|
reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 12:18 PM by thefreepatriot
|
a reminder to all federal conspiracy theorists. that are KNOWINGLY supporting a false version of events.. You will be prosecuted for aiding and
abetting war criminals and for treason.. It may be next year or it may be 20 years.. it will happen.
[edit on 2-1-2009 by thefreepatriot]
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 12:20 PM by thefreepatriot
|
reply to post by tide88
and last I checked the empire state building is still standing..
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 12:23 PM by FewWorldOrder
|
reply to post by Spectre0o0
Perhaps this has been noted before, but at about 6:27 of the video you linked - tw.youtube.com... - , Scott Forbes , employee
of Fiduciary Trust, a WTC tenant, mentions "The tenants - the people from Aon who had been there were moved somewhere else".
So I Googled up 'Aon', and I arrived at the Board of Directors page.
If indeed the same 'Aon', then I guess we have another 'nothing to see here-coincidence'. 
www.aon.com...
Richard B. Myers
General, USAF, Ret.
Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
www.aon.com...
Aon Corporation is the leading global provider of risk management services, insurance and reinsurance brokerage, and human capital consulting.
Through its 36,000 professionals worldwide, Aon readily delivers distinctive client value via innovative and effective risk management and workforce
productivity solutions.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 12:27 PM by Swampfox46_1999
|
reply to post by thefreepatriot
Sounds like a veiled threat there..are you sure you want to stick with something like that?
BTW, the ESB and the WTC do not even begin to compare to each other, different construction, different aircraft and one hell of a big difference in
the magnitude of the impacts.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 12:30 PM by thefreepatriot
|
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
its not a threat... Just like the Nazis were prosecuted long after there war crimes so will the people involved in this conspiracy.. if you commit a
crime and are involved in the conspiracy of it you will pay for it.. its very simple ..
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 12:33 PM by thefreepatriot
|
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
one hell of a difference please explain how much of a difference lol? what speed was the b-25 going at? and what speed were the jets...? also how
much larger is a 757 vs A B-25 ? you will find the differences to be not so much.. Also explain how the empire state building design can better
support an aircraft impact...
"correction made to model of aircraft"
[edit on 2-1-2009 by thefreepatriot]
[edit on 2-1-2009 by thefreepatriot]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 12:37 PM by thefreepatriot
|
Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by thefreepatriot
Sounds like a veiled threat there..are you sure you want to stick with something like that?
BTW, the ESB and the WTC do not even begin to compare to each other, different construction, different aircraft and one hell of a big difference in
the magnitude of the impacts.
As long as you are not knowingly spreading disinfo you have nothing to worry about right? 
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 12:43 PM by thefreepatriot
|
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
the only reason you should take this as a threat is if you are knowingly spreading disinfo... well are you?
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 01:13 PM by tide88
|
reply to post by thefreepatriot
First off it was a b 25 that hit the empire statebuilding. B52 wasnt built for almost 10 years later. Do you know the difference between a b25 and a
757?
B-25 total weight 33,000 lbs, fuel capacity 670 gal.
757 total weight 255,000 lbs, fuel capacity over 11,000 gal.
Stop watching loose change and believing everything they say. This just proves you believe everything they say.
There is no evidence of thermite, just speculation.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 01:15 PM by tide88
|
Originally posted by thefreepatriot
Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by thefreepatriot
Sounds like a veiled threat there..are you sure you want to stick with something like that?
BTW, the ESB and the WTC do not even begin to compare to each other, different construction, different aircraft and one hell of a big difference in
the magnitude of the impacts.
As long as you are not knowingly spreading disinfo you have nothing to worry about right?
I would watch what you are saying. You have already spread a lot of disinfo in your post. B52 hahahah.  Do some research. And I am not
talking about watch a video some college kids produced with ominous music and many many falicies.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 01:16 PM by thefreepatriot
|
reply to post by tide88
oh really funny.. it was just a typo which was corrected and duly noted...... nice try lol
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 01:23 PM by tide88
|
Originally posted by thefreepatriot
reply to post by tide88
oh really funny.. it was just a typo which was corrected and duly noted...... nice try lol
And do you know the difference between a b25 and a 757?
B-25 total weight 33,000 lbs, fuel capacity 670 gal.
757 total weight 255,000 lbs, fuel capacity over 11,000 gal.
Quite a big difference between the two. A b 25 is no bigger then a small personal jet. And the speed difference between the two.
And not to mention the building stuctures are completly different. That there is no real proof of thermite, only speculation. And one more thing,
those building didnt collapse at free fall rate. If this was the case you would not see the top of the building falling faster then the rest of the
building.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 01:24 PM by thefreepatriot
|
reply to post by tide88
I am not the one involved in a conspiracy ... and having a typo does not constitute disinfo.... remember if there is FULL investigation into 911 in
the future it will be people who knowingly spread disinfo that are going to pay... not people trying to get to the truth..
