Posted because The1 thinks the American government did it. Prove to me that they used explosives. Again, why wasn't there more debri and dust shot everywhere if they used so-called C-9s? You can't calculate the damage a Boeing 747 would do if it crashed into a a tower, and you can't calculate the temperature of the burning fuel accurately. Get over it, you're wrong, quit being a damn liberal bastard.
Posted because The1 thinks the American government did it. Prove to me that they used explosives. Again, why wasn't there more debri and dust shot everywhere if they used so-called C-9s? You can't calculate the damage a Boeing 747 would do if it crashed into a a tower, and you can't calculate the temperature of the burning fuel accurately. Get over it, you're wrong, quit being a damn liberal bastard.
We could argue for hours. The proof is a building of that size cant free fall 8.4 seconds... Especially pancake fall like that.. Ive seen big buildings on fire with higher heats then the twin towers were and they didnt fall for 2 days... explain please.
I wanted you to post this in the flame section then I could of roasted you legitally.. Ha anyways mang.. You got no proof that they didnt so I win end of story.
We could argue for hours. The proof is a building of that size cant free fall 8.4 seconds... Especially pancake fall like that.. Ive seen big buildings on fire with higher heats then the twin towers were and they didnt fall for 2 days... explain please.
I wanted you to post this in the flame section then I could of roasted you legitally.. Ha anyways mang.. You got no proof that they didnt so I win end of story.
This has been gone over.
You can estimate how much damage a 747 crashing into a building will do. You can also put an upper-limit to the burning temperature of kerosene, as well as a reasonable lower-limit.
I swear this was brought up recently but I can't remember what thread.
Sorry if those don't help at all. I'm sure it was mentioned in a thread that went off topic. Those were the only things that came up when I search 9/11, but anyone could do that. Good luck in finding it.
I'm going to say what I said about the moon landing:
Skepticism is innocuous as long as it is recognized as skepticism. When it is preposterously exaggerated and asserted as fact without sufficient, or in some cases, any real evidence it ceases to be innocuous.
Your assertions aren't skepticism, the1, they're delusions.
I'm going to say what I said about the moon landing:
Skepticism is innocuous as long as it is recognized as skepticism. When it is preposterously exaggerated and asserted as fact without sufficient, or in some cases, any real evidence it ceases to be innocuous.
Your assertions aren't skepticism, the1, they're delusions.
I remember a thread like this along time ago, It just doesnt all add up... Ladon Family flown out the next day.. I just think the whole thing is fishy and all.. Honestly you can't proove me wrong about the 8.4 second free fall. Ask any engineer or designer of big buildings.
Linear Mode
