Saturday, May 20, 2006

Sagging floors of the WTC were photographed

Sagging floors of the WTC were photographed

Outsidemymind1 writes, "Sagging floors? Are you kidding me?"

No I am not kidding you. Look at this:
click on pic to enlarge

I need help getting these facts out to the public. These 9/11 conspiracy activists have done a lot of damage. The American people need to know the truth and these guys have undermined efforts to get the truth out.

Please donate so I can afford to put up advertising on the internet in order to reach millions of people.


Anonymous said...

dude get over it ur fucking retarted and ur not on 2 anything!

Anonymous said...

Yo man you honestly are the stupidest person I know (beside Bush, well actually he is really clever kind of, to think nobody would notice) to believe that FIRES BROUGHT DOWN THE BUILDING.

Honestly, would you rather believe the American Government who has repeated used and tried to cover-up major historical events from their people???

THREE SMALL EXAMPLES... WTC during 1993. Oklahoma city bombing, CUBA MISSILE CRISIS. They all connect to one cause, to scare the public, and give them MORE POWER.

DING DING DING, I'm the winner. Thank you for your unreasonable stupidity though.


Go do some real research, because you're worthless points are as stupid as the president's story... Oh, I forgot, they are practically identical.. except for the fact that you say Bush LIED TO THE PUBLIC ON SUCH AN IMPORTANT TOPIC.

Anonymous said...

there is quite a few contradictions in the whole story... one theory is that thermite, I am sure you heard of it by now, could have been either in the aircraft or in the building, my guess is it was in both... it explains a lot... but not who, well we know the isreali intelligence had something to do with it... but who inside the US?

Tom said...

Jones throws out this nonsense but how in the world could it have even worked? I have seen a thermite demo where it sits on a horizontal surface and it is straight forward how gravity helps it burn down into the surface since the direction is with the pull of gravity. The unanswered question is how in the world would thermite manage to burn into a vertical column. You would have it next to the column but what would make it burn into the steel at a right angle as opposed to burning down in the direction of gravity into what ever held it next to the column? huh.gif This is probably obvious but it needs to be spelled out for people who just swallow Jones's arguments without reasoning it out.

Benson makes a good point: "thermite runs down, down, down. I don't seem to be able to imagine a refractory structure around a beam which would allow an even 45 degree angle cut via thermite"

I also mentioned it elsewhere that if all this thermite started to burn why wouldn't it produce the huge amount of smoke we see produced in thermite demos? With the WTC buildings we see no sudden outpouring of white smoke in the minutes before the collapse. We see the burning of the buildings but there is no sudden increase of smoke before the collaspe. The whole thermite thing is just more Jones nonsense.

Anonymous said...

Sagging floors right below the impact of a JET LINER?? I'm shocked and amazed.

The question is not what damage was done to the WTC, it is what that damage could have caused. You seem to be implying the 'pancake theory' where each floor would hit the one below it, buckle it, and so on. And that is where this chain reaction would have started. But you refuse to address important evidence to explosives. For example, why would the towers collapse at free fall speeds when each floor would absorb energy from the floor that hit it, and slow down the collapse. Buildings cannot crash through steel and concrete as fast as they fall through the air.

Second, this video ( shows how the image of a collapse could be started. Office fires fueled by wood and paper cannot melt high grade steel rated for ver 3000 degress C into LIQUID.

Additionally, your 'bowing' theory never mentions that all of this is right below where the impact of the plane is. Also, you are forgetting that the structures were supported by over 40 concrete box columns. Slight bowing on the exterior would not mean the total disentigration of the core.

In effect, your argument is flawed until you can provide a viable explanation for ALL aspects of the collapse, and I await further rebuttal

Anonymous said...

Wow, your comment scripts suck. No support for word wraps cuts off the link to the video I posted. You also do not seem to allow the href tag to be used for an html link. Are you intentionally trying to prevent your critics from posting offsite content? Or are you too stupid to fix it?