revisiting 911 truth in the Obama days...

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

Quote

I wouldn't cite having taken a high school biology class as sufficient background for bringing a case of malpractice against an orthopedic surgeon because a bone didn't heal quite how you thought it should.

If 100's of other orthopedic surgons would suggest so, and document it in laymans tearms and cite the rules, regulations and evidence. Then with your knowledge acquired you would have reasonable grounds to question the authenticity of the said orthopedic surgon.

There is no need for crappy analogies. Such comparisons to another field of science that is not among our realm of expertise provides no further understanding of the issues, it only provides more reason for pointless arguing without discussing the specific issues.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

simply visiting and posting to make fun of someone’s serious concerns pertaining to all of our welfare on a global scale is not only shallow and inconsiderate, it is naïve.

but it's so goddamn entertaining!

(unless I had friends or family that were killed - then it would be offensive as hell)

[champu 1]

Quote

There is no need for crappy analogies...

Damn it... see... replies like this are part of the problem in these threads. Now he's just going to pass over the point I was making in post #624, and reply to your post instead.

If he's confronted later about dodging questions he will then cite the fact that he replied to this post of yours as proof he addressed all questions and he gets to (in his own mind) sweep my question under the rug.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

There is no need for crappy analogies...

Damn it... see... replies like this are part of the problem in these threads. Now he's just going to pass over the point I was making in post #624, and reply to your post instead.

If he's confronted later about dodging questions he will then cite the fact that he replied to this post of yours as proof he addressed all questions and he gets to (in his own mind) sweep my question under the rug.

He has replied to every post in this thread. It's just that most of the time he doesn't post those replies or posts them on a truther site.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[rhys 0]

Quote

Let's see.....
You admit you are not an enigineer....
You admit you could not design a skyscpraper....
You admit your understanding of physics stops at a high school level....
yet you think you have the ability to say the truthers are right and everyone else is wrong? Even though the truthers have laws of physics, engineering, chemistry, and mathematics working against their every theory? Even though they are constantly proven wrong by the qualified experts who outnumber them 100-1 or 1000-1?
Do you have any idea how stresses change within a steel structure when a section of that structure is heated to a point where the cubic structure changes from BCC to FCC?
If you needed a broken leg operated on who would you trust....the 100 surgeons who say it will be fine with a plate and a couple screwws, or the 1 who says you need a transplant from a goat?
All you have proven here is that you know how to parrot a bunch of idiots.

Once again an unprofessional and irrational burst of gobbledegook, that has no links or information to back up the assertions.

You profession was not built on ridiculing those that question, it was built by them.

I challenge you with my unpractised high school education from over 18years ago, to a challenge of my simple understanding of physics.

How about you finally ‘show us’ your depth of understanding and present to us your interpretation how it is possible for a large steel structure to fall through the path of greatest resistance at freefall speed (without explosives).

I don’t believe you can, because I believe it is impossible.

Any structure or object will not be able to reach freefall speed if it has any significant resistance whatsoever, Simple.

That is the extent of my argument at this stage. That is all that is needed to prove that fires cannot make this happen. It is impossible without a huge amount of assistance from vast amounts added potential energy to assist it to do so. i.e. controlled demolition.

Once you have answered my question, you can then ask me to answer you ‘one’ question. This way we don’t get thrown off course with the unprofessional and unnecessary name calling, that we are both guilty of.

We will reach a conclusion this way but not with the circles you are sending us all in currently.

You could also continue name calling and ignoring people’s efforts and credentials, without showing us the results of yours. Many of these people have experience and understanding you will never gain yourself as there are far too many respectable people that you are dismissing on a whim, that have experience and knowledge far beyond your capabilities.

But I suppose, because you are an engineer, you know everything, so we needn't even question your judgement or motive

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[rhys 0]

Quote

There is no need for crappy analogies. Such comparisons to another field of science that is not among our realm of expertise provides no further understanding of the issues, it only provides more reason for pointless arguing without discussing the specific issues.

