9/11- Something just occurred to me...

a reply to: Informer1958


What would burn cars, but not paper, flags, or some of the cars' upholstery?

Seems magnetic to me... Especially with the evident, quick rusting of the vehicles effected.

Magnetic burning, though?

What is one of the same between an apparent magnetic burning, and the collapsing of the towers, or the attacks in general?

Extreme energy displacement. Energy displacement can also cause rusting.

Hmm.

a reply to: Informer1958

Facts are no longer important, and "opinions" are scientific facts now. You will be told, what you see in your photo is a normal thing, when a building just falls down from some office fires.

Do you believe airplanes hit the towers?

More than once you have made the claim people are saying the towers collapsed due to office fires only.

Not sure where you stand on the planes hitting the towers, are you part of the hologram conspiracy crowd?

a reply to: D8Tee

You're kind of pushing an argument that's not there...

-most- people, including experts, understand that the jetfuel present in the impact was almost completely burned up instantly in the GIANT fireball that was seen. Throughout the hour or two of burning the buildings presented a thick, black smoke, evidence of a cooler fire, that was suffocated.

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: ParasuvO

None were burnt by the cloud, this is evident in the thousands of videos.

I did some more research and Yes, I have to now support that.

Question is what cause all those cars to burn like that?

The only thing that could have melted those car engines like that, had to be some kind of heated chemical pyroclastic flow that was recorded on all the News Media that morning.

You support what now?

You are conceding the pyroclastic cloud did not happen like you were arguing yesterday?

Are you ready to admit that the engine block in the fire truck was not melted as well?

a reply to: Iconic

Extreme energy displacement. Energy displacement can also cause rusting.

Hmm.

I can understand WTC dust doing damage to the paint, but rust? You are correct about the rust, I have never seen metal rust so quickly.

Then there is the photos of some vehicles with engine blocks melted, yet I now agree with a recent comment from a poster the flow wasn't hot enough to melt metal. However, the door handles where completely gone on hundreds of cars, perhaps there might have been some type of corrosives in the flow?

a reply to: Iconic

You're kind of pushing an argument that's not there...

So true, however he is trying to bait me, as if no one is allowed to change his or her beliefs, when one discovers one was wrong.

I guess that is not allowed. Oh the fire truck? Yes the poster was able to prove I was wrong about the engine being in the front of the truck.

However, neither him or I know if that engine in that truck is melted or not. Because no one can see it.

But some people love to continue to let everyone know how right they are, it's not enough to point out a flaw in someone "opinions" These people will rub it in your face forever, so jevanal it anyone asked me.

Its like saying LOOK AT ME! Look what I did! I'm a big boy now.

a reply to: Iconic

most- people, including experts, understand that the jetfuel present in the impact was almost completely burned up instantly in the GIANT fireball that was seen.

That is why it is hard to believe offce fires brought down three WTC in the manner it did. You're correct about the jet fuel it burnt off in a matter of minutes.

a reply to: Informer1958

The missing bits are completely perplexing.

As is the unburnt upholstery.

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: Iconic

Extreme energy displacement. Energy displacement can also cause rusting.

Hmm.

I can understand WTC dust doing damage to the paint, but rust? You are correct about the rust, I have never seen metal rust so quickly.

Then there is the photos of some vehicles with engine blocks melted, yet I now agree with a recent comment from a poster the flow wasn't hot enough to melt metal. However, the door handles where completely gone on hundreds of cars, perhaps there might have been some type of corrosives in the flow?

There are no photos of engine blocks melted, thats nonsense.

You are totally unwilling to admit any errors in your arguments.

Door handles gone you attribute to corrosives in the flow?

How about door handles are generally plastic and you know, plastic melts in a fire?

I cannot believe you are going to stand by the claim that engine blocks were melted on the basis that 'you cannot see it in the photo'.

Why don't you bring some credibility to the debate and admit that you were fooled by some nonsense webpage garbage and you perpetuated the lies of melted engine blocks?

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: Iconic

You're kind of pushing an argument that's not there...

Its like saying LOOK AT ME! Look what I did! I'm a big boy now.

It's showing to be able to be confronted with a solid question, or a solid claim of evidence and a concession of "I don't know" or "my preconcieved notion is stressed by this-" which is something both you and I have said, yet d8tree has not. When he should, he rather pushes a different argument. (which is something I've been guilty of, unintentionally, I will admit). point being, I have yet to see him agree to anything put forward he didn't already agree to beforehand. Like freefall is one example, its not a perfect speed of freefall, as present in a vacuum, but it is damn close, and alot closer than should be theoretically possible with floors being intact below the crushing or pancaking point.

a reply to: Informer1958

So true, however he is trying to bait me, as if no one is allowed to change his or her beliefs, when one discovers one was wrong.

I guess that is not allowed. Oh the fire truck? Yes the poster was able to prove I was wrong about the engine being in the front of the truck.

However, neither him or I know if that engine in that truck is melted or not. Because no one can see it.

But some people love to continue to let everyone know how right they are, it's not enough to point out a flaw in someone "opinions" These people will rub it in your face forever, so jevanal it anyone asked me.

Its like saying LOOK AT ME! Look what I did! I'm a big boy now.

You are not admitting you are wrong at all, you are doubling down in effect.

Yes, you are right that neither of us can see the cast iron engine block in the photo of the firetruck, but yet you will still not admit that the engine block is not melted?

You are trying to take some morale high ground here, when there is none to be had.

There were no melted engine blocks due to a pyroclastic flow that day, get over it, and lets talk about something else.

a reply to: Iconic

Like freefall is one example, its not a perfect speed of freefall, as present in a vacuum, but it is damn close, and alot closer than should be theoretically possible with floors being intact below the crushing or pancaking point.

Absolutely.

There is a Youtube video of NY Firemen being interviewed as they were also credibal eyewitness of the WTC coming down, you can hear the Firemen say "we heard each floor making loud sounds like demolition, Boom, Boom, Boom, Boom as the building was coming down.

I have yet to see him agree to anything put forward he didn't already agree to beforehand. Like freefall is one example, its not a perfect speed of freefall, as present in a vacuum, but it is damn close, and alot closer than should be theoretically possible with floors being intact below the crushing or pancaking point.

I know, right.

a reply to: Iconic

Like freefall is one example, its not a perfect speed of freefall, as present in a vacuum, but it is damn close, and alot closer than should be theoretically possible with floors being intact below the crushing or pancaking point.

Sorry, I have a firm grasp on how gravity works.

The debris field is ahead of the main collapse, thus the collapse was not at freefall speed.

Why would I agree to something I know is false?

a reply to: Iconic

It's showing to be able to be confronted with a solid question, or a solid claim of evidence and a concession of "I don't know" or "my preconcieved notion is stressed by this-" which is something both you and I have said, yet d8tree has not.

Show me where you have displayed this behaviour.

What I have seen is you defending your notions at all costs, invoking pyroclastic flows, melted engine blocks and even nuclear events.

a reply to: Iconic

To support the OS statist flow, one has to ignore credibal science.

Funny though, NIST was forced to change it science that WTC7 fell faster than free fall, for 2 seconds faster than natural free fall.

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Iconic

Like freefall is one example, its not a perfect speed of freefall, as present in a vacuum, but it is damn close, and alot closer than should be theoretically possible with floors being intact below the crushing or pancaking point.

Sorry, I have a firm grasp on how gravity works.

The debris field is ahead of the main collapse, thus the collapse was not at freefall speed.

Why would I agree to something I know is false?

You're still arguing semantics. YES the debris field (even IF not propelled by any other force] was below the collapsing point,

YET the collapsing point was still MARKEDLY close to the speed of an absolute freefall. MUCH FASTER than it should have been, if there were an ENTIRE BUILDING TO GO THROUGH.

The "pancaking" theory that was pushed by NIST before they gave up on it, is NOT seen in ANY of the videos of the event. It would have slowed the collapse down by A LOT.


but...the debris was falling faster...

a reply to: D8Tee

When another user brought up the point that people survived the cloud without burns. It was a good point, that had completely slipped my mind. And like informer, I looked up if anyone had reported burns from the cloud, and had to agree with the poster. We both did.

I didn't back up nuclear events, I raised the fact that some sites run by veterans and pilots were mentioning it as a source of energy and the evidence is there to back up the fact there were radioactive particles present in the dust.

Never argued for it though. I don't really believe there was a nuclear event, but I think it is at least a plausible thing to mention. So mention I did.

a reply to: Iconic

but...the debris was falling faster...

Correct.

A&E forced NIST to change their outcome in the WTC 7 report, that the building fell faster than freefall for 2 seconds and the only scientific explanation that can explain that is demolition, nothing else scientifically has been proven.

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: Iconic

To support the OS statist flow, one has to ignore credibal science.

Funny though, NIST was forced to change it science that WTC7 fell faster than free fall, for 2 seconds faster than natural free fall.

Citation please.

originally posted by: Iconic
a reply to: D8Tee

You're kind of pushing an argument that's not there...

-most- people, including experts, understand that the jetfuel present in the impact was almost completely burned up instantly in the GIANT fireball that was seen. Throughout the hour or two of burning the buildings presented a thick, black smoke, evidence of a cooler fire, that was suffocated.

This is jet fuel, not gasoline.

Citation from a credible source that the jet fuel burned up instantly.