My beliefs have changed regarding 911

reply to post by Alfie1

Perhaps YOU should go here...

www.globalresearch.ca...

read the article, and tell Dr. Paul Craig Roberts that he is delusional.

Let me know how that works out.

reply to post by Stewie


You are going to get slaughtered with your "Jet fuel has NO affect on steel girders " remark. Care to elaborate on it ?

reply to post by Alfie1

Pretty simple. You can throw a steel girder in the fire. It won't melt.

physics911.net...

Look up the size of the steel girders used to frame the Twin Towers. Ask anybody that works with metal what it takes to melt that stuff.

Originally posted by Stewie
reply to post by Alfie1

 

Pretty simple. You can throw a steel girder in the fire. It won't melt.

physics911.net...

Look up the size of the steel girders used to frame the Twin Towers. Ask anybody that works with metal what it takes to melt that stuff.

Who said "melt"; have you seen the Nat. Geo documentary ? :-

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by Stewie
reply to post by iamcpc

 

Jet fuel has NO affect on steel girders. Certainly it will burn flammable material until the fire is extinguished.

The whole OS I thought was that airplanes damaged the buildings and damaged the fireproofing around the steel. The airplane damage also weakened the building. The fire weakened the building even more. Then collapse.

SOURCE: wtc.nist.gov...

"the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns"

"the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing"

And for the love of God don't say that fire does not weaken steel without the ability to explain how, in the middle ages, we used fire to weaken steel so that armor and weapons could be crafted.

I'm trying to figure out what government report was published that said that WTC fire melted steel. People have been interviewed that said the steel would have melted here:

news.bbc.co.uk...

The buildings' construction manager, Hyman Brown, agreed that nothing could have saved them from the inferno.

"But steel melts, and 24,000 gallons (91,000 litres) of aviation fluid melted the steel. Nothing is designed or will be designed to withstand that fire."

structural engineer Chris Wise

"The columns would have melted, the floors would have melted and eventually they would have collapsed one on top of each other."


Professor of Structural Engineering at the University of Newcastle, John Knapton

""The 35 tonnes of aviation fuel will have melted the steel"

911review.com...
cites other sources. A bunch of people saying that steel either would have melted or did melt.

www.9-11commission.gov...

Never even used the world melt.

So did the government lie and say that steel melted in the WTC towers? If they did I can't find the report that lied. It seems to me that the whole melting steel claim was started by the mainstream news interviewing people who had not investigated the collapse of the towers saying that steel melted or would have melted.

I also notice that most these reports with experts saying that steel would have melted or did melt were from a day or two after the attacks.

[edit on 16-6-2010 by iamcpc]

reply to post by iamcpc

Since you want some answers...

answers.yahoo.com...

Hey, it's "best answer"! There is hope.

Anyway,
A little bit technical, but it disputes your sources...

911research.wtc7.net...

as does this...

femr2.ucoz.com...


Now WHY would YOUR sources be lying?

reply to post by iamcpc

Since you want some answers...

answers.yahoo.com...

Hey, it's "best answer"! There is hope.

Anyway,
A little bit technical, but it disputes your sources...

911research.wtc7.net...

as does this...

femr2.ucoz.com...


Now WHY would YOUR sources be lying?

reply to post by Stewie
I like this, from your source:

Fuel burned outside Tower (within fireball) 1483 US gallons 198 cubic feet (20% of fuel total)

I haven't found their work to show how they came up with the figure yet!

I would say it is a guess!

Originally posted by Stewie
reply to post by iamcpc

 

Since you want some answers...

answers.yahoo.com...

Hey, it's "best answer"! There is hope.

Anyway,
A little bit technical, but it disputes your sources...

911research.wtc7.net...

as does this...

femr2.ucoz.com...


Now WHY would YOUR sources be lying?

It all depends if you want to say lying or if you want to say mistaken.
BBC comes the day after the collapse and says "Why did the towers collapse?" and they answer that question with a guess because you have no time to do any sort of an investigation about the cause of a building collapse 24-48 hours after the building collapsed.

