>Explain that further please. >cause your suggesting the core burned from the top all the >way down to the bottom allowing it to collapse...
I never suggested that the buildings core burned all the way down, so stop with the insinuations first of all..A Plane filled with Jet Fuel crashes into the building..Aside from the initial stress of handling a plane hitting it at 500 miles per hour, the jet fuel that was in the plane had to go somewhere, and there is no way it burned up instantly when the planes hit the buildings..That jet fuel filled elevator shafts, stairwells, crawlspaces, and so on. Gravity pulled that burning jet fuel down the core of the building. Now in order for the building to collapse the way it did, the core did not need to be melted all the way to the bottom supports, because the building was so tall that at some point the weight of the portion above the hit zone was too much for the weakened lower portion to handle, Thats why when you watch the video, when the top first starts to go, it goes at the weakest point(where the plane hit)buckeling, smashing down through the part that was weakened, and even down through the lower part that was not really weakened at all.
>considering the planes suppossedly hit within minutes... and >the buildings collapsed within minutes... doesn't this seem >somewhat... on schedule? Uhh...if you stopped at thought about that for a second you would see that you sound kind of silly. Think about any math equation. As long as the constants are the same, the outcome will be the same no? Same jet fuel, essentially the same crash point on the building, same exact materials within the building(from the steel used to build it to the cubicles inside that fueled the fire), therefor the burn time until critical failure will be nearly exactly the same...Simple math and science
> Combine that with the fact that >when the Pres. was informed of the first building being >hit... he sat quietly and picked up a book... waiting (like >he knew well in advance) for the second plane to hit... First off, this has nothing to do with the topic at hand, second, you are clearly making ASSumptions about what was going on. Look man, i've never claimed that 9/11 was on the up and up, of course there was a lot of shady shit going downaround it, but the fact of the matter is, those towers couldnt have been taken down with explosives without a lot of people knowing it. so >again please explain the dynamics of your fathers position >how you worked with him (in what capacity) >and how this building collapsed. >Also, try doing this without namecalling. Peace. The dynamics of my fathers position? He is the head supervisor and head blaster for a controlled demo company. He has been in charge of and personally planned the layout patterns for over 50 buildings, including sports stadiums, domed stadiums, industrial plants, power plants, smoke stacks,cement kilns, and dry docks. He personally plans the way the explosives will be laid out, the way the building will fall, where the building will fall. He lays out the explosives with his partner, and myself when i am along working with him. I've got 5 "shots" under my belt, how bout you? There...hopefully that answers some of your questions...and look at me, no name calling...Funny that you would express that as one of your little ground rules, considering you're the king