An Explosive New 9/11 Charge

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

I don't speak for the readers, but speaking for myself, what I see is someone who's too afraid to approach me on a more appropriate thread.

Plenty of threads on here so which one?

reply to post by Yankee451


Again you lie....

Problem is the columns were not penetrated/failed - its was the bolts and welds joining the sections together
that were sheared off from the impact

here is section of exterior wall lying in street





This section was punched out of the building when the welds and bolts holding it to its neighbors were sheared

Notice columns still intact but bent from the impact - also notice column is HOLLOW . Made of 1/4 to 3/8 in
steel; - getting thinner the higher up you went . The steel was rolled into C shape then joined to it mates
by spandrel plates welded horizontal, The panel was then bolted to other panels forming exterior wall
Does not take much force to shear or strip a bolt off especially if applied laterally to it or to break a weld

I guess you have not seen one of the these up close and personal?

I have - they are commonly used for memorials to the victims - the ones you and other nut jobs slander as
'VICSIMS"

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by GenRadek

 

You're hanging your hat on old wive's tales now, Gen? Thought you were made of sterner stuff than that.

I notice you still wont try to explain this why not yankee lets see your logic in action





HOW DID THIS PLANE GO THROUGH THE STEEL HULL !!!????

reply to post by wmd_2008



Come at me with that banana!

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by wmd_2008


You stop right there.. The "WOOD" used on most of those planes was "super special Govt. wood" THAT is how a wooden plane was able to pierce through steel.
This was wood derived from a top secret farm deep in enemy territory. The horticulturists were trained by CIA-NSA-FBI-MI6-SAS-IDF. This was no normal wood you see.

Truthers dont look at the physics of the matter.. Their thought process ends with a 2x4 and a steel beam. They cant fathom how a pop can (aluminum) or a balsa plane (2x4) can some how, some way, jeopardize the integrity of steel beams.

Pure P0wnage!

reply to post by ShaunHatfield


look over there...Japanese Zeros!!


Tora, Tora, Tora!

And what about frogs?

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by ShaunHatfield

 

look over there...Japanese Zeros!!


Tora, Tora, Tora!

And what about frogs?

So what thread do you want to talk on or have you forgot that as well!

reply to post by thedman


Ohh....

"you and other nut jobs"

You slay me Thedman...really, that hurts.

reply to post by wmd_2008


You suffering from longterm loss of shortterm memory?

You mention one of them here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by thedman


Not the "wheel knocked out a multiple ton wall section" again? We've done this before Thed.

You know how to tell that's a staged shot?

All you "kinetic energy" obsessed OSers should be able to imagine how much KE that multiple ton section had as it hit the pavement, eh?

Notice the crater, or all the shattered concrete? No? Me either, and boy that wheel musta really been stuck in there to stay there after that panel fell about 6 dozen stories.

reply to post by samkent


Sorry Samkent...but your trying to compare munitions loaded vessels with a supposed MT building that has no high explosives in it.....fuel and munitions do not mix under the best of circumstances...so should we be assuming too that the towers were munitions loaded and then it would support your nifty little bits on the ships that were relayed....and also several of those vessels litterally burned for hours at sea even with them being ladened with munitions.

but back on topic because 9/11 threads have more than enough debate on here with much great info from both camps.....the question is why would this Richard Clarke be Re igniting this tens years after and not at the time....

Fishy fishy fishy is what it is.

as for me....i am still working on a simulation on how a building(steel) implodes upon itself when the central core(steel) from the lower underground sections are comprimised.

Originally posted by plube
reply to post by samkent

 

Sorry Samkent...but your trying to compare munitions loaded vessels with a supposed MT building that has no high explosives in it.....fuel and munitions do not mix under the best of circumstances...so should we be assuming too that the towers were munitions loaded and then it would support your nifty little bits on the ships that were relayed....and also several of those vessels litterally burned for hours at sea even with them being ladened with munitions.

but back on topic because 9/11 threads have more than enough debate on here with much great info from both camps.....the question is why would this Richard Clarke be Re igniting this tens years after and not at the time....

Fishy fishy fishy is what it is.

as for me....i am still working on a simulation on how a building(steel) implodes upon itself when the central core(steel) from the lower underground sections are comprimised

edit on 013131p://f34Sunday by plube because: (no reason given)

Implode?

Originally posted by ShaunHatfield
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

You stop right there.. The "WOOD" used on most of those planes was "super special Govt. wood" THAT is how a wooden plane was able to pierce through steel.
This was wood derived from a top secret farm deep in enemy territory. The horticulturists were trained by CIA-NSA-FBI-MI6-SAS-IDF. This was no normal wood you see.

Truthers dont look at the physics of the matter.. Their thought process ends with a 2x4 and a steel beam. They cant fathom how a pop can (aluminum) or a balsa plane (2x4) can some how, some way, jeopardize the integrity of steel beams.

Pure P0wnage!

But it was grown using truther BS the finest known to man!

reply to post by Yankee451


So you want me to go on lets roll I take it, how many on there agree with the os, I had a quick look at some posts I don't think I would get much done for

They are full of all the wacko ideas, floors taken out,missiles etc etc.

I have no doubt you would give me a warm welcome.

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by thedman

 

Not the "wheel knocked out a multiple ton wall section" again? We've done this before Thed.

You know how to tell that's a staged shot?

All you "kinetic energy" obsessed OSers should be able to imagine how much KE that multiple ton section had as it hit the pavement, eh?

Notice the crater, or all the shattered concrete? No? Me either, and boy that wheel musta really been stuck in there to stay there after that panel fell about 6 dozen stories.

edit on 14-8-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)

Do you know for definite that was were it first hit ground?

reply to post by wmd_2008


It's no different for you than it is for me to be posting here. You can see how popular I am. What's the problem? Afraid your argument won't stand up?

If I could post similar posts here, I would. You can see from my 911 for Psychos post, that I had to post it as a rant to keep it from being put into the HOAX bin, regardless of all the valid sources I included with it. That post is on ATS, and I mention no planes on that thread, so what's keeping you from going there?

reply to post by wmd_2008


Do you know for sure when that photograph was taken? How many bounces would it take to knock out that wheel? I mean, c'mon.

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by thedman

 

Not the "wheel knocked out a multiple ton wall section" again? We've done this before Thed.

You know how to tell that's a staged shot?

All you "kinetic energy" obsessed OSers should be able to imagine how much KE that multiple ton section had as it hit the pavement, eh?

Notice the crater, or all the shattered concrete? No? Me either, and boy that wheel musta really been stuck in there to stay there after that panel fell about 6 dozen stories.

edit on 14-8-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)

Ah yes a staged shot!! of course!!! And you have any evidence of how that happened?

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

Do you know for sure when that photograph was taken? How many bounces would it take to knock out that wheel? I mean, c'mon.

It's plausible so cant be ruled out that what amuses me about you guys you think the strangest things can happen no planes beam weapons floors taken out but you rule that this may have hit the ground rolled or slid as not possible.

reply to post by GenRadek

And you have any evidence of how that happened?

Pathetic, Gen. I expected so much more. Aren't you supposed to be some big, bad editor or some #?

When do I get some of my questions answered anyway, or do you want to bring up straw and concrete blocks again?