100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Twoofer Madness | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
You truther critics seem to be beating a dead horse in this thread. I wonder if you can explain how so much total destruction (and dust) could be the result of a common pancake collapse. Cars at ground level, located blocks from the buildings were melted, burned rusted,turned over, etc. There was NO FIRE THERE. Did you hear or see any reports of an out of control fire taking over grown zero? I didn't. There was only dust. People were walking around covered in fine dust. We have explained that several times. You didn't listen or are incapable of understanding. You have NEVER explained these things. I am capable of understanding, you are not capable of explaining it. That is, unless explosives were used. A pancake collapse can cause this? ..And you call "me" gullible.  Ignorant beyond belief might describe the situation better. And BTW, you are using the term "pancake collapse" out of context. Pancake collapse IS how they describe the manner in which the buildings fell. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Mon 11/19/12 07:46 AM
|
|
So many people call me "gullible" and they can't see how gullible they are themselves to believe the official story of 9-11, including how the buildings were totally destroyed or who was responsible.
Gullible. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Mon 11/19/12 07:59 AM
|
|
I don't see any building debris on top of these cars. (Except maybe dust) Where is the pancake collapse here?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You truther critics seem to be beating a dead horse in this thread. I wonder if you can explain how so much total destruction (and dust) could be the result of a common pancake collapse. Cars at ground level, located blocks from the buildings were melted, burned rusted,turned over, etc. There was NO FIRE THERE. Did you hear or see any reports of an out of control fire taking over grown zero? I didn't. There was only dust. People were walking around covered in fine dust. We have explained that several times. You didn't listen or are incapable of understanding. You have NEVER explained these things. I am capable of understanding, you are not capable of explaining it. That is, unless explosives were used. A pancake collapse can cause this? ..And you call "me" gullible. Ignorant beyond belief might describe the situation better. And BTW, you are using the term "pancake collapse" out of context. Pancake collapse IS how they describe the manner in which the buildings fell. "Pancake Collapse" is an effect. You refer to it as a "cause". It would imply that you don't know the difference between cause and effect. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Mon 11/19/12 09:21 AM
|
|
You truther critics seem to be beating a dead horse in this thread. I wonder if you can explain how so much total destruction (and dust) could be the result of a common pancake collapse. Cars at ground level, located blocks from the buildings were melted, burned rusted,turned over, etc. There was NO FIRE THERE. Did you hear or see any reports of an out of control fire taking over grown zero? I didn't. There was only dust. People were walking around covered in fine dust. We have explained that several times. You didn't listen or are incapable of understanding. You have NEVER explained these things. I am capable of understanding, you are not capable of explaining it. That is, unless explosives were used. A pancake collapse can cause this? ..And you call "me" gullible. Ignorant beyond belief might describe the situation better. And BTW, you are using the term "pancake collapse" out of context. Pancake collapse IS how they describe the manner in which the buildings fell. "Pancake Collapse" is an effect. You refer to it as a "cause". It would imply that you don't know the difference between cause and effect. No I did not refer to it as a "cause." Yes I know it is an effect and it is the term used to describe HOW THE BUILDINGS FELL. One story on top of another. Not 'why' the buildings fell. They described it as a pancake collapse which is one story on top of another. I never implied it was a "cause." Let me ask you if you have ever seen a professional controlled demolition that fell in a pancake collapse (with explosives) that ever managed to burn out a bunch of cars or cause them to rust over night. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Mon 11/19/12 10:23 AM
|
|
Referring to a tidbit of the Opening Post, I would like to offer some comments.
