9/11

Because that big block of iron in the middle that says montague-betts isnt part of it

 

Any way, you are stallung again, back to your crazy pile driver theory calculations.

 

Okay. Now tell me what we're looking at in the photo.

And while you're at it, why do you suspect that the photo of the WTC construction is from the 1930s?

 

Nice attempt to do a turnaround. How many feet would the upper block of the Tower have fallen--taking air resistance into account--in 5 seconds without an intact core and perimeter structure below it?

 

I dont know why you keep asking, i have given you the answer, 348 turtles, a turtle is an accepted unit of measurement in Vanuatu, many south pacific islands, pinky swear. One turtle is 350,000 micrometers long.

So 348 × 350,000 micrometers =? Then convert that into feet or meters, what ever you need for the next step

 

Quoted here again for reference

 

You said that this:

is not part of the WTC hat truss.

So what is it a photo of?
___________________________________________________________________________________

And you said that this:



is a photo from the 1930s.

So what building is it a photo of, if not the WTC?

 

It comes to 399 feet. So, in 5 seconds the upper block dropped 360 feet. That means that if there were a duplicate of the upper block sitting in the space right beside the actual upper block, and they both started to descend at the same time, the duplicate upper block--which is traveling through nothing but air--would be only 40 feet ahead of the actual block after 5 seconds, even though the actual upper block is having to overcome the resistance of the lower intact structure for that entire drop. Sound plausible to you?

 

Absolutely, continue

 

Well actually there's no need to continue. I just needed you to make the outrageous claim that the structure shown here:



offered next to no resistance to the upper block. That is, unless you are correct in your other outrageous claim that the structure in the photo here is not the WTC, but in fact, something from the 1930s. So, is it from the 1930s?

 

Errr yawn, so you were never going to follow through anyway

 

I missed that before, at least someone has a conspiracy theory in the conspiracy forum on how the towers collapsed

Yes. A lot of changes were made after the Oklahoma city bombing, that was 1995, the federal building suffered a progressive structural collapse. It shouldnt have sustained that much damage to its frame for the size of the bomb used. And there were many other steel framed buildings around it that had to be demolished

To say anyone before that really knew what they were doing is bs

To claim either wtc towers were designed for the impact of a 707 back in the 1970s is complete and utter horseshit. You wont find any evidence of that anywhere. The video of Schilling claiming that, is solely deflect from admitting they had no frickin idea how to




And forget the fuselage or engines, the wingtips went through the steel

 

Yep, it crashed through the outer shell and then severed the core too. It was the most powerful airplane in the world.

 

For the most part, plane just has to push in those external columns, the four bolts connecting them being the weakest point. Thats why there isnt exactly a wile. E coyote hole.

But the right wing near its tip, does slice right through the columns. They are hollow, and only about 12mm thick.

Think that impossible, and you are pretty much telling any guy thats ever done any metal work, something travelling near 500mph cant go through 12mm of steel.

As I said before, its self evident, if you have gone 17 years not realising those columns are hollow ( they are actually stronger hollow vs solid) figuring out, convincing yourself, what it would take to slice through 12mm of steel. At that speed it takes 0.0005 seconds to go 12 mm.

 

I'll try again.

You said that this:


was not part of the WTC hat truss. So, what is it a photo of?
______________________________________________________________________________________________

And you said that this:



is a photo of something from the 1930s.

So what building is it a photo of, if not the WTC?

 

I never questioned that a plane could do the damage that is seen on the outside of the building. That and the fire should have been it, though, and the fire should have burned through the night. And, of course, the building shouldn't have crumbled into nothing in the next two hours. And the building hit second shouldn't have done the same within an hour. It's completely asinine.

In my experience that's just not how things happen. Things are rarely if ever that spectacular. Which caused me to be suspicious from day one. I don't believe for a second that what we saw was an accident. I believe it was Peter Jennings who was incredulous, too, saying that their collapse was no accident. By which he meant they were rigged to collapse. Not that terrorists somehow knew they would collapse if they flew airliners into the upper stories (using incredible maneuvering skills in a motherfucking airplane as well.)

Some people now think buildings will collapse if you fly planes into them, and I do wish we could test that hypothesis. What I believe is that if you actually saw what happens when a plane hit, say, the Sears Tower, you would realize after a day or two of it not caving in on itself that that isn't what would happen in the real world. Buildings don't just pile drive into the ground. The whole thing is classically absurd.

 

Dude, are you for real? 360 feet thats the height of 29 floors....in 5 seconds

You just spent the last 50 pages admitting your upper block went through 20 floors of your "intact core structure". 99th floor down to the 70th floor, 20 floors below the impact zone

 

Um, no. You are the one who believes that this:



offered next to no resistance to the upper block. That is, unless you are correct in your other outrageous claim that the structure in the photo here is not the WTC, but in fact, something from the 1930s. So, is it from the 1930s?

If it is the WTC, then you are the one who believes that if there were a duplicate of the upper block sitting in the space right beside the actual upper block, and they both started to descend at the same time, the duplicate upper block--which is traveling through nothing but air--would be only 40 feet ahead of the actual block after 5 seconds, even though the actual upper block is having to overcome the resistance of the lower intact structure for that entire drop.

And actually, are you for real? Is that structure something from the 1930s? Is it really?

 

Yes, and the bottom of your " actual " block is where the 70th floor was 360 feet later

 

So you believe that if there were a duplicate of the upper block sitting in the space right beside the actual upper block, and they both started to descend at the same time, the duplicate upper block--which is traveling through nothing but air--would be only 40 feet ahead of the actual block after 5 seconds, even though the actual upper block is having to overcome the resistance of the lower intact structure for that entire drop.

It's a yes or no question.

And I will assume that you've abandoned your silly claim that this:



is a photo from the 1930s. Is that correct?