Where can we get statistics of which BIKES pass the California DMVriding test?

In which case we'll all pray that Nietzsche was right.

 

There's actually a pretty easy method to determine if
someone is a deluded nutjob, or a rational, logical, and
intelligent person.
If you ask the latter to defend or explain his/her beliefs,
the intelligent, rational person will cite hard evidence,
credible expert research, science, physics, etc., and do so
in a clear, logical, calm, and articulate manner.
OTOH, ask a nutjob to defend or explain its beliefs, and
the nutjob becomes offended, uncomfortable, and irrational,
and its "thought" process pretty much shuts down. The nutjob,
rather than defend its beliefs with evidence, research, or
logic, will do one of several things - change the subject,
shamefully run away confused and frustrated, or "attack"
the person who's challenged its beliefs with childishly comical
"insults", such as "You're a communist", "You're a janitor",
"Your mother smokes crack", "You're a desperate, squirming,
evasive, poor loser", etc..
What the nutjob is pitifully and comically incapable of doing,
is engaging in a calm, rational, open, and honest dialog of the
relevant facts, research, and evidence.
Let's give it a go, shall we? This little experiment is usually
quite revealing - and fun - unless, of course, you happen to be
a deluded and confused nutjob.... <vbg>



The demolitions shown in the video below both display all
the characteristics of controlled demolition, and none of
fire induced failure, yet followers of the government's 9-11
conspiracy theory try to tell us that one was caused by the
partial, gradual, and random weakening of a small percentage
of support columns due to gradual heating, and the other was
caused by the total, instant, and symmetric destruction of all
the support columns due to demolition. But obviously, partial
is not total, gradual is not instant, and random is not
symmetric. The contradiction is blatant and extreme. That's why
no one can produce even *one* example of a steel framed high rise
that dropped due to fire. Not one. Not ever. Not anywhere. It's
physically impossible.

http://tinyurl.com/c8c3q4

Now, look at the buckled column in the photo linked below. That's
the sort of gradual bending and sagging that would be caused by
*extreme* heat. Of course, the fires in WTC7 never even got that
hot nor did they even make contact with most of WTC7's massive
hurricane and earth quake resistant steel frame.

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI-3-6.jpg

Photo from: http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI.htm

Here is some more expert research. Please tell us where you believe
they are all mistaken as they use logic, physics, detailed evidence,
and common sense, to prove that random, gradual heating can not possibly
cause the free fall and symmetric drop of a steel framed high rise.


http://wtc7proof.blogspot.com/
http://11syyskuu.blogspot.com/2006/02/destruction-of-wtc-7.html

Proof that WTC 7 was demolished professionally

(This is a summary of the argument presented here, complete with more
detailed source links, including Architects and Engineers for 9/11
Truth.)


WTC 7 was the third steel-framed skyscraper that was completely
destroyed on 9/11. Unlike the Twin Towers, it was not hit by a plane.
Its height was 174 meters, and it had 47 floors. It was located in a
block separate from the other WTC buildings, 110 meters from the closest
tower. The implosion of WTC 7 is shown below (note the dropping of the
penthouse).



Investigations. As this was one of the biggest building disasters in
world history, the remains of the skyscraper should have been
painstakingly investigated. If the building collapsed in seconds to the
ground as a result of fires ? as FEMA speculated in 2002 ? the
significance of the event for building safety, building codes, etc. is
enormous. It would have been easy to properly examine the debris from
the building, as it landed mostly within its own footprint. This was not
done, and the physical research material was quickly removed and
destroyed. According to NIST, the governmental agency that is still ?
well after 6.5 years from the event ? trying to come up with a plausible
report, ?no steel was recovered from WTC 7?. This can be seen as either
suspicious or absurd, and I don?t think building disasters are
investigated absurdly.

