uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2010
- Messages
- 14,424
That energy is always available, courtesy of the earth's gravity.
I'm pretty sure Clayton thinks gravity is a Jewish conspiracy.
That energy is always available, courtesy of the earth's gravity.
What a joke. A controlled demolition couldn't happen because of the difficulty of setting it up. But the energy was available to completely, for the first time in history, demolish a huge skyscraper(three) as a result of fire damage.
Significant structural damage + gravity = collapse.
If that were true there would be no need for the extensive expensive preparation for the current controlled demolition methodology.
If that were true there would be no need for the extensive expensive preparation for the current controlled demolition methodology.
All that would be necessary would be program a computer model and determine the damage necessary to instigate a gravity collapse.
Did you miss the "significant structural damage" part?
Are you really that ignorant? 9/11 was no inside job. Get over it.
My point was that your view is that minimal "significant structural damage" caused all three WTC buildings to collapse. If that is true all buildings could be rigged to provide minimal "significant structural damage" to instigate a total gravity collapse and subsequent pulverization of a building.
My point was that your view is that minimal "significant structural damage" caused all three WTC buildings to collapse. If that is true all buildings could be rigged to provide minimal "significant structural damage" to instigate a total gravity collapse and subsequent pulverization of a building.
Minimal is your insertion.
You bet. "significant structural damage" was in quotes.
Look at the videos of the towers. 80 plus floors were absolutely pristine.
Don't most controlled demolitions wire the lower 2/3s of a building to have it collapse with the desired result?
The comments on Jones site and the thread on Ickes then carry on regardless and not one of them thinks to do thisJust Read on AJ site that that Amazon has banned the sale of self defense items including baseball bats for homeowners to defend their families
http://www.infowars.com/amazon-disar...defense-items/
what good will that do?
If people wanted weapons, a shovel can be honed to a razor edge ,a claw hammer or pitchfork would do nicely , so what are they really stopping?
I keep forgetting - faith is fact to you lot.
If assertion is all we need for proof - I assert that the kinetic energy released by the aircraft impacts effected the structures throughout - not just at the points of impact.
an example of why Jones gets so much attention is clearly demonstrated here
http://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=179440
The thread then carries on regardless and not one of them thinks to do this
http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias=sports&field-keywords=baseball+bat
The report mentions weapons and also talks of baseball bats but bats are not listed as banned just sticks and martial arts weapons.
If Amazon had banned weapons Im sure they would have thought of stopping the sale of these.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb...unchaku&sprefix=nun&rh=n:318949011,k:nunchaku
People who believe stuff Jones says are simply idiots
Clayton, read the OP, it asked a question, I believe I answered it.What exactly are you saying? Should Brits be able to buy defense weapons to protect themselves?