1. (1.)Just imagine the complexity of the operation - recruiting 19 hijackers prepared to die for the New World Order, the timing of the attacks, (2.) how would they know Building 7 would be damaged? 1. It has NOT been proven (beyond reasonable doubt) that 19 hijackers even died in that attack or that they even boarded the planes. 2. hence #2 would be a moot point. [But, it is my hypothesis that the extent of the damage on 9-11 was intended and hoped to be a lot larger, and that an unknown experimental weapon was used and that it was and experiment and it was unknown how much damage would actually result. ] And so on. That is without the teams needed to plant the detonators, and all the other nonsense. The logistics of such an operation beggars belief, but still we hear the mantra and the same endlessly repeated facile arguments implying that if you can't account for every single anomaly of that terrible day, the Truthers must be right, and the government did it. Wrong conclusion and bias propaganda. IF the building was brought down with explosives with detonators, the planting of such detonators could have easily have been accomplished because of the nature of who was in charge of the building security or lack thereof. Accounting for every single anomaly is called 'investigation.' Ignoring evidence because you can't explain every single anomaly is called 'coverup.' I have addressed some of these anomalies elsewhere; most of them turn out not to be anomalies but either ignorance or outright lies. The claims about the BBC having foreknowledge of the collapse of Building 7 and Larry Silverstein confessing on TV are ludicrous. The misrepresentations of the collapse of this same building are a marvel to behold. There is plenty of archive footage on YouTube and elsewhere that shows the authorities, in particular the heroic firefighters, were fully aware of the damage done to it, and the near certainty of its collapsing. Everyone heard Larry Silverstein admit that they "gave the order to pull it." He did not say they "gave the order to evacuate it." It had already been evacuated. This (above) is meaningless rhetoric, not to mention just a lie. The very latest nonsense is a film that has been broadcast on public television in the run up to the 11th anniversary of the atrocities, the grandly titled 9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out. The kindest thing that can be said about this film is that it confuses cause and effect, which is hardly surprising when one considers that the man behind it is none other than Richard Gage. Meaningless rhetoric above. Also an attack on some messenger by the name of Richard Gage. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Mon 11/19/12 10:07 AM
|
|
I won't review it here because it contains nothing new, though it has been reviewed elsewhere on this site by someone who is both a little more intelligent than me, and a great deal more gullible. One of the things die hard truthers advise us to do is follow the money. Okay, let's start by asking how much Mr Gage makes from his "not-for-profit". This tactic attempts to point a finger at the messenger instead of actually following the money connected to the attack. Did he follow the money connected to the attack? Of course not, he is attacking the messenger and pointing fingers. A very childish tactic. Is this seriously the kind of people you consider to be expert authorities? More Opening Post blather by Alexander Baron: Some information about this can be found here and here. Try not to laugh. Unless I'm missing something, according to this film, the Twin Towers collapsed from the top down by controlled explosion, both of them, while Building 7 (which no one has heard about), collapsed from the bottom. What was that I said about logistics? This means that Mohamed Atta and his fellow mass murderer Marwan al-Shehhi had to crash these planes precisely where they did, between floors 93 and 99, and between floors 77 and 85 respectively, because by an amazing coincidence, the controlled explosions began at those floors. Don't let's even think about Building 7. At the moment, I am being chased across the web by Dan Noel, a highly qualified well-meaning fruitcake, an engineer with a fixation about Building 7, and who has apparently developed "a new, exciting system that allows virtually every human being, starting at a very young age, to learn to use telepathy to automatically realign any target with the Divine purpose". Somebody should introduce him to Judy Wood; they'd make a lovely couple. One other point that needs to be mentioned is that not all the people peddling alternative versions of what happened on 9/11 are either well-meaning or cranks; there is a considerable amount of blatantly spurious analysis out there including doctored videos. One of the most sophisticated such hoaxes is what has been called "The Ball Theory". Don't be deceived by such nonsense, and always bear in mind that the governments of the world are not the only liars out there, and much of the time they are not even the biggest liars. I will go further than that and say that as far as the logistics of 9/11 go, we can believe probably 99.9% of the official version up to the events of that day. The American Government and the British Government lied about the so-called weapons of mass destruction - the very same weapons they have - and they lied about, or rather attempted to cover up, the professed