The speed of destruction. WTC 7 fell into a pile of debris in
approximately 6.5 seconds. The corresponding free fall time is 5.95
seconds, while an apple dropped from the roof would have taken 7 seconds
to fall to the ground (Kurttila 2005; the exact time varies with the air
resistance of the object). The 80 steel support pillars of the building,
therefore, did not in practice resist the destruction. However,
destroying the support structures throughout the floors of the 174-meter
building demanded energy that would have been away from pure kinetic
energy; in other words, gravitational destruction of those structures
would necessarily have slowed down the collapse. No slowing down
required by destruction work can have taken place within the short time
it took WTC 7 to collapse. To simplify: the roof came down as if mere
air (and not 47 stories) had separated it from the ground. This can only
be explained by the removal of structural resistance in a controlled
demolition. In controlled demolitions, the roofs of highrises typically
reach the ground in a time that is slightly longer than free fall. [1]

The sudden onset and symmetry of the destruction. WTC 7 dropped suddenly
straight down. This means that the 80 support pillars had to give in
simultaneously. To believe that random fires on separate floors and
damage to one side caused the sudden vertical collapse is to believe in
a miracle (as pointed out by professor David Ray Griffin). Moreover,
achieving the outcome of a controlled demolition by means of matches and
damaging one side of a highrise would mean that companies specialized in
controlled demolition would have to start thinking about new business ideas.

Hot debris. According to NASA?s thermal imaging, the surface temperature
of the WTC 7 debris pile exceeded 700 degrees Celcius ? five days after
the destruction. Residual temperatures like this cannot be explained by
fires or gravitational collapse. The latter can only result in a few
degrees' increase in temperature.

Molten and vaporized steel. As in the case of the Twin Towers, molten
steel was reportedly found in the remains of WTC 7. Some steel samples
that the researchers did manage to examine were also partially
vaporized. In a New York Times interview, professor Jonathan Barnett
points out that fires cannot explain this. Evidently, not even these
samples were kept, and NIST has ignored this finding. Molten steel can
be explained by explosives but not by fires, as their temperature simply
cannot rise anywhere close to the melting point of steel, let alone the
temperature required by vaporization.

Expert statements. The Dutch demolition expert Danny Jowenko, who owns a
demolition firm and has been in the business for 30 years, regards it as
certain that WTC 7 was demolished. His view is shared by numerous
architects, engineers and other demolition professionals ? see
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, http://www.ae911truth.org/, and
this page exemplifying people with demolition expertise who question the
official account.

The testimony of first responders. Several rescue personnel have
testified to being told that WTC 7 would be brought down.


[1] Another way of looking at this:

1) In a vacuum, an object falls the height of WTC 7 in 5.95 seconds. An
object falling in a vacuum does not crush, twist or displace anything ?
not even air. If WTC 7 had collapsed in 5.95 seconds, not even air (let
alone the rest of the building) would have separated its roof from the
ground.

2) WTC 7 collapsed into a rubble pile in approximately 6.5 seconds.

3) As an object falling freely does not crush or twist anything, the
time available for gravitational crushing or twisting of the building's
~80 steel columns throughout its 47 floors is slightly over 0.5 seconds
(6.5 - 5.95 seconds) ? or, if you like, ~0.01 seconds per floor ( 0.5 / 47).

4) The 0.5 seconds is not enough even in theory for a total
gravitational collapse of a 174-meter highrise. Ergo, the structural
resistance was removed by means of explosives.


Let us know if you disagree with anything written below, and
if so, what and why. The writer proves that gradual weaken due
to heat couldn't possibly have caused WTC7's sudden, free fall,
and symmetric drop, and he uses a clear, logical combination of
evidence, basic physics, and common sense to do it.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/f/LeggeLastTry4.pdf


"If you think about the nature of the collapse, supposedly due to
fire weakening the steel, you will agree that it would only be
necessary to follow the early stages of the collapse to determine
its character. If heat is the cause, the steel will weaken gradually
and will start to sag in the region where the fire is most intense.
At that moment the steel will have almost enough strength to hold up
the weight of the building, but not quite. So we have the force of
gravity acting downwards, trying to produce an acceleration of 32
feet per second per second, and the force of the hot steel pushing
upwards, a force a bit less than that of gravity. Let us say we are
looking at it at the moment when the strength has declined to the
point where the steel is capable of pushing upwards with 90% of the
force required to hold the building up against gravity. There would
thus be a net downward force of 10% of gravity. Now acceleration is
proportional to force and we have a net force of 10% of gravity
so we would see an acceleration downwards of 3.2 feet per second
per second.
When you graph the data you find that the fall did not start with a
motion which could be ascribed to a small net force of that order.
The downward acceleration of the roof was very close to free fall
right from the start, 30 feet per second per second, and continued
at that rate until out of sight. There is no hint of a slow start.
This tells us that the steel supports went from adequate strength to
virtually no strength in an instant. For reasons stated above this is
absolutely impossible if the loss of strength is due to the application
of heat."



