WTC Challenge, page 24

Originally posted by CatHerder
Hey screw you pal. PROVE TO ME that my gridlines are manipulative or conceptually flawed. Far as I am concered, it's just another photograph that doesn't fit in nicely with your theories.

Cool off man. The only thing I said specifically in regards to your graphic was that it was "questionable in [its] accuracy as well." I never specificlaly said that yours were the ones that were conceptually flawed or manipulative. The one's Howard posted were the ones that were pure BS, because as I've said there's no evidence anyone could have possibly based them on. Whoever made them was just using a vivid imagination. I clicked your image, and still can't see how you found each floor. To say they may have been a few inches off in terms of the building itself seems like a bit of a stretch to myself.

The 1000+ pages of radio and telephone call transcripts also don't fit in neatly with your conspiracy theories so you guys discount them as if they didn't exist.

As far as I know, saying "man there's a lot of smoke over here" or "gosh look at this big fire!" are not only generalization and unscientific but also do not take away from the fact that the fires, based on science, and not just what people were saying as they were under stress during a national emergency, show that the fires were not enough to bring the buildings down. You can't refute the science for demo with firefighter transcripts unless the firefighters get scientific on us. How do they prove the fires were at the alleged temperatures? Do they whip out some heavy duty thermometers?

I continaually see fact filled posts by members on this forum berated and insulted by tiny minded people who are either too stupid to do the work for themselves or by people who are too ignorant to be able to even form an opinion on a topic. It gets old quickly. The moment you post anything of value to counter my post I'd be delighted to discuss it with you.

Where have you been? Read my posts. One of the last ones had something to the extent of this:

No one here is yet to refute the fires being no hotter than 600 degrees Celsius. Again, the evidence behind this is threefold:

A) There was never a widespread shattering of windows from heat as other skyscraper fires have seen. This specifically puts the fires at or below 600 degrees Celsius.

B) The fires did not spread to other floors on their own account (ie, after the initial impact, and the elevator shaft doesn't count). Looking at other skyscraper fires that did reach such temperatures, the fires began feeding on various materials and spread throughout the buildings.

C) There was not a single piece of steel photographed or taped at the WTC that day that was glowing even a dull red, either inside either building during the fires, or during collapse, or after collapse, or at any other point on that day. I've already posted a chart showing what colors steel will glow when placed at certain temperatures. They certainly did not reach the alleged temperatures according to that chart.

Until those things are refuted, there isn't even a case for fire-caused collapse, because the fires were simply not hot enough. It's impossible for 600-degree fires to bring down a steel skyscraper by themselves, and yet there's no evidence that the fires were ever otherwise. I've also shown that the fires cooled, as is apparent when you watch the smoke coming from either building on 9/11.

And then went on discussing how there was no evidence that such a collapse could account for the fact that the steel columns below the falling floors gave almost absolutely no resistance. Is that not good enough for you to come down from heaven to try to refute? Or can you just not account for those things? I don't understand.

[edit on 13-7-2005 by bsbray11]

[edit on 13-7-2005 by bsbray11]