Pffft over the years you have become less and less sharp , at the old times of the pravda you was much better than that , now arguying with you is like shouting at an overbeaten doggy You dare to say that some of my links does not work ? well on my computer they just work fine ^^ Well ok , you are not in England , now you say me that you are in the Colorado , surely then at the Buckley AFB I suppose , in fact I dont care at all , it change nothing its always the same NSA copy / paste ^^ I have told you already , its the DC130 that hold US drones , not the usual C130 , plus the fact that they can fly and direct the drones from a DC130 , its like a moveable piloting platform for drones ^^ Is it to me French to learn you what is able some part of your US arsenal of weapons ? I must be dreaming ^^
I love it.not once since this video has been posted has anybody been able to come on here and debunk the information in there and disprove the facts that the governments version of events is absurd.like clockwork,same ole same ole.no surprise.so predictable.
have to bring this thread back up for this reason below. well really all you got to do for the lurkers that are in doubt still that lurk here who see this propanda by the shills being posted all the time, is just continue posting that five minute video, and the lurkers themselves can see how the coward paid trolls run off with their tail between their legs when challeneged to refute those facts and inconsistencies in them,that they NEVER take you up on the challenge ever. that again is why i say that thread is really the only thread that needs to be in this section.the shills wont touch the information in it and the lurkers themselves who are objective and open minded, can see for themselves that its actually the governments version that is absurd and redicules. matter of fact when I first made that thread,there WAS a lurker back then who saw that video from my thread I had just created at the time and he had his doubts about the official explanation but believed the governments explanation at the time,but after watching that video,he got smart and started looking at the evidence after that and now understand the official version is lies and propaganda thanks to that video. Plus when you look at that thread,there have been multiple views to it so I knew there are thousands out there who even though they havent come on here and posted on the thread or in the section,they have seen that video and they are awake now.thats why I keep bringing that thread back up like I am going to right now.lol.
What does that video prove? While you may believe the Gov't account is 'absurd' that is really nothing more than your opinion. Additionally, that video is hardly a video of record. For example, it is patently false to claim that Rumsfeldt announced for the first time that 2.3 trillion was unaccounted for in the pentagons budget. The link below discusses the 2.3 trillion on 3/3/00. The inability of the pentagon to accurately maintain its books has been an ongoing problem for sometime. There is no evidence to suggest that it played a role in the 9/11 attacks in anyway. http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002hxm
The truther type nuts always come out when something happens they don't understand. Reminds me of Salem witch burnings.
It ran the length of the building - in its center core. The antenna went through it, right? And when the North Tower collapsed, the antenna started falling first. So you may want to retract your statement, as it appears that the core had been compromised.
Picture of one of the core box column damage. There were concrete covered columns in the garage and first floor as the schematics of the building show but not in the towers. Jango sent a totally misleading picture of a standard rebar reinforced concrete column as an example of construction.
So you're, after all this time, disputing the picture I posted in the thread in the Warfare section, you know, the one from the BBC? So are you back to the line of: "there's no reinforced concrete in the WTC"?
Ask and you shall receive Source Do you have anything other than the 1 BBC picture that supports your statement? There was no concrete running the length of the building, the previous statement of the garage and 1st floor is accurate. Just so it's known, I took that from a truther website. Which means, even your own side is stating things against you. Part of the issues with Truthers, they can't even get on the same page.
Out of boredom, I kept going. Another from a Truther cite, and one more from a "debunker" site. Mostly to get my point across. AboveTopSecret You can also dig through this thread at JREF which has a complete break down, with sources, to all of the information regarding where concrete was in the building.
I would also like to note for 9/11waij that I am working on the debunking list for the video. I forgot I had a full weekend this weekend, but I will begin working on it. You won't believe it anyway so I am not too worried about getting it out there.
How about something credible, which is what you guys stress. The BBC is credible. How about something from an official source that says: "no reinforced concrete above 1st floor."
The NIST report states: So I apologize, I was partially wrong, it is somewhere in the middle. The concrete slab has nothing to do with the core at all, and like I said, the core had no concrete reinforcement. It was a tube in tube design. The concrete was stated to be "A thin sheet of light concrete, possibly containing glass beads." Once again, I was partially wrong, and I hope this straightens it out. There was concrete but it was irrelevant to the point we both were trying to make. The BBC is mistaken.
The fire retardant is a concretious spray on material and some of the fire retardant were multiple layers of wall board, none of which had any structural load bearing capacity. The fire retardant was only designed for two hour protection and that is if it were not blown off by debris. There is a very good explanation what happens when you have some columns taken out on one side written up by the Purdue science department and how that affected the load bearing capacity of the remaining core columns. There is also another good explanation of how the fuel acts as a solid wall of weight and how it affects structure at those speeds.
Was there a reason for asking for a reliable source so you could do something other than hand waive it away? What was the point?
Wait.... let me get this straight. Jango, is it your assertion that the core columns of the WTC were not made of steel box columns but of steel reinforced concrete where steel rods embedded in the concrete gives the concrete more strength than concrete alone? Is that what you are claiming?
I hope so, I'm all set and ready for that one. Apparently the 3 links, including the NIST report, that I posted are all wrong. Despite them taking years to investigate and complete. Schools like MIT use this information in their classes. Despite all that, Jango found an article from TWO DAYS AFTER 9/11, that was reported in a country that is no where near the US, and they are correct. Why, you ask? Why would someone hand waive away years of research, studies, and professors in the related fields in exchange for one BBC article at one of the most confusing times? Because it fits Jango's world view, that he has today. It might change tomorrow, but at least it seems rational. Right Jango? Or are you JAQing around?
Unless the diagram shows it, the NIST drivel you posted tells me nothing about what I asked you to source.
Can you dispute the BBC story with something that comes close to saying that: "there was no reinforced concrete in the WTC post a certain level"?
