Controlled Demolition vs. Reality

This compares the appearance of 9/11 to what a controlled demolition would look like.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• 9-11
• 9/11
• wtc
• collapse
• controlled
• demolition
• conspiracy
• theory
• truther
• truth
• ron
• paul

[Merlin5by5]

@MrRaymondscott

Nobody from the US establishment has EVER claim the steel melted,

and NOTHING has ever showed a molten steel pool at the WTC.

All the fires did was raise the temp of the steel to a failure point.

Like your dick, soft and floppy doesn't cut it when the fat lady

sits. Thats a 130 million pound, WTC fat lady.

[Merlin5by5]

@MrRaymondscott

No, actually, this data is NOT merely data, it's the parameters of the

building, Dumbass. The Shear strength of the steel frame is just as

critical to the building standing as it was to the building falling down.

That's why elevators have POSTED WEIGHT LIMITS.

So idiots like you, don't drag weight up to floors systems that can't

support that weight. That's right, Sonny boy, it's idiot proofing

for buildings.

[Merlin5by5]

@MrRaymondscott

Your kinda missing the point. They didn't reuse the steel frame.

BECAUSE IT HAD BEEN DAMAGED BY THE FIRE.

That's the whole point, Dumbass. What do you think would have

happened to your Corona de Aragon Hotel if it had 130 MILLION

pounds overhead?

[MrRaymondscott]

@Merlin5by5 I will tell you about a similar case happened in spain back in 1985: the fire at the Corona de Aragon Hotel. This hotel was built entirely in steelframe; it burned that night from a kitchen fire or the like, there was no explosion, no plane crashing into it, even there were no charges placed at the right position in order to proceed with a controlled demolition. The hotel burned all night and got ruined, but the only thing that stood up was the steel frame, naked.

[MrRaymondscott]

@Merlin5by5 I think that you, with your almightly knowledge of architecture (or was it physical properties?) can explain this to me. I don't care what the sheer stress was at the WTC or the polar moment of inertia, these data can be wrong, and you know it. But what we all know is that you don't make skyscrapers as weak as these data say; and we all know that all steel profiles are treated with a fireproof coating by law, so... what about the fire?

[MrRaymondscott]

@Merlin5by5 Ok here I go. The first evidence is the way the towers collapse. I will follow with the fire issue later. I can agree with the plane crashing and spreading all fuel into the tower, and subsequently this fuel burns and melts the steel frame. Ok, that makes all the upper stages from the crash point fall. But what about the stages below the crash point? They haven't been "touched", so they may have not suffer. So why do they fall down to the tower base?

[Ryan198416]

This question is directed at the no planers who believe an alluminum plane could not penetrate a steel building.

Has it ever occured to you, that your theory is really fucked up? You say a 78 ton plane moving at 500mph could not penetrate the building, yet you claim it was a controlled demolition. How then, is 10 lbs of TNT able to destroy a steel column, but a 78 ton plane with 3500 gallons of jet fuel on board moving at 500+mph could not? No attacks neccesary just answer the damn question.

[gregtool9]

yea you're pretty much what is wrong with the world

[DanSaw120285]

@gregtool9

"Maybe 10" Yeah it was about 15 seconds but good guess there. I disregard the entire truth movement not just what you said so don't feel bad.

[gregtool9]

@DanSaw120285 Dan, you sound very dumb, how can you read four factual statements and completely disregard them? It can be two things, one you're actively part of the cover-up, or you just feel uncomfortable with the whole idea, it threatens your logic, your reasoning, you'd have to accept something within your self or others that you didn't want to, and you're a total douche thats got his head in the sand