Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#1670 - anonymous (09/12/2012) [-]
The "physical evidence" as people called it a decade ago, including demolition theory, the claim that missiles hit the pentagon, or the idea that thermite was used among other things has always been a distraction. You cannot do a single thing with this simple conjecture. The foreknowledge, motive, oil politics, middle east instability, euro/dollar war...etc. These things are worth looking into but require a tremendous amount of research. I should know because I authored a research book on 5 years ago. I also did the thermodynamic calculations in a conservative model of the WTC collapse, since I am an engineer by training. The result is that the heat was NOT high enough to even weaken the steel to an appreciable degree, but this in itself proves nothing. The buildings were designed to withstand the impact from a plane with more kinetic energy than what hit the towers on 9/11. Still, this proves nothing. As an engineer, you learn that combined effects can have results that are difficult to predict. However, historical events, like what countries warned the US, what they said, and when...or information about the US sponsored Taliban and US desire to build a Trans-Afghan pipeline...these things have substance. Sitting on your ass arguing about how small the fires were, or how small the hole at the Pentagon was, or how controlled the WTC collapse looked is just as pointless as it was 10 years ago.
 Friends (0)