Agreed, i will try to refrain from doing this in future.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[rhys 0]

Quote

Absolutely you'd have grounds to raise the question. But suppose the rest of the orthopedic surgeons (roughly 20,100 of them; you said "100s" so I'll give you 300 on your side) all reviewed the case and said, "No, the doc didn't do anything wrong." Do you think your biology class would help you decide who was right or do you think the fact that you had a limp you were pissed off about would help you decide who was right?

To try to bring the analogy back on track I'll attemt to interpret yours. Are you trying to say that a higher percentage of engineers will agree with the official story versus a small minority that oppose the official story?

Off what statistic do you base this assertion?

There are 1000’s that have opposed the official story publicly and published their opinions, versus an uncounted number that campaign for the official story in a similar way.

In the middle there’s the majority that would rather not talk about it. These are the people that stand on the fence because they are not sure, too scared, or simply apathetic.

These are the ones that simply read the thread and consider it. They lay silent until the day it all comes clear, that day is not when we have the details to do so, we have for a long time, it is the day we are allowed to speak about it openly without ridicule.

Then they will say their view. Almost all of the posters in this thread help this day become further and further away.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Once again an unprofessional and irrational burst of gobbledegook, that has no links or information to back up the assertions.

So much for taking that high road, rhys.

Quote

How about you finally ‘show us’ your depth of understanding and present to us your interpretation how it is possible for a large steel structure to fall through the path of greatest resistance at freefall speed (without explosives).

You first - I've asked you a half-dozen times over the last couple years to show how the thousands of pounds of explosives and miles of cabling that would have been needed could have been planted.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

Once again an unprofessional and irrational burst of gobbledegook, that has no links or information to back up the assertions.

You profession was not built on ridiculing those that question, it was built by them.

I challenge you with my unpractised high school education from over 18years ago, to a challenge of my simple understanding of physics.

How about you finally ‘show us’ your depth of understanding and present to us your interpretation how it is possible for a large steel structure to fall through the path of greatest resistance at freefall speed (without explosives).

I don’t believe you can, because I believe it is impossible.

Any structure or object will not be able to reach freefall speed if it has any significant resistance whatsoever, Simple.

That is the extent of my argument at this stage. That is all that is needed to prove that fires cannot make this happen. It is impossible without a huge amount of assistance from vast amounts added potential energy to assist it to do so. i.e. controlled demolition.

Once you have answered my question, you can then ask me to answer you ‘one’ question. This way we don’t get thrown off course with the unprofessional and unnecessary name calling, that we are both guilty of.

We will reach a conclusion this way but not with the circles you are sending us all in currently.

You could also continue name calling and ignoring people’s efforts and credentials, without showing us the results of yours. Many of these people have experience and understanding you will never gain yourself as there are far too many respectable people that you are dismissing on a whim, that have experience and knowledge far beyond your capabilities.

But I suppose, because you are an engineer, you know everything, so we needn't even question your judgement or motive

I have a Bachelor's in mech eng, which of course doesn't make me anywhere close to an expert in building design/structures, but it does give me a much greater ability to spot bullshit when I see it than you. You really have no idea what you don't know, I have a much greater appreciation for the expertise of those that do know.

First of all, I think the ability to accurately measure the acceleration of the building is in question. Then, I think it would be necessary to have some idea of how close to frefall accel it "should" fall. I've asked you about this a few time before, but don't get any straight answer. Should it have been slowed by .1%, or 1%, or 10%, and on what would that estimate be based? If it would be expected to be slowed by, say 2%, I don't think it is possible to confirm that by "measuring" from film, because I would expect the inaccuracy of such a measurement to have an error of around 5% or so, perhaps even more.

On the subject of the "energy" that you claim must have come from a controlled demolition, first of all you have no ability to claim that there is anything "missing". There was plenty of "energy" from the damage to building 7 and fires (please don't try to pretend that the huge damage done, and impending buckling of walls was not shown by news reports).

If you are going to defend your position by referring to your large group of experts, then I refer you to the large group of experts that claim the moon landings were faked - that is an analogy worth making.