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 01:26 PM by thefreepatriot
|
reply to post by tide88
Not freefall.. tell me what would constitute freefall in a collapse from that height?
[edit on 2-1-2009 by thefreepatriot]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 01:28 PM by thefreepatriot
|
No evidence.. are you sure you want to continue with that statement? are you knowingly spreading disinfo?
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 01:31 PM by tide88
|
Originally posted by thefreepatriot
reply to post by tide88
I am not the one involved in a conspiracy ... and having a typo does not constitute disinfo.... remember if there is FULL investigation into 911 in
the future it will be people who knowingly spread disinfo that are going to pay... not people trying to get to the truth..
Prepare to pay dearly then. Also why dont you just go back and erase that post you made of the b25. It doesnt compare at all
the 9/11 The planes on 9/11 were 8 times larger, 3 times faster, and hold almost 20 times more fuel.
As for your free fall question.
In every photo and every video, you can see columns far outpacing the collapse of the building. Not only are the columns falling faster than
the building but they are also falling faster than the debris cloud which is ALSO falling faster than the building. This proves the buildings fell
well below free fall speed. That is, unless the beams had a rocket pointed to the ground.
Not
Freefall
[edit on 2-1-2009 by tide88]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 01:32 PM by TARBOX
|
Originally posted by lunarminer
As the fuel from the jets burned, it started to cook the columns. As the columns heated up, the strength of the cables within the columns changed. If
you don't know, metals are weaker the closer they get to their melting point. At 3000 degrees, the jet fuel heated the columns enough to cause the
cables to fail.
This is merely a question for you because one thing stood out in your description.
You stated:
At 3000 degrees, the jet fuel heated the columns enough to cause the cables to fail.
As I understood it, jet fuel burns at 800 to 1500 F.
I found this article at Popular Mechanics and read it.
Popular Mechanics
FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F).
And even with the surrounding interior burning, it would not reach temps you describe.
while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings,
including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.
So, can you tell me where you are getting 3000 degrees?
Just side note: I am on the fence about the events that are discussed in this thread as with the entire 911 situation. I'm just asking a question.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 01:34 PM by thefreepatriot
|
Originally posted by tide88
Originally posted by thefreepatriot
reply to post by tide88
I am not the one involved in a conspiracy ... and having a typo does not constitute disinfo.... remember if there is FULL investigation into 911 in
the future it will be people who knowingly spread disinfo that are going to pay... not people trying to get to the truth..
Prepare to pay dearly then. Also why dont you just go back and erase that post you made of the b25. It doesnt compare at all
the 9/11 The planes on 9/11 were 8 times larger, 3 times faster, and hold almost 20 times more fuel.
As for your free fall question.
In every photo and every video, you can see columns far outpacing the collapse of the building. Not only are the columns falling faster than
the building but they are also falling faster than the debris cloud which is ALSO falling faster than the building. This proves the buildings fell
well below free fall speed. That is, unless the beams had a rocket pointed to the ground.
Not
Freefall
[edit on 2-1-2009 by tide88]
look like you are threatning me directly.. is this what you are doing?
[edit on 2-1-2009 by thefreepatriot]
[edit on 2-1-2009 by thefreepatriot]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 01:36 PM by Anonymous ATS
|
reply to post by lunarminer
Jet fuel does not burn at 3000 degrees, Centigrade or Fahrenheit, that's a fact, even adding all the combustibles in the buildings the fire would
never have reached that temp. Jet fuel CANNOT melt steel, if it could foundries would not need to use induction and arc furnaces, would they? In 1
atmosphere 101.3 kPa normal air pressure, there is not enough oxygen to reach 1500 degrees to 1650 degrees Celcius, the melting point of iron. When
exposed to enough fuel and air for a long period of time, it is possible to get the steel red hot, but not "white hot" on the verge of melting. That
is why your barbeque grills, frying pans and cooking pots made of steel do not end up rubbery and guey, like melted glue.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 01:36 PM by tide88
|
Originally posted by thefreepatriot
No evidence.. are you sure you want to continue with that statement? are you knowingly spreading disinfo?
No are you. And for you to even say people in future a going to be punished for spreading disinfo tells me what kind a person I am have a debate
with. You just making things up as you go. And for every video you produce by some amature or so called truther I can post something that debunks
it.
thermite
Actually why dont you just read that whole site. Maybe you will learn something. And yes I have seen all the videos you have posted and will post.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
