Enough with the dishonest behaviour Truthers - I'm calling you out.

Could do it on any building and Yes it will collapse if the steel frames start to become hot and weak from to much heat.Let laone have an entire major jet liner crash into the building ruining its structure that is holding the building up in the first place.

reply to post by Jobeycool


the massive amount that exploded out the other side of the building? then was done burning up 10-15 minutes later?
the jet fuel that got no where NEAR building 7? science says you are wrong. specifically thermodynamics, the melting point of fireproofed steel, the chemical energy of jet fuel. that theory is wrong, just dead wrong. there is no proof that this is even close to possible, let alone with only the fuel that was in the planes

reply to your newest post
do a scale test and burn steel to its melting point with jetfuel. keep this liquid magma at an average temp of 1800 degrees for weeks.
then ill believe you

Originally posted by Konstantinos

I still have yet to see any explanation that can explain how both towers fell at nearly free-fall speeds?

The towers fell at 65% of free fall acceleration. That is a lot closer to 50% free fall acceleration than it is to 100% FFA. So if you want to put it near something, Say:

The buildings fell at nearly one half free fall speed.

This topic is so unreasonable it is insane how many people believe this garbage.The real truth is the CIA and politicians are corrupt over money.They knew Osama Bin Laden was a major threat and was kicked out of Saudi Arabia for being a lunatic by the Saudis.They also knew after the bombing of the WTC the first time,USS cole and many other terrorist bombings that an attack of some kind would happen and yet did nothing.

Hezbollah to this day has never been stopped after bombing a marines barracks in the Lebanon war.

You would think after MK ULTRA was admitted by the CIA and the CIA admitting other lies people would understand how corrupt this country can become with to much wealth and power.

reply to post by Jobeycool





explain please

To debate a conspiracy theorist is to give them credibility

I'm done with this arguement.It is worthless to even try anymore with the amount of ignorance there is with this subject and the lack of common sense.It is lauaghable to even get into the discussion anymore when you see 2 major jet liners crash and blow up and you realize gee the jet fuel ignited and exploded and it burning all over the place.

reply to post by deadmessiah


you are right. its so extremely hard to dislodge the conspiracy theory of an old terrorist in a cave of afghanistan, dying of renal failure used airplanes to melt two skysrapers, where they remained melted for weeks afterward

that is by the definition they give, a conspiracy theory.
no matter what you believe about 9/11, unless you believe 1 individual is responsible for the entire thing top to bottom, you are a conspiracy theorist, get over it

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by jonnywhite

 

Exactly. The design was flawed and very unique. The whole insulation thing is something serious folks discuss, but something that Truthers never seem to mention.

Like the rest of your rant, this is nonsense.

The WTC wasn't even the first with that design, the 43-story Khan-designed DeWitt-Chestnut Apartment Building in Chicago, Illinois, completed in 1963 was.

And almost every tall building since has used that design...

Most buildings in excess of 40 stories constructed in the United States since the 1960s are of this structural type.

en.wikipedia.org...

So what was unique about the design? What is flawed about that design mr.design expert?

As far as insulation, how did that cause the lower part of the building, not effected by fire, to fail? How did that cause the tilting of the top of the south tower to not continue its angular momentum, and fall off the side, but instead fall vertically? There is only one way that can happen, the lower part of the structure collapsed independently from underneath it. Anyone who has worked with construction can tell you that if you drop something on something, at an angle, it will not go straight down it will deflect. Like hitting a nail at an angle instead of straight on.

As far as understanding physics explain to me how 15 floors can crush 95 floors? How can a small mass destroy a larger mass. Please explain equal opposite reaction, and momentum conservation laws, in context of your claims, otherwise you are not addressing the physics, at all. Do you understand that mass is what determines the final outcome of any collision, not velocity, or loading?

Understand those laws, and you would know why the collapse could not have happened from gravity.

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious

9. The Pentagon had a missile defense system - NOT TRUE

edit on 12-9-2011 by captainnotsoobvious because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-9-2011 by captainnotsoobvious because: (no reason given)

While the rest of what you are saying is pretty right on, this part is 100% false. On top of the parking garage next to the pentagon is Patriot Missile Defense 2 PAC. It has been there since the 80s.

There is also one on the naval yard and, well all over DC.

Originally posted by Jobeycool
It is lauaghable to even get into the discussion anymore when you see 2 major jet liners crash and blow up and you realize gee the jet fuel ignited and exploded and it burning all over the place.

this happened yes. but how long does jet fuel burn like that? how quick does it evaporate? how can it make molten steel that lasts weeks

this is a big question, and you dont know. you havnt ever researched jet fuel. if you did, you would admit that there was not anywhere near the amount of heat needed. the ignorance is here, but its in you ignoring evidence because it doesnt fit your theory

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Cobaltic1978

 

[quote
]As opposed to that other little cult....you know, the one where you think everyone is out to "get you" and the televsion is telling lies again.

As opposed to the Muslims out to get you?

In that there is no uniform theory I don't know how there can be any evidence. Evidence of what? Controlled Demolition? How? By whom?