I accept that the official report probably has errors. They likely didn't really devote much effort to disproving the truther claims, that is not surprise at all to me, and is not at all evidence of a cover up.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[philh 0]

Quote

Quote

Absolutely you'd have grounds to raise the question. But suppose the rest of the orthopedic surgeons (roughly 20,100 of them; you said "100s" so I'll give you 300 on your side) all reviewed the case and said, "No, the doc didn't do anything wrong." Do you think your biology class would help you decide who was right or do you think the fact that you had a limp you were pissed off about would help you decide who was right?

To try to bring the analogy back on track I'll attemt to interpret yours. Are you trying to say that a higher percentage of engineers will agree with the official story versus a small minority that oppose the official story?

Off what statistic do you base this assertion?

There are 1000’s that have opposed the official story publicly and published their opinions, versus an uncounted number that campaign for the official story in a similar way.

In the middle there’s the majority that would rather not talk about it. These are the people that stand on the fence because they are not sure, too scared, or simply apathetic.

These are the ones that simply read the thread and consider it. They lay silent until the day it all comes clear, that day is not when we have the details to do so, we have for a long time, it is the day we are allowed to speak about it openly without ridicule.

Then they will say their view. Almost all of the posters in this thread help this day become further and further away.

You have 1000's of people campaigning for your movement. wow . There were 1.7 million engineers employed in the USa in 1999.
http://www.abtassoc.com/reports/NSF_EWP_report2.pdf
Your numbers are not impressive.
Your are entitled now to speak openly,m but iof you say smething idiotic dont be suprised if someones ridcules you . YYou are in a controversial discussion forum. What do you expect?
Particualrly when you dont asnwer questions. Ill ask mine again, why were there no Iraqis on the planes?

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

How about you finally ‘show us’ your depth of understanding and present to us your interpretation how it is possible for a large steel structure to fall through the path of greatest resistance at freefall speed (without explosives).

It has been explained to you, by myself and others, how it can happen for brief periods during collapse and how it didn't happen for any significant time during these particular collapses. I am sorry you don't understand how this can be. As was suggested by another poster take some classes in math, chemistry, physics, and engineering and you will understand.
I have asked you many times how debris from the top of the towers hit the ground long before collapse was finished. Collapse that, according to you, happened at "free-fall speed". The only reason you haven't bothered to answer is because you can't. There is no answer to your scenario.

Quote

Once you have answered my question, you can then ask me to answer you ‘one’ question.

We have tried that approach before, but you quickly bailed.

Quote

irrational burst of gobbledegook

You think my questions are "gobbledegook"? Your lack of understanding of the principles involved do not make logical questions "gobbledegook".

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[DanG 1]

Quote

How about you finally ‘show us’ your depth of understanding and present to us your interpretation how it is possible for a large steel structure to fall through the path of greatest resistance at freefall speed (without explosives).

I think you misunderstand how controlled demolition works. The explosives are used to weaken the structure, not completely remove it. Even in a controlled demolition, there is still material there that needs to be crushed by the falling building. There will always be material in the way unless you can magically transport the first floor of the building away a la Star Trek.

The fires and debris damaged the structure in the same way that explosives would have, it just took longer. Once the load limit on one column was exceeded, it failed and transfrerred its load to the other columns. In a failure like this, that instataneous load increase would be enough to fail more weakened columns, and transfer load onto the remaining columns, which might even be non-damaged. At that point, a handful of undamaged columns couldn't hold up the whole building. Just because the structure is very large, doesn't mean that a cascade of failures like this needs to take a long time. The loads are transferred more or less instantly. In a situation like this, once one column goes, it is not at all unreasonable for the whole structure to go in a very short time.

Arguing that the building couldn't reach "freefall speed" because of the manner in which the building arrived at the failure makes no sense. It doesn't mater if the structure was weakened by fire or explosives, the resulting collapse would look the same.

A final note: you've asked people time and again to provide an example where a steel building collapsed at freefall speed due to fire. I'd like you to provide an example of a steel framed building that collapsed due to fire that fell over slowly. I'd be willing to bet that if you find video of a collapse it will look similar to WTC 7.

