What Destroyed The World Trade Centers?

[Atom]

Originally Posted by BamaStangGuy

I dont have the time or the patience to read through this whole thread. What are some proven facts that show the US is repsonible for 9/11.

The question is, what brought the towers down, not who was involved. I see that you voted airliners crashing into it.

Ever wish that you could change your vote on these forum polls? If not, stick around and read the thread, you may yet.

Learn some physics, and if that is not possible, then at least have faith in the experts that DO know and understand physics.

[notepad]

Originally Posted by Zap

@Notepad: I think you're pretty quick to get on the phone to your attorney. Why not try to work it out with John? It'll be cheaper.

Actually not quick enough. Mr. Scott has repeatedly called my home -- harassing me, stuttering indecipherable gibberish about something, hanging up, calling and ringing and hanging up even before I had a chance to answer, etc., etc. etc. I don't know what his deal is, but seems like he has some kind of "problem."

I'm tired of his actions, his insults and now his utter disregard for even common decency, or professional protocols -- or to maintain his member base as confidential.

Hey, what about when he gets mad at you or another member and decides to personally assassinate yours or someone else's character? People like myself whose private sector earnings depend upon their reputation will not stand for such behavior. Defamation is actually a serious offense -- and yes, don't kid yourself, John Scott has now entered the "criminal zone."


# # #

[Zap]

Originally Posted by notepad

Actually not quick enough. Mr. Scott has repeatedly called my home -- harassing me, stuttering indecipherable gibberish about something, hanging up, calling and ringing and hanging up even before I had a chance to answer, etc., etc. etc. I don't know what his deal is, but seems like he has some kind of "problem."

Maybe I am missing something here. If you heard "stuttering indecipherable gibberish" or the person calling you has hung up before you answered, how can you even tell who it was?

Maybe a lot of those calls were someone else?

[notepad]

Originally Posted by Zap

Maybe I am missing something here. If you heard "stuttering indecipherable gibberish" or the person calling you has hung up before you answered, how can you even tell who it was?

Maybe a lot of those calls were someone else?

...caller ID.


# # #

[Atom]

Originally Posted by notepad

Actually ...

You're not going to answer my question in post #658, are you.

Ok. I'll try not to judge you for it, but I must admit that your unwillingness does seems shady to me.




Ø

[Zap]

Originally Posted by notepad

...caller ID.


# # #

You're lucky. When I get calls from overseas, I usually get one of two things...

"Unknown Name - Unknown Number" or, simply "Long Distance".
If it's from within North America, then it's a lot more accurate, but still not 100%.

[BamaStangGuy]

Originally Posted by Atom

The question is, what brought the towers down, not who was involved. I see that you voted airliners crashing into it.

Ever wish that you could change your vote on these forum polls? If not, stick around and read the thread, you may yet.

Learn some physics, and if that is not possible, then at least have faith in the experts that DO know and understand physics.

a combination of airliners crashing & the fires

Is more like it. There are too many options imo.

The report concludes that the fireproofing on the Twin Towers' steel infrastructures was blown off by the initial impact of the planes and that if this had not occurred the WTC would likely have remained standing. The fires weakened the trusses supporting the floors, making the floors sag. The sagging floors pulled on the exterior steel columns to the point where exterior columns bowed inward. With the damage to the core columns, the buckling exterior columns could no longer support the buildings, so they collapsed. In addition, the report asserts that the Towers' stairwells were not adequately reinforced to provide emergency escape for people above the impact zones. NIST stated that the final report on the collapse of WTC 7 will appear in a separate report.

For every "expert" you give me saying it was brought down by well placed explosions I can give you one that says the impact of the planes, along with the fire that burned for near 1 hour brought them down.

What is your point?

[Zap]

There's a lot of conflicting evidence. I'd like to know what really happened and who's responsible for what.

[Atom]

Originally Posted by BamaStangGuy

... For every "expert" you give me saying it was brought down by well placed explosions I can give you one that says the impact of the planes, along with the fire that burned for near 1 hour brought them down.

No, as a matter of fact, you can't. That I promise you .. I am even willing to bet a substancial amount of money on it with a time limit and impartial judges ..

