PIERRE WOODMAN wrote:What ever all of us think about the arguments, is there some specific element that you can't contest :

9 Secondes for EACH towers to fall down is one of them !!!

420 meters hight tower of beton mixed with lateral metallic stick concepted to resist to a flexion of 1 meters makes impossible to fall down the building in less than 30/ 50 secondes without a explosif dispositif !
The associations of the 1000 best americans architecs have confirmed this fact !!!

And there are many others things ...
I know some very high level polititians and trust me they share at 100 % my opinion in private discussions, but will never tell it officialy !

PW

What are you talking? The towers fell below free-fall speed. So what is the physics problem here?

By the way, this looks to be Mr. Richard Gage, yes? It only took him 7 years to convince those 1700 architects.... and that's a pretty small fraction of all US architects, by the way. If you are looking for a conspiracy concerning Mr Gage, take a look at the salary his "organization" has paid him each year... and the amount paid to some of his "followers"...

The "facts" he presents are inaccurate and consistently debunked. Better do a little more research before using this as a talking point. And look for someone a little more reputable...

Where the policy has to do is not in charge of anything, this one knows .......

ladyoscar.h wrote:Where the policy has to do is not in charge of anything, this one knows .......

Believe me, I prefer let this topic rest. It's used not as a rational logical discussion but as a place to make some snide comments and to act ugly. Maybe it's the only "discussion" or interaction I have with another mind in my entire day, so I prefer it not be spent like this. It's just a matter of the other party's acceptance of this, and it could be the last post.

OK maybe french are stupid but the day one plane will crash in the Eiffel Tower, if the next day the Montparnasse tower is not here anymore, I don't think even ONE french will believe it's because of the plane crash but in America yes they do it !!!

I was twice on top of WTC, I have slept many time in the hilton on other side of the street in front of the tower but NEVER you will make me believe that two plane crash can erased ALL AROUND on a half miles/square !!!
Even the Empire State who has got a "Bombardier" in the face is still here and it was much bigger in kerozene than what the 9/11 got ...
I have been on ground zero and really I can't believe when I was seat down at the Hilton restaurant that all the new building at half miles from me, so far from my eyes, was born by the result of a plan attack ...

PW

Pierre,

Tower seven is very close to the larger towers, if you examine an overview of the plat, you will see. The entire complex was connected also from the under drive.

The Empire state building incident was already assessed in similarity and there are many articles on line explaining why the reaction was not the same.

Close ???? We don't have the same idea of what is close ! It's like now you're close of me in your mind but anyway at 8 000 km !!!
How do you want two plane to erase all that ??? 35 % of the large part of down Manathan ... it is a lot I think !!! Only a mega bomb could blow up all this my dear !!!
PW

Or two large planes bringing down giant towers, I think the damage will look the same


Ummm...it's about 400 ft to building 7...even most conspiracy pages agree to this. Since the towers were more than 1300ft tall.... well, you do the math...

Six was very small, and then a street in between... Which is really funy, becasue so many conspiracy pages us this next photo and tell you the building fell strait down... makes sense if it was build in the middle of the street! It's a trick on the eye, and most believe on first glance, because they are being TOLD it's the footprint of a collapsed building, but take a closer look...it clearly fell over!

By glasses darling and go back to my first picture !
You can see the street between is intact of anything from tower 1 and there was another building between the 7 and WCT 1 !
So why this building on your photo is so much destroyed if not touch by anything ???
Why the Verizon don't collapse also because it was more exposed ?
In total 10 buildings disapeared ! ( look on left and completly down of the picture 1 ! ) it's not a lot for you ?
In most of the city of the world when the demolition man does their job, they explose structure the same way has the Tower 1 and 2 fallen but without created damage around ! So why all this surface is cancelled here ?
and by the way why the building sticken to the WCT on this photo from the 9/17 ( watch on the left ) is almost intact and finaly has also disapeared ???


PW

Pierre,

I am not trying to be disrespectful to you, but you are simply quoting what you have read on these pages, because your writing reads word for word as theirs. You think I have not read this too? You an original thought! The building in between was 9 stories, so hardly an issue. See my first graphic, above. Even a child can manage that equation visually.

I can send many news articles to you of building collapsing due to some structure failure even without something touching it! Knowing this, don't you realize that beams from the twin tower fall could easily damage a structure (especially if it had some pre-existing weakness, and there is no way to know this)... I mean this is not so unbelievable. Two GIANT towers came tumbling to the ground! That's TONS of steel and concrete accelerated by the height of the fall. That's going to cause a lot of damage!

You say there is no debris in the street? Yeah, in that photo, where it's evident MUCH clean up has already taken place... I am sure the site you pulled it from claimed it was take the day after, or something like this

Are the French really this inane about this issue or is it just the bald guy babbling?