, no highrise steel buildings have ever collapsed from fire except the 3 Silverstien buildings on 9/11/01

in 1991 8 floors in the middle of the highrise Meridian building in Philadelphia burned for 20 hours! according to the official fire report " beams and grinders sagged and twisted--some as much as 3ft--under severe fire exposures. Despite this extraordinary exposure, the colums continued to support their loads without obvious damage" and stood for many years later
Click to expand...
Sorry, Again. You are wrong,

The Twin Towers were not steel frame buildings. That is the point and that is how you were lied to,

The point is, these building had a unique untried strudture for that height. They were concrete panel TUBE BUILDINGS.

That is why all this mis-direction is senseless,

In steel frame, this would not have happened. THAT IS THE POINT. The floors were set up as pushers against the outside concrete panel square tube, When they sagged from the heat, began by the fuel and increased by body fat and everything else, they stopping pushing the walls out. The floors above began to give way. When they loaded the first intact bottom floor enough, the concrete pillars at the corners exploded, and the entire top structure was in free fall with nothing under really but already collapsing building and a big dust cloud to block our view.

A steel frame is a set of welded and riveted, heavy I-beams. It can only be a certain height, no more. Too heavy.

They could not build the Twin Towers with steel frame, That is the point.

And the guy that built it lied for $$$ about withstanding an airplane strike. Besides, a 707 is not a 757. And the idea that steel can not sag under load when heated, is enormously dense and uninformed.

You are wrong to listen to this garbage in the first place. No Tube building had every been crashed by an airliner. So, you ignore facts and call it something else, a steel frame building,

THEY WERE NOT.

You fear the lose of control. It is more comfortable to think we did it than jihad wants our women in Burkka and us men dead in a ditch. Too scary. And we would have to fight back, which WE did. You don't like it. So you follow a fairy tale of all powerful USA.
 
Last edited:
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
the meridian building was 38 stories, not 110.
it was steel framed yes, but it had a GRANITE CURTAIN WALL not a lattice of cantilevered supports around a central load bearing column

Protip: the WTC towers were built with experimental architectural ideas. turns out theres a reason those ideas werent popular.

not many buildings have been built using that design, and so far only 2 have been hit by jumbo jets.

go figure.
Click to expand...
Building 7?

Granite curtain wall (facade) Steel framed, not around the core.

????????????????????????????????????????????????
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
Doer said:
Sorry, Again. You are wrong,

The Twin Towers were not steel frame buildings. That is the point and that is how you were lied to,

The point is, these building had a unique untried strudture for that height. They were concrete panel TUBE BUILDINGS.

That is why all this mis-direction is senseless,

In steel frame, this would not have happened. THAT IS THE POINT. The floors were set up as pushers against the outside concrete panel square tube, When they sagged from the heat, began by the fuel and increased by body fat and everything else, they stopping pushing the walls out. The floors above began to give way. When they loaded the first intact bottom floor enough, the concrete pillars at the corners exploded, and the entire top structure was in free fall with nothing under really but already collapsing building and a big dust cloud to block our view.

A steel frame is a set of welded and riveted, heavy I-beams. It can only be a certain height, no more. Too heavy.

They could not build the Twin Towers with steel frame, That is the point.

And the guy that built it lied for $$$ about withstanding an airplane strike. Besides, a 707 is not a 757. And the idea that steel can not sag under load when heated, is enormously dense and uninformed.

You are wrong to listen to this garbage in the first place. No Tube building had every been crashed by an airliner. So, you ignore facts and call it something else, a steel frame building,

THEY WERE NOT.

You fear the lose of control. It is more comfortable to think we did it than jihad wants our women in Burkka and us men dead in a ditch. Too scary. And we would have to fight back, which WE did. You don't like it. So you follow a fairy tale of all powerful USA.
Click to expand...
Building 7 was a steel framed building. And the debris that hit it was pretty minor considering the only real damage was to the facade ( Fake wall).
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
NoDrama said:
Building 7?

