September 11

[atenbacon]

messy cut and paste quote of a bunch of words..

The crap you very poorly cut and pasted from a website you didn't bother referencing

Still does not prove you saw this designer on TV a day after the attack, as you proclaimed.

So admit you were wrong or mistaken if you prefer and we can move on. I will not entertain more information until you can actually admit you were wrong. So your above post is just simply going to be ignored.

[maryjane48]

lol good cyea

[atenbacon]

lol good cyea

That's super. You have backed off with class and style. I knew you were capable of it, and to that I say well done.

So, now that we have determined your story was completely made up, I would prefer you don't go away running and would love to hear what new stuff you might have about 911?

[w84u2]

That's super. You have backed off with class and style. I knew you were capable of it, and to that I say well done.

So, now that we have determined your story was completely made up, I would prefer you don't go away running and would love to hear what new stuff you might have about 911?

I can't respond with anything to top that but..........

[GenesisGT]

Having been out of this discussion for awhile, I forgot that one bit of information leads to another and another and on and on it goes.

So I will change my comment above about the B707 at approach speed or flight speed. It seems that there is a lot of back and forward on this issue, but a lot of agreement that a B707 at 600kn would not cause enough damage to the WTC to collapse it. The next statement is that the amount of fuel on board and the effect of this fuel burning was not or was considered. Some say it was part of a study and some say it wasn't.

It looks like people may have been doing a CYA, and the studies done in 1964 are not available for review. So it comes down to do you believe the effect of the jet fuel burn was the main cause of the collapse along with the crash damage or was there a conspiracy which loaded the buildings full of explosives.

Note they were correct in that the plane crashing into the building did not cause the collapse, as neither building collapsed immediately after the plane crashed into the buildings.

[maryjane48]

real world test done on steel beems same dimensions did not produce warping to the degree to needed for floors to collapse . also in 1964 one the main designers said was good to go . it wasnt until close to 9 11 he changed his tune . infact day before . and he also said only shaped charges would work

[w84u2]

real world test done on steel beems same dimensions did not produce warping to the degree to needed for floors to collapse . also in 1964 one the main designers said was good to go . it wasnt until close to 9 11 he changed his tune . infact day before . and he also said only shaped charges would work

Did you see the plane hit the building on TV? I did.

AGAIN where are the documents that support your suppositions?

[atenbacon]

real world test done on steel beems same dimensions did not produce warping to the degree to needed for floors to collapse . also in 1964 one the main designers said was good to go . it wasnt until close to 9 11 he changed his tune . infact day before . and he also said only shaped charges would work

guy peple know are shows not really knew. 20 1 0 green on the first was right. new person was in first and go. in fall to the march. is up on all that.

[w84u2]

real world test done on steel beems same dimensions did not produce warping to the degree to needed for floors to collapse . also in 1964 one the main designers said was good to go . it wasnt until close to 9 11 he changed his tune . infact day before . and he also said only shaped charges would work

guy peple know are shows not really knew. 20 1 0 green on the first was right. new person was in first and go. in fall to the march. is up on all that.

I agree totally with you Bacon, you have taken the words right out of my mouth and put them to paper. Good job, thanks for that.

[maryjane48]

here we have mr honest leslie robertson being caught changing his story . in 2002 he said at stanford university that there was infact molten steel . 2006 and all of a sudden he doesnt know anyone thatt saw molten metal haha .

in 1964 he said only a shaped charge could bring his towers down . on 9 /10 one day before the event ,he puts out a bulliten saying infact a planes fuel could bring his towers down . why would he say that one day before the event ?

who wants take first shot at explaining that .

[maryjane48]

is ante the type of guy that when confronted with questions they cant explain away turns to insults ? lmao ante your game is weak theres no force in you just farce

[ferri]

We aren't going to start making this personal are we? Stay on topic please! Thanks! Happy New Year!

[maryjane48]

i agree ferri the topic isnt about me its about 9 11 . and no ante im sticking to what i saw with my own eyes compared to your opinions . realtiy vs your opinion . reality wins everytime

[w84u2]

Can you prove what your eyes saw? Some people want to believe so badly that they see their beliefs, and to them their beliefs become their reality. They can't prove it to anyone else, but they still believe they saw it.

[maryjane48]

in 2002 leslie robertson gave a lecture at stanford university that was taped by the university . watch that and take note of what he considers facts and how that all of a sudden changes .

but before that can you explain why on the day before 9 11 mr robertson felt compelled to release a statement reversing what his engineering firm said in 1964 ?