Get to the point greed. Do you you think somebody took down the building with a controlled demolition?
GK and Raoul, for your review and comments
- Thread starter Bankerreturns
- Start date
My first thread back goes to 4 pages! Mostly worthless pages, but I still know how to get the natives biting each other.
Well since you're back I'll dedicate a new thread to you. I think I'll call it..."banker". Pretty clever, huh? Or not.
No. Never entered my mind when I asked my original question in this thread. You still believe there was no resistance and the towers experienced freefall?
Yes. The one insisting there had to be resistance and the tower not falling at a freefall rate.
UR, now that you've reared UR ugly head.
Here's a list of examples of errors from the first page only, compliments of UR finest college educated conservatives:
"The steel would no remain uniform or in tact at those temperatures."
"That is what happened and th conspiracy folks"
"Basically a mushroomjng effect."
"Floor above collapses on floor below since the floor below was weakens it couldn't support the mass above."
"Now instead of one fooor falling you have two on to the floor below."
"I didn't say the floors far below the fire were weakend."
"It doesnt slow down."
"The fire was t localized to one floor or area."
"The outers supporting beams were weakened"
"Here goes go greed."
Yep, ur a moron.
UR failjing again. UR brain no remain in tact and your mind is weakend. That's what happens with th conservatives. Too bad you was t in the discussion about th fooors falljing, as UR friends could have used some help from outers space. You goes go MM.
This thread will not be complete until a conservative offers another explanation of how the towers fell at freefall rate.
Similar threads
