Does everyone know that 3 towers went down on 9/11?

[newyawka]

burritos, please stop sniffing that glue. how many times do i have to tell you?

[TonyPSchaefer]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(darelldd @ Sep 13 2006, 04:49 PM) [snapback]319148[/snapback]</div>

No way! Ignorance is a virtue! Striving for "average" is something we should all be doing so nobody gets left behind.
[/b]

"If ignorace is bliss then wipe this smile off my face."
-RATM


Words to mosh to.
Words to live by.

[Mystery Squid]

You can have all the information you want, ain't gonna make your light bulb shine any brighter son....

:P

[glenhead]

The demo charges were activated by Elvis' alien nether-region probe, which was turned on by his guvvmint subcutaneous tracking chip (obtained during an innoculation, of course), while he was sitting in a black helicopter behind the grassy knoll! Everyone knows that!

[Proco]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(glenhead @ Sep 14 2006, 09:52 AM) [snapback]319451[/snapback]</div>

The demo charges were activated by Elvis' alien nether-region probe, which was turned on by his guvvmint subcutaneous tracking chip (obtained during an innoculation, of course), while he was sitting in a black helicopter behind the grassy knoll! Everyone knows that!
[/b]

And, of course, the liberal media has been covering it up. :P

[Tripod137]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jeannie @ Sep 13 2006, 06:37 PM) [snapback]319170[/snapback]</div>

Building 7 collapsed on 9/11. The Marriott Hotel next to the South Tower was damaged enough that it had to be demolished - [/b]

There was a Marriot Hotel next to the South Tower? I thought that was the Millenium hotel?

[dbermanmd]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Proco @ Sep 14 2006, 10:14 AM) [snapback]319464[/snapback]</div>

And, of course, the liberal media has been covering it up. :P
[/b]

NO seriously - you missed it. The second cruise missile that was supposed to hit the Pentagon went astray and took down that structure. And the original charges set by President Bush and Cheney in the hotel failed to detonate - you know - Bush was not smart enough to set them properly although he set the ones in both WTC's perfectly enough to make it look like two hijacked planes hit them. It is amazing how those pictures of the plane hitting the South Tower looks like it did so much damage that the Tower itself withstood the initial impact long enough to lets thousands of innocent Americans leave the tower alive before the explosive charges he set detonated - Brilliant - Brilliant!

Most brilliant of all was the coordination of the whole thing - to make it look like the planes hit the EXACT spot in BOTH towers where Bush placed the charges - BRILLIANT - BRILLIANT.

Honestly, if the Islamofascits knew some of what they would be getting if they conquered this part of the world should be enough for them to lay down their suicide bombers

How about showing them what could be heading their way - wonder what obl would do with some of these higher thinkers

[kenmce]

>'burritos':

>Why do I get the impression that less than 1 percent of the US populous knows this.

It wasn't photogenic and I don't think anyone died in it.


>Why did World Trade 7 go down? I just want a valid explanation.

You ask a simple, straightforward, question ~ Why did building 7 fall down? ~ and people
come out of the woodwork to make fun of you. What, is this the Usenet or something??
Proco is the only one who made any attempt to actually adress the question
rather than defame your character.

It seems to be accepted that:

• No planes ( or missles, dbermanmd, or Elvis' butt) hit building 7.

• no other buildings fell on it.

• No large debris fell on it.

• It had no major fire


The only attempted explanation I have heard is that the collapse of the towers shook
it to death. If it was a steel frame structure with reinforced cement floors it should
take one heck of a lot of shaking to take it down. I have a problem in that the
collapse of the towers should have produced up-and-down vibration. This would break
all your glass and wallboard, but should leave the structure mostly OK mechanically.
There is also the question of why it would fail totally while similar building on all sides
were left undamaged.

I'm with Burritos - I'd like to know why it came down.

[glenhead]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(kenmce @ Sep 14 2006, 09:56 PM) [snapback]319888[/snapback]</div>

I'm with Burritos - I'd like to know why it came down.
[/b]

Ok - then you're going to have to wait until early 2007 - that's when the official report is due out. One source that I saw said that there have been thousands of additional photographs received over the last five years, and that they provide sufficient corroboration of a huge hole in the side facing the gap between 5 and 6 (I think those were the buildings between 7 and the Twin Towers) - several stories high, and twenty feet wide. The building was built with many fewer support columns than "normal" inside, resulting in each column supporting more than 2000 square feet of the floor above. The thing I read said that the loss of a single column on the fourth or fifth floor (where the hole and the most intense fires were) would be enough to bring down the fifty-some floors above. Imagine removing a central column - the floor above would pull down and in, causing the next floor to pull down and in, resulting in the building cascading on top of itself - just like the twin towers did.

[berylrb]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(glenhead @ Sep 14 2006, 10:19 PM) [snapback]319892[/snapback]</div>

Ok - then you're going to have to wait until early 2007 - that's when the official report is due out. One source that I saw said that there have been thousands of additional photographs received over the last five years, and that they provide sufficient corroboration of a huge hole in the side facing the gap between 5 and 6 (I think those were the buildings between 7 and the Twin Towers) - several stories high, and twenty feet wide. The building was built with many fewer support columns than "normal" inside, resulting in each column supporting more than 2000 square feet of the floor above. The thing I read said that the loss of a single column on the fourth or fifth floor (where the hole and the most intense fires were) would be enough to bring down the fifty-some floors above. Imagine removing a central column - the floor above would pull down and in, causing the next floor to pull down and in, resulting in the building cascading on top of itself - just like the twin towers did.
[/b]

Thanks Glenhead!

That's very insightful to a very interesting question. Thanks Burritos, I was part of the 1%, now I'm a 99%'er!

Couldn't it very simply be that a piece of the wing or an engine flew through the building (versus a missile)? Not to mention all sorts of legitimate covert things could have been flying through the air or in the vicinity that we mere citizens aren't aware of. Like ...

Sure it fell like a demolition, but so did the part of The Twins above where the planes hit. Quite rational to this uninformed reader.