• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Could the fire burned down WTC?

stonewall50 said:
Does a Jet airliner count as explosives?
Click to expand...

the alleged aircraft only counts as DAMAGE
because there would need to be an on-going action
by explosives to achieve the observed result and a single event
like an aircraft crash can NOT account for the energy.
 
RogueWarrior said:
Do you have evidence of something smaller that the Mk54? Because a 10 ton yield would vaporize any model.

EDIT a 10 ton yield would destroy 2 city blocks.
Click to expand...

The evidence for a nuclear event is ample, but as I understand it, there is no way to determine the yield of the devices used.

What its yield might have been is somewhat irrelevant. All we know is that like Fukushima and Chernobyl, some sort of nuclear event occurred. We know that from evidence gathered at the site, and with the luxury of 10 years hindsight, the epidemiology of those working at the site. Certainly the testimony of Matt Tartaglia in NYC from Perkasie PA fire department to help, is most informative. He described how nuclear decontamination protocol was in effect at several 'hot spots' there at GZ.

Ain't it funny how they call it Ground Zero? Their term, not mine.
 
Sadling said:
It does seem that a kinetic load falling onto a static load would be slowed down by that static load; especially if that static load is made up of steel columns designed to support a vertical load.
Click to expand...

...and that had been supporting that vertical load for 30+ years....
 
Menard_K said:
the alleged aircraft only counts as DAMAGE
because there would need to be an on-going action
by explosives to achieve the observed result and a single event
like an aircraft crash can NOT account for the energy.
Click to expand...

??? You mean a building cannot hve catastrophic damage caused by a multiple engine aircraft slamming into it at a high elevation?

And.

Alleged? I'm sorry. What exactly do you think struck it? A hot air balloon ?
 
stonewall50 said:
??? You mean a building cannot hve catastrophic damage caused by a multiple engine aircraft slamming into it at a high elevation?

And.

Alleged? I'm sorry. What exactly do you think struck it? A hot air balloon ?
Click to expand...

"B" movie special effects + explosives ......

next question ......
 
Menard_K said:
"B" movie special effects + explosives ......

next question ......
Click to expand...

Right. And all those people never saw the plane?

Let me guess? Government witnesses right? Paid off? You are severely overestimating the abilities of our incredibly inept government. They can't figure out a health care website. Let alone a coverup.
 
I refuse to speculate as to exactly who the real terrorists are.
HOWEVER, the show put on by the Government is just that a SHOW.
WE THE PEOPLE are being shown what the powers that be, want us to see, nothing more .. nothing less.

Happy New Year

& may 2014 be considerably more enlightened than 2013 ....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom