Again, you just conveniently ignore the velocity of the 4 ton girders. This was not a fluke where some how just one made it that far. There were MULTIPLE 4-ton girders hundreds of feet from the towers. Additionally considering there was ZERO TILT when the buildings went down right into their footprints, your entire argument about it some how magically being moved sideways is fallacious.

Again, you just conveniently ignore the velocity of the 4 ton girders. This was not a fluke where some how just one made it that far. There were MULTIPLE 4-ton girders hundreds of feet from the towers. Additionally considering there was ZERO TILT when the buildings went down right into their footprints, your entire argument about it some how magically being moved sideways is fallacious.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfuBREMXxts

 

This is what people say about harpy, she goes both ways. To be so close to her boss may require her to do some deep maintenance from time to time. No proofs of that as far as I know...

For a guy who puts so much effort into trying to convince people he is smart....

I like the 3rd eye they gave him.

Good luck with that. Happy hunting on "debunking" sites so you don't have to have any actual thoughts of your own.

Again, you just conveniently ignore the velocity of the 4 ton girders.

1.  The planes could not impart sufficient kinetic energy to collapse the structures.

2.  Fire fueled by the fuel in the planes and other material in the towers could not have softened the steel structures enough to cause complete structural failure.  

The majority of the fuel was burned off at impact (see giant fireball and burn speed of jet fuel) as the fuel is stored in the wings. The other materials in the building all met strict fire codes in order to prevent making fires worse. Additionally the fires did not burn for nearly long enough or hot enough to sufficiently weaken the structure.

3.  The impact of the planes and/or the stresses of the collapse could not propel multiple 4 ton steel beams hundreds of feet laterally at the readily observable velocities demonstrated.


4.  The "free fall" speed of the buildings cannot coexist with a building collapse due to the resistant force created at the building impacts the lower levels of itself.

Either it was free fall speed and explosives were used to clear the resistance before impact was made, or the impacts happen and create readily visible and measurable deceleration preventing free fall speed. The plane impact has absolutely nothing to do with it.

TNT is not required, some type of explosive is required. TNT was only used as a measurement of force required to move a 4-ton mass at the measured velocity of 21 m/s.

Do you understand your arguments properly? So far all your arguments just consist of what if ninjas, what if roller coasters, what if the laws of physics don't apply. Do you have anything substantive here to respond with or just continual tu quoque fallacies?

Great Lakes Go from ‘Climate Change-Induced’ Low Water Levels to Record Highs in 3 Years






Between 2010 and 2013 residents of the states surrounding the Great Lakes were told that climate change was permanently altering their environment and the record low water levels being recorded in the lakes may be the new normal. But now, only three years later, news reports are worried about beach erosion because the lakes have rebounded to record high levels of water.

This week, throughout the Chicago media landscape, as well as in reports in Michigan and Wisconsin, stories about a loss of swimming areas on public beaches are filling airwaves and newspaper pages. Residents and city officials are warning citizens that water levels in Lake Michigan and the other lakes are so high that the shallow swimming areas have been reduced as the water rises. Reports are also express worry over beach erosion and fears that the rising water is a danger to other infrastructure like roads.

In Chicago, DNAInfro.com, for instance, notes that water levels have risen a whopping four feet since 2013 and the new water is “swallowing up beaches.”

According to the Army Corps of Engineers, the water has risen 15 inches higher than this time last year and may rise another six inches before the summer heat starts its cycle of evaporation.

The Chicago Tribune reports that the northern suburb of Evanston is losing beachfront property. “All our beaches are shrinking,” Evanston parks director Lawrence Hemingway said.

For its part, Chicago’s Fox affiliate worries that the city’s lakeshore bike path is being destroyed by the higher water levels.

The Detroit Free Press also noted that the high water is erasing beaches and the water is at highs not seen since the 1990s.

Lake Michigan, of course, isn’t the only lake rising. As a report from April about Lake Huron points out, all the lakes are rising.

But even as these news outlets are shocked and concerned about the record high levels of water filling the Great Lakes to overflowing today, only a few short years ago these same sort of news outlets were worried that the lakes were irreversibly shrinking and that climate change was desolating both commerce and the environment.

In 2013, for instance, Chicago’s Public Television WTTW bemoaned a “dramatic” change in the climate that was warming the lakes, lowering water levels, and threatening to destroy commerce and the environment.

The local PBS story also went national as the PBS Newshour ran stories on the environmental disaster the lakes were experiencing.

In 2012 National Geographic sonorously warned that the “climate-related trend” was on the verge of laying waste to the region.

Crain’s Detroit was also writing in 2013 that communities living on the edges of the region’s monumental bodies of water were going to have to “adapt” to the new normal of climate change.

Naturally, far left sources were absolutely sure that global warming was drying up the lakes. In 2013 far left website Think Progress worried its readers with claims that climate change was “damaging” the lakes and would present “implications for the environment and the economy.”

The Natural Resource Defense Council even contemplated lawsuits to prevent cities on the lakes from tapping into them as a source of water.

On the other hand, less alarmist stories noted that the water level was affected by things other than global warming. In 2013 USA Today properly noted that some of the water drop was a result of the massive dredging campaigns launched by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, a project meant to allow shipping and transportation to more easily ply the waters of the Great Lakes.

Still, it is amazing to see the difference in coverage. Today, with water levels hitting record highs, news reporters and city officials worry over their loss of beachfront property and not a word is mentioned of climate change. Yet only three years ago the same officials and news reporters were sure that climate change was here to stay and we’d better get used to the shrunken Great Lakes.

