TruthSeeker1234
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 1,756
I'll articulate what is wrong with your explanations.
The dust which is bellowing from the falling steel cannot be drywall dust, because there is far too much of it, it lasts for far too long, and because it is coming directly out of the steel, and because it expands afterwards.
How the presence of strutural beams would cause round holes in buildings has not been explained, and I fail to see the point. Also, we have round holes in the debris and dust, holes of the same diameter. It looks plainly as though round holes have been drilled, and these have not been explained.
No one has explained melting car doors, exploding cars, etc, except to deny them, or say "the fire did it". If flaming rubble came down upon cars, how would that melt them? Fire doesn't melt steel. Whatever happened, it must have happened quickly, or else the paper would have caught fire.
The explanation for the disappearing buildings is that rubble hit them and they went splat. I don't accept this, because there is nothing left of these buildings. Look at WTC4. The north wing of the building is sliced clean off, and nothing remains of the rest. If falling parts of WTC1 or 2 did it, where are those parts? They can't mutually anihiliate, can they?
WTC3 was mostly intact after WTC2. Then it went away. If WTC1 parts hit it, where are they, and how much of WTC1 did that take (the official story says that these towers stayed within their footprints)? Explain, don't post kittens.
What about the core of WTC? 700 feet of it stands on its own for seconds, then falls apart, leaving not a trace. The arial shots show no trace of WTC2 core. What happened to it, and why? Even if it was unstable without lateral support, it wouldn't disintegrate, would it? No. It would either fall over, or it would buckle and fall down, not break apart into 30 foot sections. If you say it should break apart into 30 foot sections, please explain why, I don't get it.
