Merky wrote:Could somebody please explain how a jet can take down an entire building which was made to take multiple airplane crashes and still stand? Or how about the fact that the building fell at the speed it did. Or how about the "lava" type molten metal at the bottom of the building which is higher than jetfuel can even burn at. Or the way the traces were "cut" just like planned explosions are done to take down buildings. Explosions were even seen in multiple rooms in video footage of the buildings "falling". Fuck your government.
TheRustySpoon wrote:Merky wrote:Could somebody please explain how a jet can take down an entire building which was made to take multiple airplane crashes and still stand? Or how about the fact that the building fell at the speed it did. Or how about the "lava" type molten metal at the bottom of the building which is higher than jetfuel can even burn at. Or the way the traces were "cut" just like planned explosions are done to take down buildings. Explosions were even seen in multiple rooms in video footage of the buildings "falling". Fuck your government.
Conspiracy views are not shared by professionals that understand building designs and structural engineering.
The buildings did stand after the jet crashed into it (as it it did not crash down). However it blew off the fire protection of key steel members. Steel gets noticeably weaker under higher temperatures (look it up =/). The weaker structural fell. Simple as that. This is why we fireproof buildings, and have very specific fire proofing building codes.
The buildings did not fall at free fall speed. Look up something like "debunking freefall 9/11" on youtube.
Lava type material was aluminum, which melts lower than jetfuel's burn temperature.
Cuts in photographs were indeed there, but it was done after the crash, by the rescue workers and by the people that were clearing up the mess.
Explosions in multiple rooms were dusty air blowing out the windows because the top floors are falling on it.
Merky wrote:Bs. Also what happened to the supposed airplane that crashed into the pentagon? lmfao OR building 7?
TheRustySpoon wrote:
yes, because the missile that shot the pentagon was designed to leave airplane debris after impact. All designed by american weapon manufacturers aha!
and of course a PLANE is the only possible thing that can bring down a building! Did i say plane? i meant EXPLOSIVES! never mind big chunks of shit that flew into building7 it when the wtc fell.
Also never mind the fact that the fire fighters couldnt fight the fire and so let the building burn. After all, our fire proofing materials are ABSOLUTELY FIREPROOF AND WILL PROTECT THE STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS FOR AN INFINITE AMOUNT OF TIME. (no, actually, fireproofing materials have a "rating", based on how long it will protect whatever its protecting.")
for experiment, try starting a fire in your house, chances are the structural components are all fireproofed, and would have no explosives or planes near it. So it shouldn't fall down as a result right?
Lol virt :p i just happen to major in this
Pornfish wrote:IF I was going to invest a couple million dollars in a massive conspiracy and crash a bunch of planes into gigantic buildings whilst a bunch of explosives really demolish the buildings while the whole world watches, I'm pretty sure I'd make it look convincing and a dude in youtube wouldn't be able to figure it all out.
Not to mention I'd make sure there wasn't a bunch of time between crashes so every single camera lens in Manhattan wasn't pointing at the building while it was happening.
What I'm saying is, if what Merky says was true it's be a shitty conspiracy. OR MAYBE THAT'S WHAT THEY WANTED US TO BELIEVE ALL ALONG?!
Merky wrote:I believe what I believe. There's too much to point to what I believe for me to ignore it. Even the way they seized the video tape that caught what happened to the pentagon and then "lost" it.