Originally Posted by BamaStangGuy

What is your point?

Your choice, airliners crashing into it (and even combined with the fire too, BTW), is physically impossible to have caused what occurred, under the circumstances.

Read the thread and visit the links, Bama ... no hurry. Just overlook or skip over the conspiracy stuff.




☺

[Zap]

If we're speaking directly to the "molten metal found later" issue. I think I've come to the conclusion that it is possible to have been caused by the fire in the building and the pressure after the building collapsed, though, highly unlikely.

And, we already KNOW what brought down building #7. It was a weight watchers convention on the top floor.

[Atom]

Originally Posted by Zap

If we're speaking directly to the "molten metal found later" issue. I think I've come to the conclusion that it is possible to have been caused by the fire in the building and the pressure after the building collapsed, though, highly unlikely.

Your possible conclusion would be an incorrect one.

You fellas really need to do some reading.

I will not try and convince you with a few posts. You need to read what many experts have said about this, and try to understand why certain things are impossible per the laws of physics. Most people don't understand CRAP about the very (physical) laws that govern them, but this is normal.




∆

[bratwebdesign]

Originally Posted by Atom

Your possible conclusion would be an incorrect one.

You fellas really need to do some reading.

I will not try and convince you with a few posts. You need to read what many experts have said about this, and try to understand why certain things are impossible per the laws of physics. Most people don't understand CRAP about the very (physical) laws that govern them, but this is normal.
∆

I have read through this whole thread. Could it be possible that explosives were used? sure. Could it be possible that the plane crashing into the tower and the fire caused it to happen? sure. No one will really know enless you construct a building like WTC and fly a 757 into it and see whats happens. If the results do not prove the "official story" then there will be alot of people asking questions and demanding answers. I think until this happens, most will go along with the "official story".

Just my

[Atom]

Originally Posted by bratwebdesign

I have read through this whole thread. Could it be possible that explosives were used? sure

No, it is NOT possible that explosives were used, it is certain. In fact, it is not possible that explosives were NOT used, because there were no earth quakes in NY that day.

Originally Posted by bratwebdesign

Could it be possible that the plane crashing into the tower and the fire caused it to happen? sure

Of course not, that would go against some laws of physics ... something that physics experts are well aware of, rest assured.

Originally Posted by bratwebdesign

No one will really know enless you construct a building like WTC and fly a 757 into it and see whats happens.

I am sorry and mean no disrespect, but you are mistaken, and you would realize this if you understood but one of the laws of nature that would have to be broken for it to be so.

Originally Posted by bratwebdesign

If the results do not prove the "official story" then there will be alot of people asking questions and demanding answers. I think until this happens, most will go along with the "official story".

True or false, all that you are saying with this last bit is that most people are not comprehensive when it comes to a subject such as pyhsics, which is a subject governed by laws that are never broken, and thus need to be shown ... and I agree.

What bothers me is how damned gullible people in general are. What we all witnessed that day were three controlled demolitions, and I am here to tell you that it is not, I repeat, NOT possible to have been anything, and I repeat, ANYTHING but three controlled demolitions, under the circumstances. Circumstances, BTW, that would be agreed to have prevailed by both camps, or, undeniable circumstances, if you will ... i.e. one of the buildings was 110 stories, etc.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by notepad

John Scott, not only are you unscrupulous to post my name in this forum, defaming my good name, you are also a liar. You have strayed off-topic into an area which I will not tolerate.

I have saved this forum post for which I will copy to my attorney and begin legal proceedings against you and your agents for damages incured

Are you denying the conversation? Or are you denying the fact that you posted the Alexa review?

And, yeah, you can bark about suing me until you're blue in the face. To me it just sounds like somebody wholly lacking in character angry because their secret's out.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by notepad

Actually not quick enough. Mr. Scott has repeatedly called my home -- harassing me, stuttering indecipherable gibberish about something, hanging up, calling and ringing and hanging up even before I had a chance to answer, etc., etc. etc. I don't know what his deal is, but seems like he has some kind of "problem."

Huh. Interesting. You just posted that as fact, and supported it with a claim of: