I Was A Deluded 9/11 Truther

reply to post by gladtobehere


What a crock

How many planes flew into it and exploded ?
If your going to compare apples to apples at least have two - apples

reply to post by gladtobehere


Well done sir. Whether you believe the government's story or the truth, the examples you brought to the table are slam dunks and self-evident.

Originally posted by SemperGumby
reply to post by gladtobehere

 

What a crock

How many planes flew into it and exploded ?
If your going to compare apples to apples at least have two - apples

So, you are saying that WTC#7 WAS hit by a plane?

CJ

Originally posted by DaemusAlphae
reply to post by SteveR

 

Yeahhh.....have fun living in your fantasy world where the government loves you and would put its citizens lives over the chance to make billions of dollars from the military-industrial complex from going to war.

You just have fun with that.

Head In The Sand Will Get Your Butt Blown Away.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by galdur

 

Don't take our word on that: the engineers and the architects have studied this thing in extraordinary detail, and they can tell you precisely what caused the collapse of those buildings.

Good suggestion Mr. Hamilton! Maybe we should all go over to the NIST site and see what they have to say!

I think it would be more prudent to ask someone that is not connected or controlled by the same people accused of perpetrating this crime in the first place.

Originally posted by SemperGumby
reply to post by gladtobehere

 

What a crock

How many planes flew into it and exploded ?
If your going to compare apples to apples at least have two - apples

Ah but NIST said it was the fires that caused the collapse, not the planes hitting them.

Jordan for 3....it's good!

"When we act, we create our own reality"

“The aide said that guys like me were ‘in what we call the reality-based community,' which he defined as people who ‘believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.’ I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ‘That's not the way the world really works anymore… We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality.'"

Ron Suskind, Faith, Certainty and the Presidency of George W. Bush, New York Times, October 17, 2004

www.nytimes.com...

Very interesting reading indeed.

Originally posted by galdur
reply to post by ColoradoJens

 

Yes, and the rest of the fuel burns up in virtually seconds, leaving a regular office fire which certainly isn´t capable of melting steel.

In the interview Mr. Hamilton describes how everything that was put in the report had to be approved by all commission members. This explains why it´s such a contradictory and impossible hodge-podge of silly bunk that fewer and fewer people take seriously. It doesn´t age well at all.

Why the obsession of having to melt steel? All you have to do is heat up the steel until it loses it integrity ie it weakens. This can occur at a far lower temperature.

reply to post by malcr


I´m just quoting the official story - which you evidently believe. Maybe you should catch up on what you think you believe by reading that official story.

reply to post by malcr


Yesterday I received Dr. Judy Wood' book "Where Did The Towers Go".

As first glance it appears to be a literary engineering masterpiece.

After the first 30 pages, there is no doubt, that someone on this planet has a weapon of unspeakable power, and they used it on 9/11.

Buy the book and the truth will set you free.

Originally posted by malcr

Why the obsession of having to melt steel? All you have to do is heat up the steel until it loses it integrity ie it weakens. This can occur at a far lower temperature.

Do you ever take into account all the steel that didn't get heated up from the fire, which would have been overwhelmingly the majority?

Besides an hours worth of hydrocarbon fires is not going to heat up steel enough for it to fail...

Of interest is the maximum value which is fairly regularly found. This value turns out to be around 1200°C, although a typical post-flashover room fire will more commonly be 900~1000°C. The time-temperature curve for the standard fire endurance test, ASTM E 119 [13] goes up to 1260°C, but this is reached only in 8 hr. In actual fact, no jurisdiction demands fire endurance periods for over 4 hr, at which point the curve only reaches 1093°C.

www.doctorfire.com...

The jet fuel would only have made everything burn faster, it would not increase the temperature of the fire as jet fuel has a relatively low burn temperature.

Even IF it did the failure would not be sudden, steel simply does not act like that. There would be obvious local failures and collapses first, and no not the 'failed truss hypothesis' that has no evidence and can be debunked easily with common sense.

This thread should be closed for antagonizing.

I notice the "truther" threads get closed right away when people start insulting and causing trouble with the intent to get the thread closed.But this thread is made to purposefully antagonize the truthers.

If office fires are enough to reduce steel-framed buildings to dust into their footprints then why on earth aren´t demolition companies saving millions by setting fires to such buildings? Why are they still wasting time and money on all this explosives stuff? I mean, these are for-profit businesses, right?

reply to post by galdur


Good point - and it's not like it takes that long to "burn down" skyscrapers...heck, WTC went down in just a few hours...You should sell your idea to demo companies...

CJ

Originally posted by galdur
If office fires are enough to reduce steel-framed buildings to dust into their footprints then why on earth aren´t demolition companies saving millions by setting fires to such buildings? Why are they still wasting time and money on all this explosives stuff? I mean, these are for-profit businesses, right?

The steel wasn't "reduced to dust" and they most certainly did NOT "fall into their footprints". When the towers fell it threw wreckage in almost every direction. There was a gigantic crater in the roof of WTC 5, the Deutschbank building across the street had a HUGE gash it it, the customs building was completely crushed, the hotel right next to the buildings wound up looking like a sandwich with a huge bite taken out of it, and a church several blocks away had an I-beam stuck in its dome. Not to mention, it was the collapse of the north tower that destroyed WTC & to begin with.

So the question seems to be: which one of those damned fool web ites is you get the outrageous claim that "the steel was reduced to dust" and "the towers fell in their footprint"? The only way anyone can say they fell in their own footprint is if you cosider the footprint to be the entire WTC complex.

Originally posted by ColoradoJens
reply to post by galdur

 

Good point - and it's not like it takes that long to "burn down" skyscrapers...heck, WTC went down in just a few hours...You should sell your idea to demo companies...

CJ

The first tower to collapse, WTC2, was on fire for LESS than an hour, not a few hours.

The damage and fires were not consistent between the two towers, yet the result of the collapses were identical.

Just wanted to point that out, as it is an important point to remember.

reply to post by phishyblankwaters


Wow, bravo. Not much more I can add to that one.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


I didn´t say that the steel was reduced to dust.

Again, why don´t these demolition companies just save millions by setting fires to steel-framed high-rise buildings and then watch them collapse? Why are they still using explosives? Is it because nobody in their right mind really believes that fire can cause the collapse of steel-framed high-rise buildings? Especially since it never has happened in the history of such buildings, except supposedly on 9/11.

Originally posted by galdur
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

Yet, here you sit and only a small fringe minority here supports your opinions by now, see recent survey.

The more you have told people to "wake up" the less support your viewpoints get. There must be something about the message of this fringe minority that just doesn´t fly with the broad public

You can't be serious. Here in Connecticut there was a 9/11 protest on the 10th anniversary of the attack, and only THREE people showed up. THREE! The reason is obvious- it's one thing to accuse other people of being "secret gov't disinformation agents" in an anonymous cospiracy forum, but it's another thing entirely to accuse people of being "secret gov't disinformation agents" to their face.

Nobody outside these private little internet cliques is taking your seriously, guy.