.:.:.:.:
RTTP
.
Mobile
:.:.:.:.
[
<--back
] [
Home
][
Pics
][
News
][
Ads
][
Events
][
Forum
][
Band
][
Search
]
full forum
|
bottom
jump pages:[
all
|
1
|
2
]
jump pages:[
all
|
1
|
2
]
Reply
[
login
]
SPAM Filter:
re-type this
(values are 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A,B,C,D,E, or F)
you are quoting a heck of a lot there.
[QUOTE]blah blah blah[/QUOTE] to reply to porphyria.
Please remove excess text as not to re-post tons
message
[QUOTE="porphyria:1010350"][QUOTE="aril:1010345"]He was a demolitions expert in the military and that's what he argues. Looks like you're in luck. [/QUOTE] absurd! It doesn't take a physics expert to understand that the towers collapsed due to weakening, not complete failure. Just because engineers claimed the towers could withstand a jet crashing into them doesn't mean shit, was it ever tested and proven to scale? no. Having the weight 20-30 floors above the weakened breaking point would cause the rapid fall (with no visual 'pancaking'). When they mention explosions on floors below the collapse, WELL DUH, imagine how much air/pressure is being pushed down throughout the building during collapse, of course it's going to make windows blow out, ect.[/QUOTE]
top
[
Vers. 0.12
][ 0.003 secs/8 queries][
refresh
][