I'll try to explain my question: WTC 1 and 2: 107 floors (those numbers are not exactly correct. I'm too lazy to look them up again). Structural weakness allegedly by fire occurred 5 floors below, meaning: floors 102 - 107 fall on floor 101, exceeding its maximum payload capacity, leading to floors 101 - 107 falling on floor 100.... and so on until "zero". I understand that everything below was destroyed by the increasing weight and the five floors above from the speed they had at the end of the fall. In WTC 7 (40 floors) had its structural weakness in floor 10, meaning floors 11 - 40 fall 10 floors down. Why was nothing left standing of the other 30 floors which were build to carry the load above? If the mechanism of destruction similar to WTC 1 and 2 explains the collapse of the floors 1 -10 of WTC 7, does it also explain the total destruction of floors 11 - 40?
Wrong. The sides were breaking because the descending debris front was impacting the floors and thus SHEARED the floors away from the perimeter facades, pushing them outward. There were no structural elements (floors) present to spill the debris outward. The order was: 1. Debris front impacts floor connected to core columns and perimeter facade columns 2. Debris front shears floor from core columns and perimeter facade columns 3. With no floor present, perimeter columns have no support and thus fall outward like banana peels 4. Debris front continues DOWNWARD to next floor 5. Go back to step one Gravity pulling the debris downward and nothing to push/move the debris outwards. Do you know what was contained in that falling mass of debris? How you think that the floors should have stayed intact and tilted to spill the debris outward is BEYOND me. I wish you would show a diagram as to how you think this could have happened complete with floors, connections that stayed intact, and how those connections created pivot points that allowed the floors to tilt and spill debris. Please do so and I can easily show you where your mistakes are.
Because the bottom floor of the "30 floor descending upper block section" impacted the debris below. That lower first floor of the "upper section" and all it's remaining connections had to try and resist the force of 30 floors above in motion. Each floor is designed to resist only it's own weight and objects placed upon it, not 30 descending floors. The difference between the load of 30 descending floors and a floors designed load capacity is HUGE.
I cant believe you all are replying to the OCTA'S.you should know they know as well as we do that it was an isndie job.so why do you feed them? you've heard the old saying before-dont feed the-well you all know what the last word is.starts with a t and last letter ends with an L.why do you guys take the bait and waste your time with them? thats the only reason they are here is to waste your time.ignore them and go on to someone else.
Dude, that's just a lie. Marvin Bush WAS connected to security at the WTC'S (in a pretty big way). Talk about misrepresenting the facts. Geezus H.
Just like Romney wasn't CEO of his chief outsourcing company that he took the checks for being CEO from. Yes, I know the mentality. You can argue the time;lines, but the fact IS, that he WAS a principal in Statesec, the company in charge of security at the WTC's. Gimme a break, please. Where there's smoke, there just probably could be fire. You pass it off as some coincidence AGAIN (I guess). I do not. It's amazing all the excuses one can make FOR the official version of events, while simultaneously demanding proof positive in every minute detail of any opposing supposition. Cracks me up.
No it is not a lie. What you are saying is the absolute proven lie. Marvin Bush was not connected to WTC security at all. That fact is long since established and proven learn about it.
The last time Marvin Bush was a 'pricipal' was june of 2000,and stratesec had been excused from their work at the WTC in 1998 because they were unable to 'fulfill the work'
Not exactly but, you'll believe exactly what you want to regardless so. Close enough to question at any rate (even if I accept your 'version' of the facts, which I don't). Just another 'coincidence' that is perfectly acceptable, in your eyes (apparently). I do not.
1. asks for speculation as to not only WHO did it but the type of explosive used. definitely cart before the horse. 2. again asks for speculation and on a point that is non-critical to finding WHAT happened first. 3. again speculation and really, the fact is, since the demolition did happen, the explosives arrived in the building some way and to speculate as to exactly how at this point is futile. 4. speculation and its a point that will be addressed after we can arrive at agreement as to WHAT happened and then look for suspects. 5. assumption that NYPD or FDNY people would be involved, total speculation and serves no purpose, speculation as to the motivation of any given individual is not a subject for this investigation, the fact of criminal activity or not is to be addressed. 6. asks for more speculation. oh well ..... 7. "who piloted the planes" assuming that there were actual planes, what, missiles or? all we have a this point is an image on video that shows something that if taken at face value is clearly a violation of the laws of physics. 8. will the real Osama Ben Laden please stand up...... or something, do you really believe that there is only one Osama Ben Laden in the videos? there are multiple videos with at least 3 different actors ( or? ) this is a problem. 9. Where did the celebrating Muslims video come from? are you absolutely certain that it shows what you have been told?
Of course he was. Simple google can verify that very quickly. I don't know why (or maybe I do) you adhere to such ludicrous statements but, I hope it's serves your purpose.
Referring to most things 'official' associated 9/11 ARE pure BS. I just can't 'salute' and dummy on. Not in my nature.
He was not and google will verify no such thing obviously you never tried. It as a true statement and that is the end of that. He was never in charge of or connected to WTC security. I have no purpose but it is fun watching you deny reality
There are all sorts of things that boil down to educated guesses ..... oops! and therefore should not be the center of the debate, there are features of 9/11 that have much more and better information and can be documented (or not..... ) but these things such as the alleged airliner crashes, have more material to get traction with than arguments that would require lots of detective work to actually dig up evidence one way or another. BTW: I actually answered up to the questions in the OP. but nobody seems to notice, & nobody seems to care.....
The airliners crashes were not alleged they are real events which happened. You have never answered questions at all you only obfuscate.
