Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
If you honestly think that people's eye-witness accounts WITHOUT PICTURES, are better evidence than pictures of the explosion site then we have nothing more to talk about... [You may want to research that eye-witness accounts are often times not used in trials any longer because of the high propensity for error.]

Would you mind terribly explaining where you got THAT claim from? My house was broken into last year so I know full flipping well from personal experience that the first things cops do when investigating a crime is to go to everyone nearby and ask, "Did you see anything?" If you even attempt to claim they do anything else, you will be lying through your teeth.

If you had only one witness saying they saw a plane, you may have had a point. If you had only three or four witnesses that saw a plane, you still would have had a point. The problem for you is that EVERYBODY in the vicinity saw a plane. If your conspiracy stories can't get past that, then they can't get out of the gate regardless of how desperately you try.

yes, them asking questions is called investigating.

as in what you dont do.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
Although I do have some experience and credentials for this, I'm not an expert - however, there are certain levels of reality that ANYBODY should be able to ascertain. You don't judge something's a murder by seeing blood on the ground; you see two wrecked cars touching and anyone can see it's a car accident (given that it is in this hypothetical case), you don't need to be an insurance adjuster or professional to see it.

Not true. If you saw a photo of a car parked directly behind mine and I had a huge dent in my bumper, you would insist the car banged into me. What you don't know is that the dent had been there for four months becuase it will cost $600 to fix a largely cosmetic dent and the car just happened to be there. You're still leaping to your own conclusions from the photos you're looking at.

...and what credentials do you have in crash site forensics, may I ask? Do you work for the FAA?

You don't need to be an expert to see there's NO AIRPLANE in any of the pictures.

You don't need to be an expert to understand that when every witness in the area specifically saw it was an airplane that hit the Pentagon, that there was aircraft wreckage inside the Pentagon, and that a black box identifying it as flight 77 was located in the Pentagon, that it was an airplane that hit the Pentagon. The debate becomes how the airplane created the specific pattern of damage shown, rather than conjuring up some cartoon plot that there never was any airplane to begin with.

Dude, don't you think your secret conspiracies and plots with controlled demelitions and staged false flag operations are pretty outer space convoluted as it is, without adding any more layers of convolution to the mix?

what your stupid analogy is missing is that the difference between a fresh fender-bender and a 4-month-old one are easily noticeable.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by REMISNE
Well we have to look at the facts presented to us, most people with common sense and experts agree to the following.

1. The towers did not burn that long.

Why is the length of time that the fires burned relevent? The argument is over whether fires were able to sufficiently undermine critical structural supports, not how long it would have taken to undermine them.

2. The fire was oxygen starved and not burning real hot.

Incorrect. The NIST report esitmates that temperatures reached upwards of 1000C in the location of the impact, fifteeen minutes afterwards. I will post the report for you to review how they arrive at that estimate, if you desire.

3. The fires were burning out before the collapse.

Your obervation has no basis in fact. Recently released photos taken from NYPD helicopters showing that raging fires were still burning until the moment of the crash have already been posted elsewhere, so I will not repost them here.

So the question remains what was in th debris that kept steel at molten temps for several weeks.

The obvious answer is of course, "Heat". Anything more than that is 100% conjecture on your part.

raging fires? crazy, firefighters were able to get to the 78th floor of the south tower (i think its south)

crazy huh

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by REMISNE
Well we have to look at the facts presented to us, most people with common sense and experts agree to the following.

1. The towers did not burn that long.

Why is the length of time that the fires burned relevent? The argument is over whether fires were able to sufficiently undermine critical structural supports, not how long it would have taken to undermine them.

2. The fire was oxygen starved and not burning real hot.

Incorrect. The NIST report esitmates that temperatures reached upwards of 1000C in the location of the impact, fifteeen minutes afterwards. I will post the report for you to review how they arrive at that estimate, if you desire.

3. The fires were burning out before the collapse.

Your obervation has no basis in fact. Recently released photos taken from NYPD helicopters showing that raging fires were still burning until the moment of the crash have already been posted elsewhere, so I will not repost them here.

So the question remains what was in th debris that kept steel at molten temps for several weeks.

The obvious answer is of course, "Heat". Anything more than that is 100% conjecture on your part.

dereks just said that 'truthers' lack logical thinking skills because nothing can keep steel molten for weeks.

dave just agreed that heat would keep steel molten.

one of you is an idiot....

but im gona go with both

[edit on 13-3-2010 by 814ck0u7]