- Dan G

[jakee 1,582]

Quote

There are 1000’s that have opposed the official story publicly and published their opinions, versus an uncounted number that campaign for the official story in a similar way.

In the middle there’s the majority that would rather not talk about it. These are the people that stand on the fence because they are not sure, too scared, or simply apathetic.

It's not because they're scared, or not sure, or apathetic. It's because most people don't even bother addressing such crackpot theories.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

How about you finally ‘show us’ your depth of understanding and present to us your interpretation how it is possible for a large steel structure to fall through the path of greatest resistance at freefall speed (without explosives).

I think you misunderstand how controlled demolition works. The explosives are used to weaken the structure, not completely remove it. Even in a controlled demolition, there is still material there that needs to be crushed by the falling building. There will always be material in the way unless you can magically transport the first floor of the building away a la Star Trek.

The fires and debris damaged the structure in the same way that explosives would have, it just took longer. Once the load limit on one column was exceeded, it failed and transfrerred its load to the other columns. In a failure like this, that instataneous load increase would be enough to fail more weakened columns, and transfer load onto the remaining columns, which might even be non-damaged. At that point, a handful of undamaged columns couldn't hold up the whole building. Just because the structure is very large, doesn't mean that a cascade of failures like this needs to take a long time. The loads are transferred more or less instantly. In a situation like this, once one column goes, it is not at all unreasonable for the whole structure to go in a very short time.

Arguing that the building couldn't reach "freefall speed" because of the manner in which the building arrived at the failure makes no sense. It doesn't mater if the structure was weakened by fire or explosives, the resulting collapse would look the same.

A final note: you've asked people time and again to provide an example where a steel building collapsed at freefall speed due to fire. I'd like you to provide an example of a steel framed building that collapsed due to fire that fell over slowly. I'd be willing to bet that if you find video of a collapse it will look similar to WTC 7.

Your points got me to thinking. Will the study of this change or alter the way companies who do controled demos look at projects going forward? There had to be tons of new ideas that come from studying this.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Quote

The fires and debris damaged the structure in the same way that explosives would have, it just took longer. Once the load limit on one column was exceeded, it failed and transfrerred its load to the other columns. In a failure like this, that instataneous load increase would be enough to fail more weakened columns, and transfer load onto the remaining columns, which might even be non-damaged. At that point, a handful of undamaged columns couldn't hold up the whole building. Just because the structure is very large, doesn't mean that a cascade of failures like this needs to take a long time. The loads are transferred more or less instantly. In a situation like this, once one column goes, it is not at all unreasonable for the whole structure to go in a very short time.

Arguing that the building couldn't reach "freefall speed" because of the manner in which the building arrived at the failure makes no sense. It doesn't mater if the structure was weakened by fire or explosives, the resulting collapse would look the same.

One thing I haven't seen mentioned is the unique construction of WTC 1, 2 & 7.

They collaped differently that any previous skyscraper because they were built in a manner unlike any other previously built skyscrapers.


Especially WTC 7. It had a huge open atrium on the lower floors. The main support columns were holding up something like 2000 sq ft of floorspace per column. After the severe damage from the debris of WTC 1 & 2 (not shown a whole lot because it was not visible from most angles) the failure was inevitable. While a single column failure wouldn't have collapsed the building under normal circumstances, the damage done to the entire building meant that a single column failure doomed the building.

Also, the 1993 bombing was intended to bring down the building. If the driver of the truck had been able to park where he wanted, there was a strong possibility that he could have done enough damage by undermining the foundation to cause one tower to tip into the other.

Wiki

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[champu 1]

Quote

Quote

Absolutely you'd have grounds to raise the question. But suppose the rest of the orthopedic surgeons (roughly 20,100 of them; you said "100s" so I'll give you 300 on your side) all reviewed the case and said, "No, the doc didn't do anything wrong." Do you think your biology class would help you decide who was right or do you think the fact that you had a limp you were pissed off about would help you decide who was right?

To try to bring the analogy back on track I'll attemt to interpret yours. Are you trying to say that a higher percentage of engineers will agree with the official story versus a small minority that oppose the official story?