-- http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://www.ae911truth.org


--



"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." --
Albert Einstein.

http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://www.ae911truth.org

 

No they don't.

Other than the airplane collisions and the hours of billowing smoke
from the fires.

 

<censored link restored>

http://tinyurl.com/c8c3q4

Tell us what you "think" are the most glaring differences
between the two..

http://tinyurl.com/c8c3q4

How many planes do you "think" hit WTC7, which is the building
shown in the demolition video?




--



"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." --
Albert Einstein.

http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://www.ae911truth.org

 

Just one really big burning building.

 

<censored link restored because we can't afford to let freedom,
truth, justice, and America hating nut jobs hide the truth - plus,
it's fun to watch them squirm, back pedal, cower, and weasel when
they're presented with the hard evidence and challenged to address
it> Thanks Ray. ;-)

http://tinyurl.com/c8c3q4

Tell us what you "think" are the most glaring differences
between the two demolitions shown in the link that you're
so desperate to avoid. You said they don't display all the
characteristics of controlled demolition. Which one do you
"think" doesn't look like a controlled demolition, and why?

http://tinyurl.com/c8c3q4

You mentioned "airplane collisions" above. How many do you "think"
collided with WTC7? If none, why do you babble about airplanes during
a discussion WTC7's demolition? Are you insane? Rhetorical, btw, look
it up... ;-)



--



"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." --
Albert Einstein.

http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://www.ae911truth.org

 

Henry needs to stay in rec.motorcycles !!! he is too nuts for this
one. KB

 

What did I write that you "think" is nutty, and why do you "think"
it's nutty, exactly?
Ray got very quiet when I asked him to point out the glaring
differences he imagines between the two demolitions shown in
the video. Can you help him out, or are you as deluded, confused,
helpless, and nutty as Ray? Sure can be fun to challenge you
nut jobs to read and think.... <chuckle>

http://tinyurl.com/c8c3q4



--



"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." --
Albert Einstein.

http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://www.ae911truth.org

 

Twitbull timidly chirped:

And of course, if someone had ridden a bike through WTC7's
massive steel frame, according to Tim, twitbull, and the clown,
it would have felt no different than riding through air. <g>
This is where Tim, twitbull, and the clown get even sillier,
or very, very quiet - they've been challenged to read, think,
and defend their blind faith and ignorance based 9-11 fairy
tale. ;-)

Let us know if you disagree with anything written below, and
if so, what and why.
Here is a excerpt from a letter written by Richard Gage, founder
of Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth to NIST.

http://www.ae911truth.org/info/75

TO: Dr. Shyam Sunder, National Institute of Standards and Technology

Dear Dr. Sunder,

Here are our talking points:

1. The NIST November 2008 Final WTC 7 Investigative Report has many
fatal flaws:

a. NIST was forced to acknowledge the free-fall collapse of Building 7
for 100 feet of its 6.5 second fall only after being grilled publicly by
experts who are petition signers of AE911Truth. Yet you do not
acknowledge the obvious implications of such free-fall collapse ? that
the structure had to have been removed forcibly by explosives.
(Anyone knows that a building cannot collapse at the rate of a freely
falling object while simultaneously crushing 40,000 tons of structural
steel because all of its gravitational potential energy has been
converted to motion.)

Free fall, by definition, can only be achieved if a falling structure
or object encounters no significant resistance. Obviously, a steel
frame that's engineered to support several times its own weight can
not crush itself at the the rate of free fall. The belief that it can,
is one of the most comically absurd claims in your impossible magic
fire/Super Arab cartoon conspiracy theory.

The demolitions shown in the video below both display all
the characteristics of controlled demolition, and none of
fire induced failure, yet followers of the government's 9-11
conspiracy theory try to tell us that one was caused by the
partial, gradual, and random weakening of a small percentage
of support columns due to gradual heating, and the other was
caused by the total, instant, and symmetric destruction of all
the support columns due to demolition. They can't have it both
ways. That's why no one can produce even *one* example of a steel
framed high rise that dropped due to fire. Not one. Not ever. Not
anywhere. It's physically impossible.

http://tinyurl.com/c8c3q4

Look at the buckled column in the photo linked below. That's the
sort of gradual bending and sagging that would be caused by
*extreme* heat. Of course, the fires in WTC7 never even got that
hot.