Granite curtain wall (facade) Steel framed, not around the core.

????????????????????????????????????????????????
Click to expand...

You mean the one that was tidal washed by the Tower debris on one side and "intact" on the other?

I showed pictures of the destroyed side. The structure was not an intact steel frame building. It was a building hit by buildings and I am surprised it stood as long as it did.

It is very disingenuous to see only the intact side and say that building was intact throughout.

Again I say, you have been lied to for the hatebushdidit.
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
Doer said:
You mean the one that was tidal washed by the Tower debris on one side and "intact" on the other?

I showed pictures of the destroyed side. The structure was not an intact steel frame building. It was a building hit by buildings and I am surprised it stood as long as it did.

It is very disingenuous to see only the intact side and say that building was intact throughout.

Again I say, you have been lied to for the hatebushdidit.
Click to expand...
I too, have seen those pictures. the pics show the wall that is there entirely for looks and provides no support to anything as being destroyed. That's like saying if you remove the rear quarter panel of your car, that the entire structure will fail and your car will fall into pieces if you attempt to drive it.

Gimme a break, even if that damage on one side were the real culprit, explain why the building starts falling in a completely different section ( the middle) and then falls into its own footprint?

Physics, science and just plain common sense tells you that really big structures fall into where the damage is.

Ever fell a tree? Notice how you can pretty much decide where that tree will fall by placing your cuts in the correct positions?
 
kelly4

kelly4

Well-Known Member
Doer said:
You mean the one that was tidal washed by the Tower debris on one side and "intact" on the other?

I showed pictures of the destroyed side. The structure was not an intact steel frame building. It was a building hit by buildings and I am surprised it stood as long as it did.

It is very disingenuous to see only the intact side and say that building was intact throughout.

Again I say, you have been lied to for the hatebushdidit.
Click to expand...
If the building was fine on one side, but demolished on the other....Why didn't the building start crumbling on the demolished side first? Why didn't it fall a little to one side? Why did the whole building give at the same time and come straight down?
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
Again. This is just fear.

We were actually attacked.

As I said, When you start asking why this and why that....well, only children, even big ones, ask why like this, or else it is Religious approach.

It is all simply what happened. The explanations have to do with a randomly and severely damaged building that we did not have time to study the exact extent of the damage of before it fell. There were ER crews in there for a short while, then they cleared back.

Random damage leads to random collapse modes. And I am sure you know. if you damage a building purposely, to bring it down, you can make it fall in any way and any direction you plan for, We see it on TV. This was a random collapse from random destruction.

So, a catastrophic and totally random, set of forces wiped out half of the structure and set it on fire.

Then it could not stand on it's own. Had it been intact, it would have stood, They wanted to save it.

How it fell, is because of how it was wiped in the first place to cause that fall.

Cause and effect and no conspiracy.

The simple explanations of Physics along with key facts have been ignored for your fear that the govt DIDN'T do it.

You wish they did. Much safer world that way.
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
Doer said:
Again. This is just fear.

We were actually attacked.

As I said, When you start asking why this and why that....only children, even big ones, ask why like this, or else it is Religious approach.

It is all what happened. The explanations have to do with randomly and severely damaged building that we did not have time to study the exact extent of before it fell. There were ER crews in their for a short while then they cleared back.

Random damage leads to random collapse. And I am sure you know. if you damage a building purposely, to bring it down, you can make it fall in any way and any direction you plan for, We see it on TV.

So, a catastrophic and totally random, set of forces wiped out half of the structure and set it on fire.

Then it could not stand on it's own. Had it been intact it would have,

How it fell, is because of how it was wiped in the first to cause that fall.

The simple explanations of Physics along with key facts have been ignored for your fear that the govt DIDN'T do it.

You wish they did. Much safer world that way.
Click to expand...
So in other words you think that the official explanation of why it fell is bullshit too?