Off what statistic do you base this assertion?

There are 1000’s that have opposed the official story publicly and published their opinions, versus an uncounted number that campaign for the official story in a similar way.

In the middle there’s the majority that would rather not talk about it. These are the people that stand on the fence because they are not sure, too scared, or simply apathetic.

I think you overestimate how "on the fence" the people are that don't participate in these types of discussions. You can say thousands are behind it and point to a website and that's great... or you can make up numbers and say millions and millions of people support the movement and that's great too. Everyone else doesn't. The point of my analogy is that I don't think you're being very objective from where you sit about evaluating the statements that are coming from the different camps.

This is why people keep bringing up the fact that you're not an engineer. This is why I asked you why you stand behind the bad physical arguments when its really the political motivations that have you chasing this movement.

Quote

...until the day it all comes clear, that day is not when we have the details to do so, we have for a long time, it is the day we are allowed to speak about it openly without ridicule.

The day you were allowed to speak openly about it without ridicule was back in 2002 when Thierry Meyssan started writing about it. His work spawned countless evaluations and rebuttals that were quite serious. It went back and forth a couple times and in the end most people agreed that his theories didn't pan out. 2003 comes around and the US invades Iraq, the events that follow make the US very unpopular, and there's a huge reemergence of the conspiracy theories. Well guess what, not liking the US for going into Iraq doesn't make 9/11 conspiracy theories about controlled demolitions and missing planes any less ridiculous.

[rhys 0]

Quote

You first - I've asked you a half-dozen times over the last couple years to show how the thousands of pounds of explosives and miles of cabling that would have been needed could have been planted.

These are the floors that had 'fireproofing upgrades' in the years immediately prior to the catastophie.

and here is a comprehensive article to educate you a little

I can't help but visualise the beagle boys trying to smuggle sacks of explosives in while whistleing innocently when you ask you question.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Do you really think anybody with a lick of sense would accept your graph with no cited source, and an article form a truther website, as evidence as any kind??
You can't be freakin' serious.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[rhys 0]

Quote

I have a Bachelor's in mech eng, which of course doesn't make me anywhere close to an expert in building design/structures, but it does give me a much greater ability to spot bullshit when I see it than you. You really have no idea what you don't know, I have a much greater appreciation for the expertise of those that do know.

Oh really, and you believe NIST are squeaky clean, and you agree with their hypothesises?

Quote

First of all, I think the ability to accurately measure the acceleration of the building is in question. Then, I think it would be necessary to have some idea of how close to frefall accel it "should" fall. I've asked you about this a few time before, but don't get any straight answer. Should it have been slowed by .1%, or 1%, or 10%, and on what would that estimate be based? If it would be expected to be slowed by, say 2%, I don't think it is possible to confirm that by "measuring" from film, because I would expect the inaccuracy of such a measurement to have an error of around 5% or so, perhaps even more.

As I have explained to belgiumdraft the NIST have also based their hypothesis on the same video footage. If you watched the videos I posted in which David Chandler so clearly points out, that the time they recorded is the same. Because you have failed to comprehend that, we have to question your assertions that you can make suitably more informed decisions than I, with the information you have at hand.

You can use both sets of data to calculate the symmetry of the collapse as David Chandler took measurements from the corner of the building and NIST took their from the centre, this indicates the symmetry of collapse at near free fall speed for most of it and absolute freefall speed for at least 2.5 seconds of it, through the path of greatest resistance.

Are you implying that they have slowed the footage or speed it up? What are you trying to say?

Quote

On the subject of the "energy" that you claim must have come from a controlled demolition, first of all you have no ability to claim that there is anything "missing". There was plenty of "energy" from the damage to building 7 and fires (please don't try to pretend that the huge damage done, and impending buckling of walls was not shown by news reports).

I don't pretend anything, building 7 was badly damaged... on one side. It was complete on the other.

If it had have fallen in any direction other than straight down, and at any other speed other than freefall, I would most likely take your word for it. The fact it did do these things tell us it is actually you that is not telling yourself the truth.