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI-3-6.jpg

Photo from:http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI.htm

Tell us how you think WTC7 could suddenly drop at the rate of free
fall while simultaneously bending, crushing and breaking up its steel
frame - a steel frame that was engineered to support several times its
own weight and withstand hurricane force wind loads and mild earth
quakes. Do you understand that free fall can only occur when a falling
object encounters no significant resistance? Tell us how you imagine all
the steel columns lost all their strength in an instant. We know that
gradual, random weakening from minor office fires can't cause that, and
we also know that most of the steel frame wasn't even exposed to fire.






Videos from:http://www.911speakout.org/



--



"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." --
Albert Einstein.

http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://www.ae911truth.org

 

<censored link restored because we can't afford to let freedom,
truth, justice, and America hating nut jobs hide the truth - plus,
it's fun to watch them squirm, back pedal, cower, and weasel when
they're presented with the hard evidence and challenged to address
it> Thanks Ray. ;-)

http://tinyurl.com/c8c3q4

Tell us what you "think" are the most glaring differences
between the two demolitions shown in the link that you're
so desperate to avoid. You said they don't display all the
characteristics of controlled demolition. Which one do you
"think" doesn't look like a controlled demolition, and why?

http://tinyurl.com/c8c3q4

You mentioned "airplane collisions" above. How many do you "think"
collided with WTC7? If none, why do you babble about airplanes during
a discussion WTC7's demolition? Are you insane? Rhetorical, btw, look
it up... ;-)



--



"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." --
Albert Einstein.

http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://www.ae911truth.org

 

Ray Fischer spewed:

<censored link restored because we can't afford to let freedom,
truth, justice, and America hating nut jobs hide the truth - plus,
it's fun to watch them squirm, back pedal, cower, and weasel when
they're presented with the hard evidence and challenged to address
it> Thanks Ray. ;-)

http://tinyurl.com/c8c3q4

Tell us what you "think" are the most glaring differences
between the two demolitions shown in the link that you're
so desperate to avoid. You said they don't display all the
characteristics of controlled demolition. Which one do you
"think" doesn't look like a controlled demolition, and why?

http://tinyurl.com/c8c3q4

You mentioned "airplane collisions" above. How many do you "think"
collided with WTC7? If none, why do you babble about airplanes during
a discussion WTC7's demolition? Are you insane? Rhetorical, btw, look
it up... ;-)



--



"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." --
Albert Einstein.

http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://www.ae911truth.org

 

Twitbull timidly chirped:

And of course, if someone had ridden a bike through WTC7's
massive steel frame, according to Tim, twitbull, and the clown,
it would have felt no different than riding through air. <g>
This is where Tim, twitbull, and the clown get even sillier,
or very, very quiet - they've been challenged to read, think,
and defend their blind faith and ignorance based 9-11 fairy
tale. ;-)

Let us know if you disagree with anything written below, and
if so, what and why.
Here is a excerpt from a letter written by Richard Gage, founder
of Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth to NIST.

http://www.ae911truth.org/info/75

TO: Dr. Shyam Sunder, National Institute of Standards and Technology

Dear Dr. Sunder,

Here are our talking points:

1. The NIST November 2008 Final WTC 7 Investigative Report has many
fatal flaws:

a. NIST was forced to acknowledge the free-fall collapse of Building 7
for 100 feet of its 6.5 second fall only after being grilled publicly by
experts who are petition signers of AE911Truth. Yet you do not
acknowledge the obvious implications of such free-fall collapse ? that
the structure had to have been removed forcibly by explosives.
(Anyone knows that a building cannot collapse at the rate of a freely
falling object while simultaneously crushing 40,000 tons of structural
steel because all of its gravitational potential energy has been
converted to motion.)

Free fall, by definition, can only be achieved if a falling structure
or object encounters no significant resistance. Obviously, a steel
frame that's engineered to support several times its own weight can
not crush itself at the the rate of free fall. The belief that it can,
is one of the most comically absurd claims in your impossible magic
fire/Super Arab cartoon conspiracy theory.

The demolitions shown in the video below both display all
the characteristics of controlled demolition, and none of
fire induced failure, yet followers of the government's 9-11
conspiracy theory try to tell us that one was caused by the
partial, gradual, and random weakening of a small percentage
of support columns due to gradual heating, and the other was
caused by the total, instant, and symmetric destruction of all
the support columns due to demolition. They can't have it both
ways. That's why no one can produce even *one* example of a steel
framed high rise that dropped due to fire. Not one. Not ever. Not
anywhere. It's physically impossible.

http://tinyurl.com/c8c3q4

Look at the buckled column in the photo linked below. That's the
sort of gradual bending and sagging that would be caused by
*extreme* heat. Of course, the fires in WTC7 never even got that
hot.

