1
rootGoose [S] 1 point ago

I go a step further: loyalty is an all-the-time job duty when one serves a President.

Had Bad Dog Mattis served as his own elected official, his “independence” to do what his bitchy fee-fees were telling him to do would be more understandable.

10
rootGoose [S] 10 points ago

Angela Stanton King on the matter:

Only Satan would get upset about a sitting President holding a Bible in front of a Church ⛪️

https://twitter.com/theangiestanton/status/1267874915178426374?s=20

17
rootGoose [S] 17 points ago

Who then have been working on replicating themselves.

1
rootGoose [S] 1 point ago

These people love Hell.

God will give it to them.

Thou openest thine hand, and satisfiest the desire of every living thing.  (Psalms 145:16)

1
rootGoose [S] 1 point ago

A bunch of white-washed tombs complaining about someone lifting up the Bible while they would turn their check and present their lower orifice were a muslim to destroy it.

5
rootGoose [S] 5 points ago

At what point do we have to ask ourselves: Does their hate provide them sexual arousal?

2
rootGoose [S] 2 points ago

She looks demonized.

No joke.

Completely serious.

Unless she repents and gets delivered, it'll destroy her - in the next 3 to 5 years.

2
rootGoose [S] 2 points ago

I just realize the massive amount of discretion the president has.

Thank God Hillary not any other leftist has that authority over us, vis-à-vis (1)(A)(i).

5
rootGoose [S] 5 points ago

The extra large format worked great on my screen:

-- see 1st CNN

---- scroll down

------ see 2nd CNN

--------- scroll down

----------KEK

0
rootGoose [S] 0 points ago

tl;dr

Demolition isn't required for it to be an inside job.

0
rootGoose [S] 0 points ago

specifically to resist collapse if hit by an airplane

They both resisted collapse. They did not withstand, though. Certainly not with the subsequent fire - that burned more than jet fuel.

In the video I posted above (somewhere) it is clear that the building buckled first and then continued straight down. This would have stressed the core, even destroy it.

Here's a video of a drop between 4 and 6 feet of an 800 lb barbell onto safety straps. While the straps hold but lose some integrity, the barbell does not maintain its integrity: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTsmQhIEoxQ

There's no way you could have both a core to withstand a jet strike AND an undetected demo preparation. The first few minutes of this hurricane "proof" condo demolition gives a sufficient overview of why I say this : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0zArm4FR1Y

-1
rootGoose [S] -1 points ago

It only took one floor to fail for those below to not be able to handle that failure.

specifically to resist collapse if hit by an airplane

What kind/size of plane?

What kind/volume of fuel in the plane?

Did that design consider which floor(s) a strike may happen?

What about the speed of the plane?

Did the plan consider the asbestos bring scraped off the steel in a plane strike?

Occam’s razor does not conclude ‘demolition’ because of the:

  • number of persons required
  • invasiveness required to set the charges

The Citicorp building (601 Lexington) in NYC that was retrofitted with structural additions the structural engineer got it wrong in the first place but a graduate student’s question caused him to catch the error). They were able to work around the daily workers AND kept it secret until it was overheard at a party about 20 years later.

Similarly, the runways at Denver airport (DIA) were poured with substandard (contracted standard) concrete and the deception involved the contractor and at least a testing company. It was a subcontractor that exposed the lies.

Occam’s razor says someone would put the inside job.

The core? What do you or know about the core?

Was the core designed to stand if floors around it fell on top of each other with a linear increase of mass and an acceleration of speed over hundreds feet? No.

.

3
rootGoose [S] 3 points ago

Mark Levin did the same to expose #obamagate spying on Trump, specifically the FISA warrants existing.

7
rootGoose [S] 7 points ago

Check out his open rebuke of Dem. Sen. Mark Warner:

I would appreciate it if you would explain your philosophy on transparency as it appears to be based solely on political advantage.

https://saraacarter.com/dni-grenell-slams-mark-warner-stop-cherry-picking-docs-in-flynn-case/

1
rootGoose [S] 1 point ago

Technically speaking the steel didn't burn but, had the floor(s) maintained their integrity and enough fuel burned on/near the exoskeleton, there would have been some obvious failure(s), perhaps a crumpling with a tilt a maybe even only a partial destruction of some bottom floors. I can only guess.

But, once one steel floor fell, the next floor, even if unaffected by burning jet fuel, was not designed to handle tons of steel being dropped on it from 9 or 10 feet (or more?). Subsequent floors had zero chance of maintaining integrity.

I had another look at the South Tower collapse, which was hit lower than the North Tower (more weigh above it), and you can see that it first tilts before collapsing:

This is CNN's coverage, please forgive ;)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mh92V42UN2I&feature=youtu.be&t=651

If that's the case, the exoskeleton failed. Which was first? I don't have to know.

2
rootGoose [S] 2 points ago

I know of a world-class welding engineer who, when asked about how the towers collapsed, essentially said this: "When heated to 600° F significantly loses its strength."

  • 600° F being close to the temperature jet fuel burns
  • Steel being what the towers' floors and exoskeleton were

The heated floor(s) bowed and dis-joining from the perimeter mounts causing a pancaking chain reaction that also pushed the exoskeleton perfectly outwards.

No planned demolition.

view more: Next ›