Schiffner wrote:
> On May 6, 6:15 am, Henry <9...@insidejob.gov> wrote:
>> Sure, why not. You and twitbull spew lies about others
>> while you hide and cower behind your killfiles. twitbull
>> even lies about peoples' deceased mothers. That puts you
>> and twitbull *far* below (both morally and intellectually)
>> any and all of the people towards whom you've been spewing
>> your intense hatred.
> WHY do you NOT answer my fucking question?
I've answered them all many times. It's your turn to
answer just one - that is, unless you suffer the same
shriveled spine and balls syndrome we see displayed
by twitbull and the older clown. Man-up, beyotch!
Why do you "think" WTC7's entire hurricane, earthquake,
and fire resistant steel frame suddenly dropped at free
fall speed? We know that fires didn't cause that. Take
a look for yourself. WTC7 on the left - known demolition
on the right. What you see are two controlled demolitions.
Gradual asymmetric heating of a few columns can't possibly
do that to a hurricane and earthquake resistant, highly
redundant and resilient steel framed structure. It's an
absurd and physically impossible fantasy - even a form of
insanity.
http://tinyurl.com/c8c3q4
Let us know if you disagree with anything written below, and
if so, why. The writer proves that fires couldn't have caused
WTC7's fall, and he uses a clear, logical combination of evidence,
basic physics, and common sense to do it.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/l...geLastTry4.pdf
"If you think about the nature of the collapse, supposedly due to
fire weakening the steel, you will agree that it would only be
necessary to follow the early stages of the collapse to determine
its character. If heat is the cause, the steel will weaken gradually
and will start to sag in the region where the fire is most intense.
At that moment the steel will have almost enough strength to hold up
the weight of the building, but not quite. So we have the force of
gravity acting downwards, trying to produce an acceleration of 32
feet per second per second, and the force of the hot steel pushing
upwards, a force a bit less than that of gravity. Let us say we are
looking at it at the moment when the strength has declined to the
point where the steel is capable of pushing upwards with 90% of the
force required to hold the building up against gravity. There would
thus be a net downward force of 10% of gravity. Now acceleration is
proportional to force and we have a net force of 10% of gravity
so we would see an acceleration downwards of 3.2 feet per second
per second.
When you graph the data you find that the fall did not start with a
motion which could be ascribed to a small net force of that order.
The downward acceleration of the roof was very close to free fall
right from the start, 30 feet per second per second, and continued
at that rate until out of sight. There is no hint of a slow start.
This tells us that the steel supports went from adequate strength to
virtually no strength in an instant. For reasons stated above this is
absolutely impossible if the loss of strength is due to the application
of heat."
--
http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org
Re: Take the pledge... 
Linear Mode