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI-3-6.jpg

Photo from:http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI.htm

Tell us how you think WTC7 could suddenly drop at the rate of free
fall while simultaneously bending, crushing and breaking up its steel
frame - a steel frame that was engineered to support several times its
own weight and withstand hurricane force wind loads and mild earth
quakes. Do you understand that free fall can only occur when a falling
object encounters no significant resistance? Tell us how you imagine all
the steel columns lost all their strength in an instant. We know that
gradual, random weakening from minor office fires can't cause that, and
we also know that most of the steel frame wasn't even exposed to fire.






Videos from:http://www.911speakout.org/



--



"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." --
Albert Einstein.

http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://www.ae911truth.org

 

What did I write that you "think" is nutty, and why do you "think"
it's nutty, exactly?
Ray got very quiet when I asked him to point out the glaring
differences he imagines between the two demolitions shown in
the video. Can you help him out, or are you as deluded, confused,
helpless, and nutty as Ray? Sure can be fun to challenge you
nut jobs to read and think.... <chuckle>

http://tinyurl.com/c8c3q4



--



"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." --
Albert Einstein.

http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://www.ae911truth.org

 

Ray Fischer spewed:

<censored link restored because we can't afford to let freedom,
truth, justice, and America hating nut jobs hide the truth - plus,
it's fun to watch them squirm, back pedal, cower, and weasel when
they're presented with the hard evidence and challenged to address
it> Thanks Ray. ;-)

http://tinyurl.com/c8c3q4

Tell us what you "think" are the most glaring differences
between the two demolitions shown in the link that you're
so desperate to avoid. You said they don't display all the
characteristics of controlled demolition. Which one do you
"think" doesn't look like a controlled demolition, and why?

http://tinyurl.com/c8c3q4

You mentioned "airplane collisions" above. How many do you "think"
collided with WTC7? If none, why do you babble about airplanes during
a discussion WTC7's demolition? Are you insane? Rhetorical, btw, look
it up... ;-)



--



"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." --
Albert Einstein.

http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://www.ae911truth.org

 

What did I write that you "think" is nutty, and why do you "think"
it's nutty, exactly?
Ray got very quiet when I asked him to point out the glaring
differences he imagines between the two demolitions shown in
the video. Can you help him out, or are you as deluded, confused,
helpless, and nutty as Ray? Sure can be fun to challenge you
nut jobs to read and think.... <chuckle>

http://tinyurl.com/c8c3q4



--



"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." --
Albert Einstein.

http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://www.ae911truth.org

 

Ray Fischer spewed:

<censored link restored because we can't afford to let freedom,
truth, justice, and America hating nut jobs hide the truth - plus,
it's fun to watch them squirm, back pedal, cower, and weasel when
they're presented with the hard evidence and challenged to address
it> Thanks Ray. ;-)

http://tinyurl.com/c8c3q4

Tell us what you "think" are the most glaring differences
between the two demolitions shown in the link that you're
so desperate to avoid. You said they don't display all the
characteristics of controlled demolition. Which one do you
"think" doesn't look like a controlled demolition, and why?

http://tinyurl.com/c8c3q4

You mentioned "airplane collisions" above. How many do you "think"
collided with WTC7? If none, why do you babble about airplanes during
a discussion WTC7's demolition? Are you insane? Rhetorical, btw, look
it up... ;-)



--



"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." --
Albert Einstein.

http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://www.ae911truth.org

 

Hey Ray, how long did it take you to learn to slither on your
back so quickly? I've seen many kooks go tits up when they're
challenged to defend their nutty kook rants and 9-11 fairy
tale, but slithering off so quickly while you're on your back
must have taken some practice... <chuckle>



Ray Fischer spewed:

<censored link restored because we can't afford to let freedom,
truth, justice, and America hating nut jobs hide the truth - plus,
it's fun to watch them squirm, back pedal, cower, and weasel when
they're presented with the hard evidence and challenged to address
it> Thanks Ray. ;-)

http://tinyurl.com/c8c3q4

Tell us what you "think" are the most glaring differences
between the two demolitions shown in the link that you're
so desperate to avoid. You said they don't display all the
characteristics of controlled demolition. Which one do you
"think" doesn't look like a controlled demolition, and why?

