Thread in Support of the Official Story

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 07:02 AM
link   
reply to post by galdur
 


Thanks for bringing that up, when there are more questions than there are answers there is definitely something up......Nice work bro




posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 07:11 AM
link   
Wow. Four pages now. I posted a link to the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report and only one (1) question relative to that report.

A lot of political rhetoric, plenty of accusations about motive but only one actual observation about the report.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 07:16 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


So, any thoughts about the theory of the faith-based 9/11 commission that super-heated jet fuel melted the steel and brought down the towers?



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 07:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Wow. Four pages now.


Yeah.... Wow indeed, 4 pages and 2 Flags.... It was 3 Flags, it seems people are waking up in real-time...

How does that make you feel?



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 07:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by galdur
reply to post by hooper
 


So, any thoughts about the theory of the faith-based 9/11 commission that super-heated jet fuel melted the steel and brought down the towers?


sure, why not.

recreate the whole friggin day and we'll see, won't we?

i watched it all.


all your little lab experiments don't mean squat.

do it again!!!!! and we will see, one way or another.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 07:23 AM
link   
reply to post by de1111codEiT
 


ya, i un-flagged.

sorry. hate 911 threads.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 07:28 AM
link   
reply to post by fooks
 


I don´t think it´s possible for a kerosene fire to reach 2850F and melt steel. But then I´m not a faith-based 9/11 Liar, just a 9/11 Truther who pays attention to elementary physics.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 07:41 AM
link   
reply to post by galdur
 


Temperatures in a modern jet engine can reach 3,000 degrees Farenheit. What were you saying about your belief in Physics?

Of course, then we are back to the statement...the steel did not have to melt, to fail
edit on 15-9-2011 by vipertech0596 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 07:45 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by galdur
reply to post by hooper
 


So, any thoughts about the theory of the faith-based 9/11 commission that super-heated jet fuel melted the steel and brought down the towers?


The OP was referenced into the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report. Any thoughts on that subject?



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper

Originally posted by galdur
reply to post by hooper
 


So, any thoughts about the theory of the faith-based 9/11 commission that super-heated jet fuel melted the steel and brought down the towers?


The OP was referenced into the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report. Any thoughts on that subject?



These things are supposed to occur in a certain order.

1. Person A asks Person B a question. 2. Person B replies. 3. Person B asks Person A a question.

Just trying to be helpful.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 08:04 AM
link   
But as for the Pentagon, the official fable claims that a Boeing airliner flew horizontally into the building at 530 mph - feet off the ground which is impossible nonsense just like their super-heated and steel-melting jet fuel.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
That's it? Thats the basis for the conspiracy? That anyone who says something you don't like is lying? Wow.


That is the problem with most of these people.

They are right and anything else that is stated is always wrong or a lie.

I am begining to think that there may be a mental defect involved.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by galdur
But as for the Pentagon, the official fable claims that a Boeing airliner flew horizontally into the building at 530 mph - feet off the ground which is impossible nonsense just like their super-heated and steel-melting jet fuel.


Are you a licensed pilot?

Just a question.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by galdur
reply to post by fooks
 


I don´t think it´s possible for a kerosene fire to reach 2850F and melt steel. But then I´m not a faith-based 9/11 Liar, just a 9/11 Truther who pays attention to elementary physics.


kerosene?

lol!!

ya, and a couple chinese lanterns and scented candles.

like i said, recreate a 7whatever7 slamming into a 100+ story building and we will will see what happens.

ok? make sure it is exactly the same.

that is science. not bs.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 08:08 AM
link   
reply to post by galdur
 


Lets see.....someone said that they had a hard time thinking that kerosene could reach 2850 degrees Farenheit. I pointed out that jet fuel, air, and a spark can cause a fire that reaches 3000 degrees Farenheit. I also pointed out that the steel at the WTC did not have to melt, just soften, which it starts to do over a thousand degrees below its melting point.




and IM the retard....hmmmm.......must be in Bizarro world where everything means the opposite........



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 08:10 AM
link   
reply to post by galdur
 



These things are supposed to occur in a certain order.
1. Person A asks Person B a question. 2. Person B replies. 3. Person B asks Person A a question.
Just trying to be helpful.

Yes, and I posted the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report and asked for comments. And you responded by quoting Lee Hamilton talking about something completely different.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 08:10 AM
link   
reply to post by galdur
 


duplicate post
edit on 15-9-2011 by hooper because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 08:11 AM
link   
reply to post by fooks
 


Steel is steel and kerosene is kerosene. If a kerosene fire can melt steel there should be reports somewhere about this. I can´t find any. Can you? Can anybody here?



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by galdur
But as for the Pentagon, the official fable claims that a Boeing airliner flew horizontally into the building at 530 mph - feet off the ground which is impossible nonsense just like their super-heated and steel-melting jet fuel.


That's it? A unilateral declaration that its impossible? OK. Can't argue with that. Literally.






top topics



 
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join