motives for the attacks - but the investigations carried out by the FBI and other agencies were thorough, reliable, honest and probably as accurate as we can expect. The 9/11 attacks have affected all of us profoundly, unless you are living on a desert island, a monastery, or somewhere like that. For me, the gullibility is far more worrying than the plain evil, because the sort of ignorance engendered by the 9/11 Truth Movement is inherently dangerous. The recent case of Brandon Raub is testimony to that. Ignorance has an unpleasant way of turning into hysteria. We are fortunate that those in power - on both sides of the House - don't give any credence at all to these ravings. Under other circumstances, we could have seen things turn very nasty as happens when the extraordinary popular delusion becomes entwined with the madness of the crowd. Probably the main reason it hasn't is because 9/11 Truth is not made up of the usual suspects, but is a curious mixture of extremely erudite men and women with no brains, leftists, America Firsters, people from all walks of life, anti-Zionists, anti-war activists, mystics, a few die-hard anti-Semites, and virtually no Moslems at all. Then there is that great intellectual and champion of Mumia Abu-Jamal, Ed Asner, as well as all manner of kooks, people who have no idea how to think critically. Overall, the movement appears to have no uniform agenda, although there are unquestionably some people making a lot of money out of it, and other things like unwarranted prestige. Above is a blather of sarcastic remarks and name calling ridicule not worthy of any respectable person. I can't even comment on it without feeling dragged down into the slime. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Mon 11/19/12 10:07 AM
|
|
The above is my last humble contribution to attempting to halt it, it is also my final word on both 9/11 and 9/11 "Truth", and I will publish no more articles about either, at least not on this site." Lets hope he (Alexander Baron) keeps his promise. (but he reserved the right to continue his ridiculous bull crap on other sites by saying "at least not on this site." He has no faith in his ability to shut the f up. Never fear, there are plenty of concerned citizens who buy into his nonsense who will copy and paste that stuff all over the Internet. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
HotRodDeluxe
on
Mon 11/19/12 12:41 PM
|
|
Referring to a tidbit of the Opening Post, I would like to offer some comments. 1.)Just imagine the complexity of the operation - recruiting 19 hijackers prepared to die for the New World Order, the timing of the attacks, (2.) how would they know Building 7 would be damaged? 1. It has NOT been proven (beyond reasonable doubt) that 19 hijackers even died in that attack or that they even boarded the planes. 2. hence #2 would be a moot point. Poor logic. Your causality is erroneous, but that is a common feature among the mislabelled 'Truther' movement. [But, it is my hypothesis that the extent of the damage on 9-11 was intended and hoped to be a lot larger, and that an unknown experimental weapon was used and that it was and experiment and it was unknown how much damage would actually result. ] Irrational & lacking any credible evidence (i.e. a sci-fi fantasy) And so on. That is without the teams needed to plant the detonators, and all the other nonsense. The logistics of such an operation beggars belief, but still we hear the mantra and the same endlessly repeated facile arguments implying that if you can't account for every single anomaly of that terrible day, the Truthers must be right, and the government did it. Wrong conclusion and bias propaganda. Incorrect. He is commenting on the poor logic skills demonstrated by truther extrapolation. Everything you disagree with is given the derogatory label 'propaganda'. IF the building was brought down with explosives with detonators, the planting of such detonators could have easily have been accomplished because of the nature of who was in charge of the building security or lack thereof. Now you're clutching at straws. Accounting for every single anomaly is called 'investigation.' Ignoring evidence because you can't explain every single anomaly is called 'coverup.' Again, flawed causality utilising simplistic and opinionated generalisations. I have addressed some of these anomalies elsewhere; most of them turn out not to be anomalies but either ignorance or outright lies. The claims about the BBC having foreknowledge of the collapse of Building 7 and Larry Silverstein confessing on TV are ludicrous. The misrepresentations of the collapse of this same building are a marvel to behold. There is plenty of archive footage on YouTube and elsewhere that shows the authorities, in particular the heroic firefighters, were fully aware of the damage done to it, and the near certainty of its collapsing. Everyone heard Larry Silverstein admit that they "gave the order to pull it." He did not say they "gave the order to evacuate it." It had already been evacuated. This (above) is meaningless rhetoric, not to mention just a lie. Are twoofers still rabbiting on about this nonsense? It was a term understood by the firefighters. I can't believe you're still pushing this old chestnut. The very latest nonsense is a film that has been broadcast on public television in the run up to the 11th anniversary of the atrocities, the grandly titled 9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out. The kindest thing that can be said about this film is that it confuses cause and effect, which is hardly surprising when one considers that the man behind it is none other than Richard Gage. Meaningless rhetoric above. Also an attack on some messenger by the name of Richard Gage. The film does confuse cause and effect, like most of the twoofer so-called 'logic', therefore the accusation of 'meaningless rhetoric' is just facile. Richard Gage is the author behind most of the theories you support. A man raking in the cash of the gullible. He is behind the site 'Architects and Engineers for 9/11', and has a terrible problem understanding causality and has been exposed as a liar. I thought you had researched this subject more than anyone else (so you once claimed). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
HotRodDeluxe
on
Mon 11/19/12 12:31 PM
|
|
On Richard Gage:
From Architect Magazine, this recent article on the distance the American Institute of Architects wisely puts between Richard Gage and AE911Truth: What is more interesting than these bizarre and debunked conspiracy theories is the way that Gage places his AIA membership front and center in his presentations. He seems to be attempting to cloak his organization in the officialdom of the venerable 155-year-old professional institution, even as AIA wants nothing to do with his organization. At the start of his latest film, he explains that he is “a licensed architect of over 20 years and member of the American Institute of Architects.” Gage often seems to wield his AIA status in promoting his conspiracy theories. In making his case, he also regularly cites that more than 100 AIA members and at least six AIA Fellows have signed his petition calling for a new investigation. In total, Gage says that more than 1,700 of the petition’s roughly 16,000 signatures are from architects and engineers. During the screening, Gage was at the very least intimating that his organization had been invited to AIA officially. …Aside from Gage, though, there was not a single other architect in the room, much less an official from AIA, or even another member. The 80-strong crowd was made up largely of members of the local 9/11 Truth movement and other political activists. There is and never will be an AIA endorsement of these foolish and anti-rational theories of Richard Gage and AE911Truth. Just another con man.  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I won't review it here because it contains nothing new, though it has been reviewed elsewhere on this site by someone who is both a little more intelligent than me, and a great deal more gullible. One of the things die hard truthers advise us to do is follow the money. Okay, let's start by asking how much Mr Gage makes from his "not-for-profit". This tactic attempts to point a finger at the messenger instead of actually following the money connected to the attack. Did he follow the money connected to the attack? Of course not, he is attacking the messenger and pointing fingers. A very childish tactic. Is this seriously the kind of people you consider to be expert authorities? More Opening Post blather by Alexander Baron: Some information about this can be found here and here. Try not to laugh. Unless I'm missing something, according to this film, the Twin Towers collapsed from the top down by controlled explosion, both of them, while Building 7 (which no one has heard about), collapsed from the bottom. What was that I said about logistics? This means that Mohamed Atta and his fellow mass murderer Marwan al-Shehhi had to crash these planes precisely where they did, between floors 93 and 99, and between floors 77 and 85 respectively, because by an amazing coincidence, the controlled explosions began at those floors. Don't let's even think about Building 7. At the moment, I am being chased across the web by Dan Noel, a highly qualified well-meaning fruitcake, an engineer with a fixation about Building 7, and who has apparently developed "a new, exciting system that allows virtually every human being, starting at a very young age, to learn to use telepathy to automatically realign any target with the Divine purpose". Somebody should introduce him to Judy Wood; they'd make a lovely couple. One other point that needs to be mentioned is that not all the people peddling alternative versions of what happened on 9/11 are either well-meaning or cranks; there is a considerable amount of blatantly spurious analysis out there including doctored videos. One of the most sophisticated such hoaxes is what has been called "The Ball Theory". Don't be deceived by such nonsense, and always bear in mind that the governments of the world are not the only liars out there, and much of the time they are not even the biggest liars. I will go further than that and say that as far as the logistics of 9/11 go, we can believe probably 99.9% of the official version up to the events of that day. The American Government and the British Government lied about the so-called weapons of mass destruction - the very same weapons they have - and they lied about, or rather attempted to cover up, the professed motives for the attacks - but the investigations carried out by the FBI and other agencies were thorough, reliable, honest and probably as accurate as we can expect. The 9/11 attacks have affected all of us profoundly, unless you are living on a desert island, a monastery, or somewhere like that. For me, the gullibility is far more worrying than the plain evil, because the sort of ignorance engendered by the 9/11 Truth Movement is inherently dangerous. The recent case of Brandon Raub is testimony to that. Ignorance has an unpleasant way of turning into hysteria. We are fortunate that those in power - on both sides of the House - don't give any credence at all to these ravings. Under other circumstances, we could have seen things turn very nasty as happens when the extraordinary popular delusion becomes entwined with the madness of the crowd. Probably the main reason it hasn't is because 9/11 Truth is not made up of the usual suspects, but is a curious mixture of extremely erudite men and women with no brains, leftists, America Firsters, people from all walks of life, anti-Zionists, anti-war activists, mystics, a few die-hard anti-Semites, and virtually no Moslems at all. Then there is that great intellectual and champion of Mumia Abu-Jamal, Ed Asner, as well as all manner of kooks, people who have no idea how to think critically. Overall, the movement appears to have no uniform agenda, although there are unquestionably some people making a lot of money out of it, and other things like unwarranted prestige. Above is a blather of sarcastic remarks and name calling ridicule not worthy of any respectable person. I can't even comment on it without feeling dragged down into the slime. The following has been demonstrated repeatedly. ... is not made up of the usual suspects, but is a curious mixture of extremely erudite men and women with no brains, leftists, America Firsters, people from all walks of life, anti-Zionists, anti-war activists, mystics, a few die-hard anti-Semites, and virtually no Moslems at all. Then there is that great intellectual and champion of Mumia Abu-Jamal, Ed Asner, as well as all manner of kooks, people who have no idea how to think critically. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ridiculous generalities and blather, not worthy of thought. Ridiculous.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Mon 11/19/12 01:02 PM
|
|
Are twoofers still rabbiting on about this nonsense? It was a term understood by the firefighters. I can't believe you're still pushing this old chestnut. I'm not 'pushing" anything. I'm simply telling you that your blathering messenger is lying. Many people did see and hear Silverstien use that term in reference to building 7 and they also used the term "pull it" for other standing structures they were planning to take down. You defenders of the club jump on that like vultures with your ridicule and propaganda techniques constantly because it is absolutely damning evidence when they caught the man on video tape. Gullible are the people who support the official government story of 9-11. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JB said
"A pancake collapse can cause this? ..And you call "me" gullible. laugh" Ignorant beyond belief might describe the situation better. And BTW, you are using the term "pancake collapse" out of context. Pancake collapse IS how they describe the manner in which the buildings fell. "Pancake Collapse" is an effect. You refer to it as a "cause". It would imply that you don't know the difference between cause and effect. JB responds, "No I did not refer to it as a "cause." Yes I know it is an effect and it is the term used to describe HOW THE BUILDINGS FELL. One story on top of another. Not 'why' the buildings fell. They described it as a pancake collapse which is one story on top of another. I never implied it was a "cause." This is an example of how the story changes infinitely to suit the "truther" agenda. Pancake collapse is the proper term for how the buildings fell because the bridging (as I have explained in earlier posts) held the floor structure together forcing it to act as a unit. For part of it to fall, it all has to fall. Secret weapons!? What loony tunes! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ridiculous generalities and blather, not worthy of thought. Ridiculous.  "Common sense has clearly been snuck up on from behind beaten several times on the head and left to bleed. I'm still waiting for truthers to tell me how Silverstein/insurance fraud is connected to the rest of 9/11..." CJ Newson "Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Are twoofers still rabbiting on about this nonsense? It was a term understood by the firefighters. I can't believe you're still pushing this old chestnut. I'm not 'pushing" anything. I'm simply telling you that your blathering messenger is lying. Well, he makes some valid points (Judy Wood's whackjob hypotheses, anyone?). I'm sorry if it causes butthurt. Many people did see and hear Silverstien use that term in reference to building 7 and they also used the term "pull it" for other standing structures they were planning to take down. And that means what to you exactly? You defenders of the club jump on that like vultures with your ridicule and propaganda techniques constantly because it is absolutely damning evidence when they caught the man on video tape. Please, save your ad hominem and provide something of value. Gullible are the people who support the official government story of 9-11. More rhetoric without any vailidity. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Mon 11/19/12 01:28 PM
|
|
This entire thread is as Sojourning_Soul described it.