http://tinyurl.com/c8c3q4

You mentioned "airplane collisions" above. How many do you "think"
collided with WTC7? If none, why do you babble about airplanes during
a discussion WTC7's demolition? Are you insane? Rhetorical, btw, look
it up... ;-)



--



"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." --
Albert Einstein.

http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://www.ae911truth.org

 

Twitbull timidly chirped:

And of course, if someone had ridden a bike through WTC7's
massive steel frame, according to Tim, twitbull, and the clown,
it would have felt no different than riding through air. <g>
This is where Tim, twitbull, and the clown get even sillier,
or very, very quiet - they've been challenged to read, think,
and defend their blind faith and ignorance based 9-11 fairy
tale. ;-)

Let us know if you disagree with anything written below, and
if so, what and why.
Here is a excerpt from a letter written by Richard Gage, founder
of Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth to NIST.

http://www.ae911truth.org/info/75

TO: Dr. Shyam Sunder, National Institute of Standards and Technology

Dear Dr. Sunder,

Here are our talking points:

1. The NIST November 2008 Final WTC 7 Investigative Report has many
fatal flaws:

a. NIST was forced to acknowledge the free-fall collapse of Building 7
for 100 feet of its 6.5 second fall only after being grilled publicly by
experts who are petition signers of AE911Truth. Yet you do not
acknowledge the obvious implications of such free-fall collapse ? that
the structure had to have been removed forcibly by explosives.
(Anyone knows that a building cannot collapse at the rate of a freely
falling object while simultaneously crushing 40,000 tons of structural
steel because all of its gravitational potential energy has been
converted to motion.)

Free fall, by definition, can only be achieved if a falling structure
or object encounters no significant resistance. Obviously, a steel
frame that's engineered to support several times its own weight can
not crush itself at the the rate of free fall. The belief that it can,
is one of the most comically absurd claims in your impossible magic
fire/Super Arab cartoon conspiracy theory.

The demolitions shown in the video below both display all
the characteristics of controlled demolition, and none of
fire induced failure, yet followers of the government's 9-11
conspiracy theory try to tell us that one was caused by the
partial, gradual, and random weakening of a small percentage
of support columns due to gradual heating, and the other was
caused by the total, instant, and symmetric destruction of all
the support columns due to demolition. They can't have it both
ways. That's why no one can produce even *one* example of a steel
framed high rise that dropped due to fire. Not one. Not ever. Not
anywhere. It's physically impossible.

http://tinyurl.com/c8c3q4

Look at the buckled column in the photo linked below. That's the
sort of gradual bending and sagging that would be caused by
*extreme* heat. Of course, the fires in WTC7 never even got that
hot.

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI-3-6.jpg

Photo from:http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI.htm

Tell us how you think WTC7 could suddenly drop at the rate of free
fall while simultaneously bending, crushing and breaking up its steel
frame - a steel frame that was engineered to support several times its
own weight and withstand hurricane force wind loads and mild earth
quakes. Do you understand that free fall can only occur when a falling
object encounters no significant resistance? Tell us how you imagine all
the steel columns lost all their strength in an instant. We know that
gradual, random weakening from minor office fires can't cause that, and
we also know that most of the steel frame wasn't even exposed to fire.






Videos from:http://www.911speakout.org/



--



"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." --
Albert Einstein.

http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://www.ae911truth.org

 

Yeah, show everybody that you're right by being a lying asshole.
That's working really well for you, is it?

 

Ray Fischer spewed:

<censored link restored because we can't afford to let freedom,
truth, justice, and America hating nut jobs hide the truth - plus,
it's fun to watch them squirm, back pedal, cower, and weasel when
they're presented with the hard evidence and challenged to address
it> Thanks Ray. ;-)

http://tinyurl.com/c8c3q4

Tell us what you "think" are the most glaring differences
between the two demolitions shown in the link that you're
so desperate to avoid. You said they don't display all the
characteristics of controlled demolition. Which one do you
"think" doesn't look like a controlled demolition, and why?

http://tinyurl.com/c8c3q4

You mentioned "airplane collisions" above. How many do you "think"
collided with WTC7? If none, why do you babble about airplanes during
a discussion WTC7's demolition? Are you insane? Rhetorical, btw, look
it up... ;-)



--



"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." --
Albert Einstein.

http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://www.ae911truth.org