What I want to know is why are people being interviewed the day or two after the attacks saying steel melted or would have melted instead of saying steel weakened or would have wekened being used as evidence that the WTC towers were demolished?

Someone not at all involved with the government says steel would have melted or did melt and that somehow is being used to suppor the demolition theories?

The point of this is that you said you throw steel on a fire and it does not melt. My point is what does fire not melting in steel have to do with what the government told us about the collapse of the WTC towers? After researching I will form a theory:

Steel not melting in a jet fuel fire has NOTHING to do with what the government said caused the collapse of the WTC towers. I don't know why it's even being discussed.


Earlier you said:

It is not my desire to lead you by the hand to truth. Too many to lead, and I am not the Pied Piper.

If you lead two people to the truth and they, following the same path you did, lead two people to the truth then soon EVERYONE knows the TRUTH.

And now we are at a position where we can both lead each other to the truth. You can show me the truth that steel does not melt in normal fire. I can show you the truth that steel not melting in fire has nothing to do with what the government has been saying about the WTC collapses.

reply to post by iamcpc

I cannot reveal the "truth" to you. I was not a part of the planning or execution of this operation.
YOU have to do your own due diligence. You have to research everything yourself because the federal government, at the highest levels, is absolutely corrupt.
These people kill without conscience or remorse. Innocent people. There is ample evidence of that, without even considering 911. In fact, almost everyday we see evidence that they don't care about ANYTHING that concerns everyday human beings.
What would the motive be for making it look like the U.S. has been attacked on its own soil? (If you ever came to that conclusion)
Look at Iraq and Afghanistan, how many innocent people have been killed?
If you don't care if you kill innocent people, does it matter if they are American? (Yes to some, so we must DEMONIZE the Muslims)
What is the objective? Revenge? Control of the Middle East? Oil? Money? Power?
Look at Israel and their national interests. Are there any clues there?
The sources that provide the information that help you determine what is going to happen NEXT are the ones to trust, not the ones that explain how a tower can collapse by the simple fact that a plane flew into it.

Study everything you can find. Stewie out.

Originally posted by Stewie

the federal government, at the highest levels, is absolutely corrupt.

I agree.

These people kill without conscience or remorse. Innocent people. There is ample evidence of that, without even considering 911.

I kind of agree. I think there are people in the government who feel bad when they see a little girl in afganistan dead from collateral damage from US soldiers. There are people in the government who want to pull our troops out of the middle east to prevent the death of innocent people.

In fact, almost everyday we see evidence that they don't care about ANYTHING that concerns everyday human beings.

Unless every election is rigged the federal government has at least pay attention to the polls or they won't get elected. They are basically FORCED to do things to show they care, at least a little, about the concerns of everday human beings. So we see evidence that they don't care and then, at the same time, see evidence that they do care.

Like when they expand health insurance to help people who don't have or can't have health insurance?

What about when they got 20 billion from BP to cover damages cased to everyday human beings by the oil spill?

www.msnbc.msn.com...

Like when the national guard went into new orleans and saved thousands and thousands and thousands of people after hurricane katrina.

Like when we send troops and aid to help haiti.

What would the motive be for making it look like the U.S. has been attacked on its own soil?

oil, money, power

Look at Iraq and Afghanistan, how many innocent people have been killed?

lots

If you don't care if you kill innocent people, does it matter if they are American?

Maybe.

If you are an Ameican it might matter. Even sociopaths won't hurt the people who can give them something or that they can benefit from not hurting. Like a man who would not care about killing his innocent wife but who would care about murding his boss who is about to promote him.

Lets just say you have a country with a million man army that is going to start marching and kill everyone on the planet and they are going to have innocent children handcuffed to their soldiers so that the only way to stop them is to kill an innocent people. Well is it better to kill the million innocents and the army or to let the army murder everyone on the planet?

