The pivot thing assumes the two halves of the building are stiff and rigid body's. These were not stiff and rigid. The two halves of the building weight many hundreds of thousands of tons, the structure buckles under its own weight and pulled down vertically by gravity. The construction of the towers was a central reinforced concrete core with a metal frame work supporting all the floors. The force of the impact of the plane damaged and weakened the central core so the metal frame was bearing the primary load, something it was not designed to do. As it lost strength due to heat it buckled causing the collapse in a vertical direction. Once the collapse happened the vertical momentum overstressed the concrete core in the lower part of the building causing it to pulverize and collapse...the concrete turned into dust and rubble...a bit like that chimney video.
Really there is no conspiracy. Just engineering and physics.
So why didn't NORAD intercept the planes?
So why didn't NORAD intercept the planes?
I thought that there were no planes, and it was all CGI?
The fact in this instance is that it's some really shady selective quoting on your part...
Your choice.
You can attempt to divert attention away from my perfectly valid point by claiming I misquoted you.
Or you can defend your claim that what you stated is a fact.
I presume you chose the former due to the fact it's a lot easier than the latter ?
when you post factless crap
How is it factless?One of the facts presented:
The towers fell via the path of most resistance...
Another fact...NIST did not test for the presence of explosive residue.
But thank you for reminding me there's better things to do with my life than argue with grumpy nitwits...
There nowt as good as a 9/11 thread !
Lets face it, when you see a car that's been burnt out, the glass isn't still in the frame, is it? The melting point of glass is 1400-1700 degrees and the fire is generally started and fueled by petrol...
The body of the car tends to still resemble a car as well rather than collapsing in a heap on the tarmac.
Funny you should mention that, there is [url= http://www.librariansfor911truth.org/carfires.html ]the case of the burnt vehicles on 9/11[/url]:
[img] 
[/img]
Burnt postal truck at 100 Church St. What happened to the front end? And why is the hood still intact but everything around it is gone?
Note that the truck behind it appears unharmed.
[img] 
[/img]
Where are the door handles, the car hood, the roof of the bus, the seats in the bus?
(For what it's worth, I'm not sure if that is a bus, I think it's another angle of the van under the left hand traffic light in this pic:
[img] 
[/img])
So why didn't NORAD intercept the planes?
Don't know.
What's your theory on why they didn't ?
Where are the door handles, the car hood, the roof of the bus, the seats in the bus?
Door handles are made of plastic. Why would you expect them to survive a fire, that's just wierd.
Large panels (such as car bonnets and van/bus roofs) are often Aluminium to save weight, wouldn't survive an untended car fire at 1700 degrees as aluminium melts at only 660 degrees
I knew there was some intelligence in there somewhere neal, it's taken a long while to squeeze it out, but well done 😀
I tend to agree with your analysis~ as you can see, those are quotes
(Apart from the bracketed bit at the bottom~ I'm fairly certain that wasn't a bus, hence the lack of seats...)
Nonetheless, if you click the link, you'll see that the position of many of the burnt out vehicles raise further questions, though there is every chance that also has a reasonable explanation
I knew there was some intelligence in there somewhere neal, it's taken a long while to squeeze it out, but well done
Yawn 🙄
I tend to agree with your analysis~ as you can see, those are quotes
Yes, of course you do.
(Insert Jimmy Hill picture here)
Seems odd that you would bring it up at all if you think already knew there was such an easy explanation.
.
So what the theory regarding the burnt vehicles then ?
"The government" staged the whole thing to hide a car insurance scam and burn out a few vehicles they no longer needed ?
But removed a few parts and panels first to sell on eBay for a bit of extra cash.
Why does there have to be a theory?
No doubt there are several theories surrounding the cars floating around the net, but as far as I'm concerned, it's just interesting.
As for NORAD... it certainly seems odd, especially when you take into account other factors such as the Hijackers links to Saudi High Officials, who also happen to be close allies of the Bush Family, as mentioned in the original link.
[url= http://fortressamerica.gawker.com/the-case-that-the-saudis-did-9-11-explained-1683728623 ]Here is more detail on further allegations of that aspect[/url]
As for NORAD... it certainly seems odd
Not really.
Explain why you thinks it's odd ?
Explain why you think it isn't odd...
Explain why you think it isn't odd...
🙄 because I don't it think it differs from the norm.
You asked the question. Why didn't NORAD intercept the planes, so you obviously think they were expected to.
soooo..... Explain why, or Explain why you mentioned it.
Or is it like the cars you mentioned earlier, where (after its explained) you will claim you knew the simple explanation already, but for some bizzare reason, decided to bring it up anyway.
jivehoneyjive - Member
Loons who try to deny any planes hit the towers are a sorry reflection on how decades of lies by governments can lead to complete mistrust of reality.
Your earlier comment. So with that I'm calling you a troll and closing this thread.