Im sure they can.
But that highly redundant 110 steel reinforced office towers hit 15 storeys from the roof (N Tower) cannot pulverize themselves in 16 seconds,
At least you have the times closer to reality than most of the TM. Too bad you then use the freefall bullocks later in the post.
Now, how many times do I need to post this photo. Tell me, what do you see here that is "pulverized" thata shouldn't be. We all know drywall and ceiling tiles do not hold up well to huge beams and concrete floors falling on them.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/wtc/images/wtc-photo.jpg
Also, it wasn't steel reinforced, as that implies that it was a concrete structure. It was BUILT with steel, not REINFORCED with steel.
evaporating almost 40% of it's occupants and strewing it's pulverized and steel remains in a 800 foot radial pattern is, I believe,, the issue at hand.
(the towers 'burned' for roughly 60 and 100 minutes) and then exploded...
boom boom boom boom boom.. all the way down (basements intact!)
We have been through this before. How many times do we have to point this out to you??
Why do you put the word "burned" in quotes?? Do you not believe it waas a freaking fire?? If so, would you care to explain why, considering you saaw it with your own eyes??
BTW, I personally picked up about 20 fingers not attached as they should have been, umteen complete limbs, again, not attached to what it SHOULD have been, and smelled the decaying bodies there in that pile. Did you step foot on that pile??
WTC 7's textbook implosion in 7 seconds (free fall speed = explosives)
(who cares if its slightly faster of slower) It the speed and symmetry that can only mean explosives.
Symmetry?? Explain Fitterman Hall. Here are some pictures for reference.
Can you explain this please?? Thanks.
Griffin, making perfect sense, writes of WTC 7:
""When we combine the fact that the collapse of WTC 7 immediately appears to be a controlled demolition, (
http://wtc7.net/videos.html) with the twofold fact that all prior collapses of steel-frame high-rise buildings have been produced by explosives, and that the collapse of WTC 7 has many features in common with planned implosions, the view that it was a planned implosion should be the natural assumption. The burden of proof should be placed on any claim that WTC7 was brought down by something other than explosives, because this is the wild, empirically baseless hypothesis devoid of any historical precedent, which is just the kind of hypothesis that one expects to hear from irrational conspiracy theorists.
And how many CD can you produce that also fall at free-fall speed?? Please, site the reputable source and a linky please. I'll wait.
Blah blah blah...science....BS...cd....blah blah blah.....
I am not even going to respond to the last part, as my BS meter is driving me crazy with that bell.......