What a difference a few years makes.


http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/05/10/great-lakes-go-from-climate-change-induced-low-water-levels-to-record-highs-in-3-years/


--------------------------------------------------
Aren't they tired of being wrong?

Your argument was that the beams were ejected by the plane impact. Of course the beams are moving sideways, they were ejected with explosive force. What is the point of stating the obvious? The velocity of their lateral movement can be measured and you do not get that lateral velocity with "tilting" or "falling". Recheck your brain stem please.

Says FUCKING PHYSICS. Gravity doesn't pull 4-ton beams 600 feet sideways, I don't care how a collapse happens. Gravity is exclusively a downward force. In fact to get this lateral movement you have to fight against gravity. Maybe if the whole building tilted over and fell, but it didn't, it went straight down into its own footprint, which by the way is pretty much impossible without a controlled demolition. If that were not the case, why do controlled demolitions have to be so perfectly timed in order to make them fall correctly to prevent such tilting? Additionally the velocity of the lateral ejections can clearly be measured from video of the event, PROVING that the reaching those velocities with multi-ton objects would REQUIRE explosive force.

Try doing the calculation for the energy required yourself: http://www.1728.org/energy.htm

Using the MINIMUM meters per second velocity assuming the beam came directly from the impact zone, 21 m/s, and the mass of the girder at 4 tons, the required force is equivalent to 2.1 TONS of TNT! That is the MINIMUM VALUES. If the beam came from the middle of the building, at 30 m/s, the required force would be 4.3 TONS of TNT. Tell me some more about how explosive force is not required.

There is no conjecturing your way out of this one. 4-ton beams don't just magically get 30fps lateral movement. The amount of energy required to move a 4-ton object 600 feet laterally at a measurable velocity is not up for debate. You are arguing against the laws of physics, not a Youtube video.

Again I am presenting you with facts of physics which can be clearly observed and measured from the video. All you have to argue with is stories about ninjas and magical self flinging 4-ton beams. Your lame attempts at refuting these physical facts are pathetic.

.......
Israel Keeps expanding and they keep taking more land, They promised to live in peace but they are Killing For more Land, THey are destroying houses to Settle Their own people.

They Are Putting Walls Just Like They did in warzawa they are making a fortress.



ISIS Contrllled Lands Are Lands Of Jews .

What will they do?, Blame muslmims eliminate all syrians, And Now Syria Will Be Called The NEW Jerusalem.




You Need To understand 200years of history atleast to understand WHY and WHAT they are doing.


And for about 2000 years they have played Victims, And That is what they keep doing.

....
3. So your argument is the plane impact made multiple 4-ton girders fly in several directions at once, some of which were not even in the direction of the plane's momentum? Of all of the hundreds of videos of the impacts, do you see even one that shows anything like a girder flying out of the impact hole?

The 4-ton girders landined hundreds of feet from their placement in the towers requiring the ejecting force of explosions for this distance of lateral movement. This is not up for debate, this is a matter of the laws of physics. They could not have been thrown this distance from the towers from a collapse. This information comes directly from the FEMA reports.
......

i think its on their sacred book. on why they are acting that way. But off course not all.

Are there any pictures of the columns as they were before they were cut with a torch? We'd like to see what they looked like. Would they look very similar to the way they would look if cut with a torch? Nobody seems to have pictures of anything but torch-like cut pieces. Seems to me the thermite took care of most of the cutting.

Not saying that the clean-up crew didn't do some cutting. Just asking for pictures of anything other than "cut" pieces. If they had not been cut by thermite, there would be all kinds of twisted, jagged pieces, wouldn't there. No pictures?

In addition, if you take a piece of concrete, and drop it 1000 feet, it would generally remain a piece of concrete all the way down until it hit the ground or pavement. Some of the videos show the concrete disintegrating in mid air. What's up with that?



EDIT: When an airliner crashes, the FAA spends months or years putting all the pieces together to see exactly what happened. The Towers remains were carted of with no known examination... certainly not the months or years that would have been done if an airliner simply crashed. Yet 9/11 involved 4 airliners.

Anybody who says there isn't a cover-up is either very naive, or a propagandizer on the government payroll.

Hillary is revolting, say NO to the granny state.

My bad did not see you had gone back to edit a prior post,could have given me a friendly heads up to address this,no?
Most people would state links are now there and I will come back to this post after I look at them. Thank you for the links.

================================================================================
Ok read them now...


So reading these links you have decided that the ISIS group is run by Jews?.....
I also do no think it proves that the Jews are responsible for all aspects of ISIS,it just does not sit right to make such a bold statement.
The fact they infiltrated should not shock anyone because they need to know what threats lay outside their borders,look at the rhetoric that is thrown at them continually from Countries like Iran. I would spy on neighbors that could cause me harm as well,hell America spies on Canada and we are friends and vice versa.

Here is a photo from ground zero a day or two after the buildings came down.



Notice the core column top center of the picture. It has been cut with a thermite cutting charge. Notice how the steel melted and rand down the column. If an arc welder had cut this steel beam there would be no melted steel stuck to the side of the column.

....

So my point is that the core columns would still be standing or flopped over. Not cut into nifty little pieces that all fit onto dump trucks.

Even with the Wikipedia entry you pointed out. The columns below and above where not heated only the floors where the plan crashed. So if it was structural failure then why don't we see core columns, about 80 floors of them, laying on the ground around the collapse site? Instead we just see a pile of rubble and some core columns cut. Very strange indeed.