I agree 100% that war is horrible but in situations like wwII where nazis are going to take over the world war is necessary. Killing a million innocent people is necessary to save a billion innocent people.

Look at Israel and their national interests. Are there any clues there?

I have not started researching that just yet.

not the ones that explain how a tower can collapse by the simple fact that a plane flew into it.

When you say it like that you make it seem so simple. From my research never before, on that scale (in terms of weight size and speed), has an airplane hit a building. Also the building was set on fire. I'll get to all of the other points involved in the tenticles of the conspiracy once i figure out what caused the collapse of the twin towers.

All I can find is experts who disagree. And some people who will form theories about what caused the collapse of a building that was hit with an airplane and set on fire without even attempting to address how much damage was done by the airplanes and fire.

When I find the independant investigations about the amount of damage done by the airplane impacts it seems to be pretty strong evidence that supports the airplane fire theories.

Unfortunately I have not found the experts to refute those independant investigations.


[edit on 16-6-2010 by iamcpc]

reply to post by Stewie


I can easily see "dr." Paul Roberts for the fraud that he is, based on the link you provided...a snippet:

The Bill of Rights has been eviscerated.

BULL!!!


Propagandist crap, spewed by the likes of this man...CHECK the source!!!

But, he continues....

The Obama regime has institutionalized the Bush/Cheney assault on American liberty.

More utter nonsense...."the Obama regime" (!)

AS IF a duly elected President of the United States, and his/her Office, is tantamount to a thirld-world dictatorship....really, the incredible stupidity displayed by this man is awesome, in its paranoid complexity.... maybe it's time to look INTO just WHO he is, this "dr." Paul Craig Roberts....hmmmm???? Care to go down the rabbit hole???

LITTLE WONDER the so-called "truth movement" is often inhabited by (populated with) miscreants....






[edit on 16 June 2010 by weedwhacker]

Mi

Originally posted by Stewie
reply to post by iamcpc

 

I cannot reveal the "truth" to you. I was not a part of the planning or execution of this operation.
YOU have to do your own due diligence. You have to research everything yourself because the federal government, at the highest levels, is absolutely corrupt.
These people kill without conscience or remorse. Innocent people. There is ample evidence of that, without even considering 911. In fact, almost everyday we see evidence that they don't care about ANYTHING that concerns everyday human beings.
What would the motive be for making it look like the U.S. has been attacked on its own soil? (If you ever came to that conclusion)
Look at Iraq and Afghanistan, how many innocent people have been killed?
If you don't care if you kill innocent people, does it matter if they are American? (Yes to some, so we must DEMONIZE the Muslims)
What is the objective? Revenge? Control of the Middle East? Oil? Money? Power?
Look at Israel and their national interests. Are there any clues there?
The sources that provide the information that help you determine what is going to happen NEXT are the ones to trust, not the ones that explain how a tower can collapse by the simple fact that a plane flew into it.

Study everything you can find. Stewie out.

Plains hitting, fires not able to take out frame, then magically fuel left after plains exploded melted all frame points needed to allow for smooth motion fall. The person attacking parts of what I said cites MSM, msnbc really, talking points. Probably a talking head for Chris Matthews.

My sig is, well, watch tyrants, and those too ignorant to question anything. All should be free, but people like the msm puppets on here are contributing. Will good ever win, or is this apple so rotten, need to kill it all to get rid of the worms.

[edit on 16-6-2010 by AdmiralX]

reply to post by weedwhacker


What you said has to be sarcasm. Why is healthcare takeover, patriot act, and issuing death warrants for u.s. citizens without 'jury of peers' Constitutional? How? Msm lied about Obama and why spend 2million dollars hiding records? Entire campaign was a series of lies. It is Carter's fault, or Jfk, or gwb, or ghwb. Clinton was innocent. Obama, Barry soetoro, is a liar, or his puppet masters changed the roadmap, after the election.