It is nothing but an opinion bashing festival and is clearly meant to be for the purpose of insulting anyone who disagrees with the poster, or the official media B.S and government propaganda campaign surrounding the attack on the twin towers on 9-11, 2012. This entire thread is clearly not for the purpose of any real or civil discussion or debate of the matter and I suspect it was posted specifically as a trap for the purpose of a continued assault on independent thinking people who question or disagree with the official 9-11 garbage. I have purposely avoided this thread for weeks thinking that the posters, (most all of them are here for the same kind of bashing purpose) would soon run out of steam and let the thread fade away -but to my surprise -they have continued to dredge up more ridiculous things to bash and rant about. So have fun guys, its been entertaining to say the least.  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Mon 11/19/12 01:41 PM
|
|
JB said "A pancake collapse can cause this? ..And you call "me" gullible. laugh" Ignorant beyond belief might describe the situation better. And BTW, you are using the term "pancake collapse" out of context. Pancake collapse IS how they describe the manner in which the buildings fell. "Pancake Collapse" is an effect. You refer to it as a "cause". It would imply that you don't know the difference between cause and effect. JB responds, "No I did not refer to it as a "cause." Yes I know it is an effect and it is the term used to describe HOW THE BUILDINGS FELL. One story on top of another. Not 'why' the buildings fell. They described it as a pancake collapse which is one story on top of another. I never implied it was a "cause." This is an example of how the story changes infinitely to suit the "truther" agenda. Pancake collapse is the proper term for how the buildings fell because the bridging (as I have explained in earlier posts) held the floor structure together forcing it to act as a unit. For part of it to fall, it all has to fall. Secret weapons!? What loony tunes! I was referring to the burned out rusted out automobiles when I used the word 'cause.' Again, have you ever seen a controlled demolition where explosives were used that resulted in burned out rusted out automobiles two (and more) blocks away from the building? Now I know why you are trapped into believing the official report. You can't even seem to comprehend a simple sentence without misunderstanding it. Bye bye to you too. <--FOR SURE, A BUILDING'S PANCAKE COLLAPSE CAUSED THIS.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This entire thread is as Sojourning_Soul described it. It is nothing but an opinion bashing festival and is clearly meant to be for the purpose of insulting anyone who disagrees with the poster, or the official media B.S and government propaganda campaign surrounding the attack on the twin towers on 9-11, 2012. Not at all. I posted an article, then quoted various so-called 'truthers' to support said article. The rest in your imagination. This entire thread is clearly not for the purpose of any real or civil discussion or debate of the matter and I suspect it was posted specifically as a trap for the purpose of a continued assault on independent thinking people who question or disagree with the official 9-11 garbage. Your suspicions and accusations are poorly thought through. I have purposely avoided this thread for weeks thinking that the posters, (most all of them are here for the same kind of bashing purpose) would soon run out of steam and let the thread fade away -but to my surprise -they have continued to dredge up more ridiculous things to bash and rant about. Again, that seems to be all you've done since your arrival. You obviously missed the pount of the thread. So have fun guys, its been entertaining to say the least. It certainly has! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
HotRodDeluxe
on
Mon 11/19/12 02:33 PM
|
|
JB said "A pancake collapse can cause this? ..And you call "me" gullible. laugh" Ignorant beyond belief might describe the situation better. And BTW, you are using the term "pancake collapse" out of context. Pancake collapse IS how they describe the manner in which the buildings fell. "Pancake Collapse" is an effect. You refer to it as a "cause". It would imply that you don't know the difference between cause and effect. JB responds, "No I did not refer to it as a "cause." Yes I know it is an effect and it is the term used to describe HOW THE BUILDINGS FELL. One story on top of another. Not 'why' the buildings fell. They described it as a pancake collapse which is one story on top of another. I never implied it was a "cause." This is an example of how the story changes infinitely to suit the "truther" agenda. Pancake collapse is the proper term for how the buildings fell because the bridging (as I have explained in earlier posts) held the floor structure together forcing it to act as a unit. For part of it to fall, it all has to fall. Secret weapons!? What loony tunes! I was referring to the burned out rusted out automobiles when I used the word 'cause.' Again, have you ever seen a controlled demolition where explosives were used that resulted in burned out rusted out automobiles two (and more) blocks away from the building? Now I know why you are trapped into believing the official report. You can't even seem to comprehend a simple sentence without misunderstanding it. Bye bye to you too. <--FOR SURE, A BUILDING'S PANCAKE COLLAPSE CAUSED THIS. So, you still hang on to the CD hypothesis when that has been debunked? The 'twoofers' came up with the thermite idea when it was clear that conventional explosives weren't deployed. Now, as I posted earlier (if you bothered to read it), the so-called evidence for the thermite idea is merely paint. Too bad you chose to overlook this fact.
|
|
|
|
|
