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

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by space cadet
They are also the only ones to have two airplanes fly into them, as far as expirements go I would say this one proves that a plane can collapse a steel framed building.

Kindly show me where it has been confirmed that the two alleged planes AA11 and UA175 flew into the two towers? Forensic evidence, please - not hearsay.

Also, please explain how a passport (from the plane) can allegedly survive a fireball, fall to the street and then be found in readable condition. Thanks for clearing up that part of the official story for me.

Planes obviously hit the buildings, There is photographic and video evidence and eyewitness reports, etc... This is the only plausible explanation so yes planes did indeed hit the buildings.

Originally posted by jfj123
You keep ignoring the fact that a plane didn't hit that building in 1975. Nobody is saying that the fire alone caused the collapse. Well nobody except you. Stop putting words into peoples mouths.

But i am not talking about planes or structural damge. I am talking about the official story keeps stating that the fires were hot enough to casue the steel to weaken. Please read the psot befoirfe posting.

If the 1975 fores that lasted for 3 hours did not casue steel to weaken how could fires lasting less then an hour cause steel to weaken?



[edit on 23-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by space cadet
OMG, I am not about to try to prove that the dang planes did or did not hit the buildings! That is ridiculous.

Well, if you can't prove that the two alleged planes hit the towers, then you can't prove the official story.

Thanks for your contribution, as brief as it was.

And using your logic, since you can't prove they didn't hit the towers, you can't prove the official story is wrong. Honestly, the no-plane theory is not productive at all and has been debunked to death.

Originally posted by jfj123
And using your logic, since you can't prove they didn't hit the towers, you can't prove the official story is wrong. Honestly, the no-plane theory is not productive at all and has been debunked to death.

If you believe that Flight 11 and 175 hit the buildings please show some actual physical evidence that these planes hit the buildings.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by space cadet
and after reading it I only gained even more proof that the towers collapsed due to the impact and following fires from jet fuel.

Also i have many other facts and evidence from reports that state that the majority of jet fuel was burned off outside the buildings and what was left burned off quickly.

Actually you don't have other facts and evidence until you post it here for review. I can say that I have definitive proof that it was not a conspiracy so you are wrong. So do you believe me or would you like to actually see this proof?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123I'm sorry I missed these posts. Could you refer back to them for me? Thanks.

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.

Can you provide actual evidence that there were more damage to these buildings then the WTCs?

Originally posted by jfj123
You're saying it's valid because they were both steel buildings.

Steel buildings are built to certain standards. They are built to withstand many forces.
[edit on 23-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Let me correct you here. Steel buildings are SUPPOSED to be built to certain standards.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Let me finish your sentence... structural damage from plane impacts.

Um, don't you understand that structural damge is structural damage, if its caused by planes or fires its still structural damage?

There are different types of structural damage.

I have shown buildings that had more structural damge then the WTC buildings and they did not collapse.

No you haven't. You've only claimed this is true.

Originally posted by jfj123
So do you believe me or would you like to actually see this proof?

Please show me some actual, physical evindence, with verifible data that supports the official story. I have been waiting for 7 years.

Since when is looking for the truth a conspiracy?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
How do you know this and what is the cutoff point for damage that would or wouldn't cause the collapse?

No they don't. You keep taking them out of context. Read the NIST final report to get the official cause, don't use news reports.

Please post this info.

1. Well the (9/11 commission) official story reports that the damage in the South tower was not as severe as the North tower.

Irrelevant.

Also of you look at the videos and photos you can see how the plane went through the building.

SO?

2. I use verified facts and evidence to show that the buildings did withstand the buildings imapacts, even prior NIST reports stated this.

No you haven't.

www.tms.org...

The early news reports noted how well the towers withstood the initial impact of the aircraft; however, when one recognizes that the buildings had more than 1,000 times the mass of the aircraft and had been designed to resist steady wind loads of 30 times the weight of the aircraft, this ability to withstand the initial impact is hardly surprising. Furthermore, since there was no significant wind on September 11, the outer perimeter columns were only stressed before the impact to around 1/3 of their 200 MPa design allowable.

Let's look at this report.
It says:
"The early news reports noted how well the towers withstood the initial impact of the aircraft'
Because news anchors know so much about structural engineering, it makes their opinion matter to whom??? Early news reports for many, many huge events are notoriously inaccurate.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
You keep ignoring the fact that a plane didn't hit that building in 1975. Nobody is saying that the fire alone caused the collapse. Well nobody except you. Stop putting words into peoples mouths.

But i am not talking about planes or structural damge. I am talking about the official story keeps stating that the fires were hot enough to casue the steel to weaken. Please read the psot befoirfe posting.

If the 1975 fores that lasted for 3 hours did not casue steel to weaken how could fires lasting less then an hour cause steel to weaken?

[edit on 23-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Was it the exact type of fire?
Did that other building have protective insulation blown off by the plane impact?
etc....

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
And using your logic, since you can't prove they didn't hit the towers, you can't prove the official story is wrong. Honestly, the no-plane theory is not productive at all and has been debunked to death.

If you believe that Flight 11 and 175 hit the buildings please show some actual physical evidence that these planes hit the buildings.

Lets make this real simple.
They either hit the buildings or they didn't.
If they didn't, then there would be no photos, video evidence, eyewitnesses, physical wreckage, etc..
There was all that on site.

If planes didn't hit the buildings but we still have all this evidence, what was seen? Please don't tell me it was holograms as this is not a possibility and has been completely debunked.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
So do you believe me or would you like to actually see this proof?

Please show me some actual, physical evindence, with verifible data that supports the official story. I have been waiting for 7 years.

Since when is looking for the truth a conspiracy?

Please answer the question I asked. Thanks.

Originally posted by jfj123

I have shown buildings that had more structural damge then the WTC buildings and they did not collapse.

No you haven't. You've only claimed this is true.

I have posted a firefighter site that shows these buildings.

Here are photos of a buidling from the site that had longer fires and worse damage then the WTC buildings.

i114.photobucket.com...

i114.photobucket.com...


Here are photos of other WTC buildings that had longer fires and worse damage the buildings 1, 2, and 7.

i114.photobucket.com...

i114.photobucket.com...

i114.photobucket.com...

Originally posted by jfj123
Was it the exact type of fire?
Did that other building have protective insulation blown off by the plane impact?
etc....

You did not answer the question. If a fire in the North WTC tower in 1975 lasted 3 hours and did not casue any steel to weaken, how could a fire on 9/11 burning less then an hour (in the same building) cause steel to weaken?

As for type of fire it was an office fire, just like on 9/11. Since the jet fuel burned off in a few minutes the fire on 9/11 in the WTC towers was just like an office fire.

Back in 1975 they did not have fire proofing on the steel, it was after this fire that they put fireproofing on the steel and started to put in sprinklers.



[edit on 23-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Was it the exact type of fire?
Did that other building have protective insulation blown off by the plane impact?
etc....

You did not answer the question. If a fire in the North WTC tower in 1975 lasted 3 hours and did not casue any steel to weaken, how could a fire on 9/11 burning less then an hour (in the same building) cause steel to weaken?

As for type of fire it was an office fire, just like on 9/11. Since the jet fuel burned off in a few minutes the fire on 9/11 in the WTC towers was just like an office fire.

Back in 1975 they did not have fire proofing on the steel, it was after this fire that they put fireproofing on the steel and started to put in sprinklers.

If the 1975 fire was started by jet fuel, then I'd say you're on to something. Also was the fire as hot in 1975 as it was in 2001?

Originally posted by jfj123
Also was the fire as hot in 1975 as it was in 2001?

Actually the fire in 1975 was hotter because it burned for 3 hours, the fire on 9/11 burned less then an hour.





[edit on 23-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Also was the fire as hot in 1975 as it was in 2001?

Actually the fire in 1975 was hotter because it burned for 3 hours, the fire on 9/11 burned less then an hour.

[edit on 23-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Length of time may not matter. What were the actual temps of the fires at their core and perimeters?

Originally posted by jfj123
Length of time may not matter. What were the actual temps of the fires at their core and perimeters?

By the way the fire in 1975 and the fire on 9/11 were office fires, the burn about the same temp range.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Length of time may not matter. What were the actual temps of the fires at their core and perimeters?

By the way the fire in 1975 and the fire on 9/11 were office fires, the burn about the same temp range.

Again, how do you know that? Were there any/ as many windows blown out in the 1975 fire as in 2001 which would allow high winds to fan flames.

What were the actual, measuredl temps of the fires at their cores and perimeters?

[edit on 23-3-2008 by plasmacutter]

Originally posted by plasmacutter



are you for real dude

this is directed to jfj123

do you realy believe when you tell your self that burn time has no bearing on the out come of a fire ????

[edit on 23-3-2008 by plasmacutter]

[edit on 23-3-2008 by plasmacutter]

[edit on 23-3-2008 by plasmacutter]

May I suggest you calm yourself down a bit and re-read what I wrote. For your convenience here it is:

"Length of time may not matter."

Notice the part where I say MAY not matter. Couldn't a fire with poor ventilation, burn cooler then a fire burning the same material but with very good ventilation? Yes or No?