I would avoid msm, but obviously you have maddow, Matthews, and oberjoke posters in your bathroom. Do you pray to your messiah, Barry soetoro? Or just one of his false prophets, like Matthews?

reply to post by AdmiralX


I think any semblance of "crediblity" you may have wished to establish in previous posts, here in a 9/11 thread, have now been utterly destroyed.

Seriously, I hope this will serve as an illustration to others happening by, and reading...as if knowing, already, to take anything written on the Internet with a grain of salt wasn't obvious....the quality, and veracity, of a poster's comments must be assessed in their entirety, based on content, and quality....lest you fall for a complete load of rubbish, and absolute lies and unsubstantiated claims.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Stewie

 

I can easily see "dr." Paul Roberts for the fraud that he is, based on the link you provided...a snippet:

The Bill of Rights has been eviscerated.

BULL!!!


Propagandist crap, spewed by the likes of this man...CHECK the source!!!

But, he continues....

The Obama regime has institutionalized the Bush/Cheney assault on American liberty.

More utter nonsense...."the Obama regime" (!)

AS IF a duly elected President of the United States, and his/her Office, is tantamount to a thirld-world dictatorship....really, the incredible stupidity displayed by this man is awesome, in its paranoid complexity.... maybe it's time to look INTO just WHO he is, this "dr." Paul Craig Roberts....hmmmm???? Care to go down the rabbit hole???

LITTLE WONDER the so-called "truth movement" is often inhabited by (populated with) miscreants....






[edit on 16 June 2010 by weedwhacker]

Other than skin tone, no snarling, and using the teleprompter 99% of the time, Obama is bush and cheney but worse. Cheney said, 'f u' and Obama says, 'I care, it is for your own good, let's not look backwards' then he does look back to cover criminals, lol. Name one difference in policy.

reply to post by mikelee


Hello Mike !

Watch the video in my signature and tell me if you still think
there was not a cover up.

I think it is pretty obvious who is lying after watching the video.

Also by the way jet fuel will not turn steel into liquid form.

As the former governor of Minnesota said no matter how hard he
tries he cannot get his kerosene lantern to melt itself.





[edit on 16-6-2010 by Ex_MislTech]

reply to post by weedwhacker

The old, 'go personal then cry when response is given.'
Disinformation, misinformation, msm staffer. Sound a lot like Matthews, lol. On substance, you have nothing to offer. Anything technical to add? Einstein drank, does that mean you win and win the discussion? Not to anyone with a brain.

Let me just point something out to you...

you are agreeing with many of the conspiracy theory points while still having faith in the government....

NIST said fires brought down WTC 7.

You either believe that or you are a conspiracy theorist.

Even with your government loving theories Fox News and the like would still call you a lunatic.

But, regardless of all that... i want to mention:

The reason why NIST wont ever admit WTC 7 was a demolision is because it takes weeks and weeks of planning to orchestrate a demolition.

One of the biggest concerns when demolishing a building is the asbestos and fire repellants. If you do not remove those from the building, anyone nearby could get heavy doses of poisonous chemicals. So even if they somehow managed to rig a building to completely free-fall detonate in the span of a few hours, they are still responsible for the many lives that are being taken years after.

Imagine how hard it woould be to plant explosives that day:
There are fires on many floors. Any quick ignition would cause an explosive to prematurely detonate potentially killing the planter and alerting everyone of what you are doing.
People would most likely see personell with exlposives entering the building.
The evacuation process and demolition process does not take 2-3 hours to complete. if you are a building owner you dont simply call your insurance agency and ask them if you should demolish the building in a few hours.

Face it, if they where concerned with our safety they would have told everyone to move away hours before the building would collapse, not minutes. The latter would be the case in regards to wtc7.

So really, just stating your beliefs on WTC 7 you are already a 911 conspiracy/truther/lunatic etc. etc.

Welcome to the club

reply to post by mikelee


I appreciate your diligence and thorough research into this. I bet seeing a demolition must have been pretty exciting

I'd be interested in seeing those pics from the Pentagon, but after a 8 years of time I'm not sure I would trust they aren't faked.