FWIW the damage to the building did not exceed more than 2% of the total.
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
No mine is a paraphrase of the official version, I read when it came out, that you have never even read, only heard about.
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
Doer said:
No mine is a paraphrase of the official version, I read when it came out, that you have never even read, only heard about.
Click to expand...
The official version is that it fell from fire alone and that the physical damage did not contribute.

You suck at paraphrasing.
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
You suck at life, so what?

You didn't read it anyway. And you have no idea of the extent of the damage before it fell.
It was not surveyed. 2%? No way to know the full extent to the foundations and inner supports before it collapsed.

And that is not what report said.

And if a damaged building collapsing and hatebushdidit, is all you got, and you didn't even read the damn report, in the first place, that is pretty punk, I'd say.

Show us where it said the damage had nothing to do with the collapse.

You are just making this shit up out the fear that we were actually attacked.

So, fucking what?
 
Last edited:
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
NoDrama said:
Building 7?

Granite curtain wall (facade) Steel framed, not around the core.

????????????????????????????????????????????????
Click to expand...
building 7 was a steel framed building 47 stories tall with a masonry facade supported by the framing
wtc 1 & 2 were 110 stories, with cantilevered supports around a central column and a glass/concrete/steel facade supported by the cantilevers
in all 3 buildings, the steel frame supported all loads, and when the steel frame fails the whole thing comes down

the meridian building was a different design from wtc 1 &2, as from wtc 7, in that it was 38 stories (shorter), and it used traditional steel framing, and a Granite Curtain Wall (which means the exterior walls supported their own weight)

the meridian building was stronger since it's exterior walls were made of tougher stuff, and supported their own load, and the steel framing supported the interior loads only.

it's not that hard to figure out why wtc 1, 2 & 7 came down when their steel frames failed.

it was clearly the Lizard People.
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
kelly4 said:
If the building was fine on one side, but demolished on the other....Why didn't the building start crumbling on the demolished side first? Why didn't it fall a little to one side? Why did the whole building give at the same time and come straight down?
Click to expand...
because buildings are made to NOT topple over like falling trees.

once one side starts to go, the building doesnt just teeter over and crash down as a unit crushing everything in it's shadow

parts fail, the building dis-integrates (as in loses integrity, not like "Pew Pew!!" Alien Death Ray) and the individual components (henceforth known as Rubble, sometimes Flaming Rubble) are subject to the blandishments of gravity. (eg. falls straight down)

if skyscrapers could just fall over like a tree, they would fall all the time, and nobody would allow one to be built in proximity to their own property.
 
kelly4

kelly4

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
because buildings are made to NOT topple over like falling trees.

once one side starts to go, the building doesnt just teeter over and crash down as a unit crushing everything in it's shadow

parts fail, the building dis-integrates (as in loses integrity, not like "Pew Pew!!" Alien Death Ray) and the individual components (henceforth known as Rubble, sometimes Flaming Rubble) are subject to the blandishments of gravity. (eg. falls straight down)

if skyscrapers could just fall over like a tree, they would fall all the time, and nobody would allow one to be built in proximity to their own property.
Click to expand...
Who said anything about buildings falling over like a tree? You can go online and find buildings that didn't drop straight down, even though the experts who planted the explosives said they would.
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
kelly4 said:
Who said anything about buildings falling over like a tree? You can go online and find buildings that didn't drop straight down, even though the experts who planted the explosives said they would.
Click to expand...
but but but...

the "experts" who built the wtc buildings were sure they would not fall down...

are you suggesting that experts are not infallible?

if experts are fallible, and experts asserted the WTC buildings would not fall down, could those experts be wrong on that issue?

Hint: the buildings DID fall down, thus either the experts were wrong, or there was a massive conspiracy to demolish those buildings, kill all those people, and blame Sandland for the deed.

Dem Jews!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top