Take a look at this thread, educate yourself www.abovetopsecret.com...

What makes this thread obsolete is ten years and this isn't even a topic for discussion beyond these internet forums.

I think we all know that the MSM are required to stay on script.

Well then call the media and show them you wonderful discovery.

Show me a video of a plane going into the pentagon, that really would be a start.

reply to post by Venomilk

....how can it make molten steel that lasts weeks....

Please show any proof, reference, or link that would indicate that there was molten steel weeks later. Never mind, there isn't any. Workers and responders reported red hot spots in the huge pile of burning rubble for weeks. If you can't figure out how a huge pile of rubble containings hundreds of thousands of tons of combustible material can keep buring for weeks then you weren't paying attention in science class in grade school.

this is even a "debunking video, so it should stress your point, correct? even that says the fires werent hot enough. they had to say it was aluminum, which isnt even the same color.

but the molten steel underneath apparently never happened.
no wonder so many "truthers" call disinfo agent in these threads. its impossible to say it just wasnt there... hundreds of people had to sift through it..this is a load of crap

reply to post by waypastvne


What we are saying is this "Yes we have looked at your evidence. You asked us to look at your evidence, and we did. In fact we looked at your evidence closer then you did. That's why we know you have no evidence"

... no, you are looking at the "lack of evidence" as evidence. If the Government Theory were true -- we'd have LOT's of evidence.

Looking at what is PUSHED OUT as evidence -- we see lot's of inconsistencies and things that make no sense -- like the building falling along a vector of it's greatest strength. Molten Steel. Reports of explosions at the base. Things like that.

Just saying "I looked into it" isn't refuting anything.


The CLAIM made from the OS needs to have evidence -- other than what was gleaned despite their best efforts at obstruction.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Venomilk

 

....how can it make molten steel that lasts weeks....

Please show any proof, reference, or link that would indicate that there was molten steel weeks later. Never mind, there isn't any. Workers and responders reported red hot spots in the huge pile of burning rubble for weeks. If you can't figure out how a huge pile of rubble containings hundreds of thousands of tons of combustible material can keep buring for weeks then you weren't paying attention in science class in grade school.

already posted a compilation of news clips/first responder testimony, you fail

second off, fireproofed steal beams are hardly combustable. even if the fireproofing is sheared off at parts by the plane, its still impossible.

but because you cant use google..
911research.wtc7.net...
tobefree.wordpress.com...
google it....

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious


So you have your opinion and belief on it great, that is your birth given right BUT, no there has NEVER been a sky scraper collapse from a fire and here is a great example of a building that burned from top to bottom, it was on fire so bad they had to let it just burn away

www.msnbc.msn.com...

Have you ever seen a building fall in on it's on foot print with out proper demolition? No because it's never happened until 9/11 and 3 buildings coincidently do on that day which is very suspicious knowing the guy who owned all of those 3 buildings had INS. on it stating that if he lost all 3 buildings he would get 3X the amount then what he paid for those buildings. there is a lot that doesn't add up on the whole story and the FBI/CIA not letting anyone see real detailed footage of what hit the Pentagon?!?!?! there were 100 cameras (give or take) pointed at that thing. This is my belief and I honestly believe we will never hear the truth in our life time just like the Jews didn't of what Hitler did during WWII (Im talking about him staging terrorist attacks to further his conquest)
In 200 years from now America will be known as the most evil and corrupted nation on this planet during our time if the human race is still around and that's a big IF!

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Venomilk

 

....how can it make molten steel that lasts weeks....

Please show any proof, reference, or link that would indicate that there was molten steel weeks later. Never mind, there isn't any. Workers and responders reported red hot spots in the huge pile of burning rubble for weeks. If you can't figure out how a huge pile of rubble containings hundreds of thousands of tons of combustible material can keep buring for weeks then you weren't paying attention in science class in grade school.

Like this Post described TODAY?

Molten metal was seen in the rubble of WTC7 also. Skip to 25:20 to hear several witnesses describe it, or check out thisand this website.

Thermal images LINK also show extremely high temperatures:

>> I'm not SURE of their sources -- but like I've said -- we are NOT ABLE TO PROVE ANYTHING, because the Bush administration gave us no proof to begin with. Just a story that contradicted itself in a few places, a lot of "state secrets", ridicule, and a total lack of transparency. When they finally ALLOWED a 9/11 Investigation, the Committee was ORDERED to only allow testimony or facts on the record that supported the Government Story -- and then the main experts in that story wrote a book covering how it was a total sham.

That's not what I expect from a "real event" that wasn't part of a conspiracy.

reply to post by Venomilk

already posted a compilation of news clips/first responder testimony, you fail

Yeah and there is nothing there that supports a finding of molten steel weeks after the collapse.

second off, fireproofed steal beams are hardly combustable. even if the fireproofing is sheared off at parts by the plane, its still impossile.

Huh? Throw a metal section into a smoldering fire and it will heat up. Period. Fireproofing was sheared off by parts of the plane???????????????? What in the name of God are you talking about?? No one is saying that the fireproofing was sheared off by the plane parts.