Quote

I accept that the official report probably has errors. They likely didn't really devote much effort to disproving the truther claims, that is not surprise at all to me, and is not at all evidence of a cover up.

So you are saying that because the NIST explained how it is remotely possible for the building to be 'poised' to collapse, they need not explain how it could do so at freefall speed?

That is essentially what all of you that oppose ae911truth are saying.

Imminent global collapse is not really enough of an explanation for me, you or anyone to comprehend the mechanics of. Anything other than acceptance would be speculation... if they did not leave so much evidence that is.

This results in the bickering that we have been partaking in, for almost a decade.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

You first - I've asked you a half-dozen times over the last couple years to show how the thousands of pounds of explosives and miles of cabling that would have been needed could have been planted.

These are the floors that had 'fireproofing upgrades' in the years immediately prior to the catastophie.

Ok, and? Asbestos coatings on the beams does NOT equal 'thousands of pounds of explosives and miles of cable', rhys.

Quote

and here is a comprehensive article to educate you a little

That's not answering where the thousands of pounds of explosives and miles of cables went to either, rhys.

Quote

I can't help but visualise the beagle boys trying to smuggle sacks of explosives in while whistleing innocently when you ask you question.

Sacks? Think pallets - crates - barrels. Walls demolished. Support beams partially cut. Wires and cables everywhere. And all of it has to work AFTER the plane strikes the building. After the plane explodes. AFTER the fuel and furnishings and structure has been burning. It all has to stay intact, and it all has to work after all that.

AND the pilots have to be good enough to hit the EXACT floors that the explosives are on.

THAT is why we ridicule the truther claims - the odds of ALL that happening are so astronomically AGAINST it that it's completely INSANE to put it forward as anything resembling a serious theory.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[DanG 1]

Did you read my reply above?

How can any building, explosive rigged or not, fall at "freefall speed" in your world? If the presence of material below the collapse prevents "freefall speed" then it is not possible regardless of how the collapse was initiated.

Please respond.

- Dan G

[sundevil777 102]

I don't expect you to be skeptical of the truther claims, you have clearly shown that. I am perfectly willing to accept that something in the NIST report is in error, that is not very important. The ability to spot the bullshit, the ability to know when someone is trying to wave a magic wand of techno speak to convince those wanting to be convinced is what we have going on here. I assert you are unable to realize when you are being fed bullshit.

I don't care if NIST measured time on some video exactly the same as someone else, it still doesn't mean the overall calculation of acceleration is precise - there would be a LOT of potential error in that calculation, completely apart from the aspect of using a stopwatch while watching a video. The magnitude of that error must be compared to the magnitude of how much slower than freefall the building "should" have fallen. You don't have either of those crucial items, but are still willing to believe that a conclusion should be made.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[DJL 235]

Rhys, what will it take for you to understand that there were not any explosives planted on these buildings?

Please watch this video and tell me what you take from it: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1dpio_what-happened-to-wtc-building-7-on_news

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

Rhys, what will it take for you to understand that there were not any explosives planted on these buildings?

But, but the guy said, "pull it", what more do you need?

I'm just asking questions, what's wrong with asking for a proper, complete investigation?

Apparently, it wasn't just Pres. Bush that was in on it, it must have been all of our govt, both houses of congress, even his political adversaries, because with a very rare exception, they have gone along with it. It is so nice that the Dems were willing to work with Bush on this project.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[rhys 0]

Quote

Did you read my reply above?

How can any building, explosive rigged or not, fall at "freefall speed" in your world? If the presence of material below the collapse prevents "freefall speed" then it is not possible regardless of how the collapse was initiated.

Please respond.

I did read your reply and in that one you tell me how it is possible for a building to collapse straight down from irregular dammage, then you have already answered your own question here, things do not fall at freefall speed without assistance when thay are designed to do exactly the opposite.

You are obviously confused, please take more time to consider your continuity.

I am reading all these posts and will reply in time, I have 30 or so jumps to do in the next couple of days so this mght take a few days...

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix