9/11 What evidence would make you believe in a conspiracy?

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Nice attempt at squirm....
Doesn't matter. Planes of around that size.

Too bad the Empire State Building is a VERY different design then the Twin Towers.
Didn't pay much attention to that "massive" amount of research you have done have you?

Thanks for the fire pic and if we use our knowledge of colour temperature plus assume the colour rendering of the camera is accurate, the temperature there is in the vicinity of 2000F or 1100C which is well short of the melting point of steel but hot enough to cause some major corrosion of steel adjacent to it. Also of note is the very 'clean' appearance of that hotspot and if you've seen a thermite reaction you'll notice the difference straight away - thermite is very messy stuff.

Originally posted by WraothAscendantDoesn't matter. Planes of around that size.

Do not post to me anymore untill you can at least get the basic information of what happened that day correct. At least try to do some research before posting.

I notice you will comment on the evidnece i ahv shown of other steel buildings haveing longer lasting fires and more damage then the WTC buildings. Talk bout squirming out of something.

[edit on 22-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]

reply to post by ULTIMA1


LoL!!!!!
Yes try to completely bypass the fact that the Empire State Building is of a vastly different design than the Twin Towers with that.

LoL!!!!!!
Nice try.
But not nice enough.

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Yes try to completely bypass the fact that the Empire State Building is of a vastly different design than the Twin Towers with that.

But it is a steel building that was hit by a plane, Oh and it did not collapse even though it was a muchsmaller building.

Why do you completly bypass the facts and evidnece of other steel buildings that had longer fiores and more damage and did not collapse ?



[edit on 22-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Because the design was vastly different.
One design will fail where another will not.

they are still buildin high rises to this day the same way they built the towers

if they where realy worried about fire bringing buildings down and some how turning concrete to dust ( thats a whole nother gripe of ming )

Have u ever tried to bust up some concrete??

they had 60,000 tons of concrete turn to dust and small chunks

Not big slabs just crack in them , i mean hell it did have 1 inch diameter rebar in to ( U read that 1 inch rebar in the concrete not to mention a whole weave of welded rebar lattice that the concrete was pourd into )

But some heat and some compression force (wich is what concrete excells in ) shatterd the concrete floors.

(It can take tons of compression force befor it shatters )

But hey that is another 18 pages of discusion im sure

[edit on 22-3-2008 by plasmacutter]

Originally posted by plasmacutter
Dont go crazy my wife wont let me do a full scal modle so keep smaller please

I'd cop a bit of flack if I started making a full scale model too

It may be the only way to prove that it's extremely unlikely that molten metal caused the towers to fail.

Remember that the thermite theory is only a response to the lack of evidence of powerful explosions demolishing the core of the buildings - a way to do it in relative silence. Thermite is simply not controllable enough for that sort of precision and there's really no evidence of it having been used.

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Because the design was vastly different.
One design will fail where another will not.

No, not really they were steel buildings jsut like the WTC buidlings.

No steel building has ever collapsed due to fire and structural damage before or after the WTC buildings.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


You are familliar with the idea that you can put that steel together in different configurations?
Or even use different types of steel.
And amounts of steel?

And doesn't blowing out the supports mean your essentially damaging the structure????

[edit on 22-3-2008 by WraothAscendant]

reply to post by Pilgrum


ok maybe not percise enough id agree its alittle violent

so what then dam if i can figure it out


But thats why it even happend we will never know no more evidence

we are competeing with evil minds regardless terroest or inside job i dought we will ever match the intelect of the one that made it happen

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
And doesn't blowing out the supports mean your essentially damaging the structure???]

So you are stating that someone had to blow the supports on the WTC buildings ?


As stated no steel building has ever collapsed due to fire or structural damage.

www.pleasanthillsfire.org...

Excepting the three 9-11 collapses, no fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel framed high-rise building to collapse. Following are examples of high-rise fires that were far more severe than those in WTC 1 and 2, and Building 7. In these precedents, the fires consumed multiple floors, produced extensive window breakage, exhibited large areas of emergent flames, and went on for several hours. The fires in the WTC towers did none of these things.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
No steel building has ever collapsed due to fire and structural damage before or after the WTC buildings.

But now we have 2 steel frame buildings that collapsed after being hit by large aircraft at high speed AND subsequent fires so the precedent has been established. There was no precedent prior to 9/11 for comparison.

And if you realy think about it?? realy think now!!


Who here hasnt gotin smatter or more aware since 9/11

its changed us all to a degree

i love what 9/11 has done to my intelect

but i wish it didnt take all that has died since 9/11 to get that simple job of Waking the Hell up


PS NEVER FORGET 9/11 no matter what

[edit on 23-3-2008 by plasmacutter]

reply to post by ULTIMA1


No I am not.
Nice attempt at misinterpretation. Too bad it was a shoddy premise.

You say no steel building has been brought down by structural damage and fire.

I responded in different words with "every building ever demolished in a controlled fashion IS collapsing due to intentional structural damage.".

[edit on 23-3-2008 by WraothAscendant]

reply to post by WraothAscendant


LOL thats good

no offence to anyone plese that was just being technical hehe was funny

technicaly u r right hehe


[edit on 23-3-2008 by plasmacutter]

Originally posted by Pilgrum
But now we have 2 steel frame buildings that collapsed after being hit by large aircraft at high speed AND subsequent fires so the precedent has been established. There was no precedent prior to 9/11 for comparison.

But the reports state that the buidlings withstood the planes impacts.

Plus i have shown steel buildings that had longer lasting fires and more structural damge then the WTC buildings and did not collapse.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Buildings NOT of the configuration or the exact damage of the TWIN TOWERS.

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Nice attempt at misinterpretation. Too bad it was a shoddy premise.

How did i misinterpret this ?

"And doesn't blowing out the supports mean your essentially damaging the structure???? "


[edit on 23-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]