U watch -- U consider -- U explain

page: 2
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by Saltarello

so they cant discuss, just smear.


Care to discuss the science in the video?

Cuz the rational see nothing but an appeal to incredulity.


skipping over my comment and trying to bury it with this drivel the best you got? You are overpaid.

Oh you mean the rational like Popular Mechanics senior editor who gave this interview?


Google Video Link



oh wait, perhaps you like to get into the physics of the speed of sound taking 9+ seconds to reach Hoboken NJ from the WTC?

Here, listen to the explosions...


Google Video Link




posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by hdutton

NIST told us Building seven collapsed because of "office fires". Well, so much for the credibility of NIST.



SO again, incredulity is all that you personally require to convince yourself that 9/11 was an inside jerb.

What about the science? What does the scientific study of the Madrid Tower have to say about it? They give an explanation why it didn't collapse fully.

How does this compare to 7?

The only comparable factor is fire in both buildings.

A similarlity is that both steel framing in them collapsed fully. And since 7 was entirely steel framed, the rational would again draw the conclusion that fire is bad for steel framed buildings.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by anoncoholic
 


IOW, no, you do not care to discuss the science of fire and its effects on steel.

Cool



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
reply to post by anoncoholic
 


IOW, no, you do not care to discuss the science of fire and its effects on steel.

Cool


I do not need to discuss anything with you. You are trying to steer the subject away from the truth which I posted in a couple of videos but instead want to take the conversation elsewhere.. Your silence regarding those videos speaks volumes.

Comes the time we all have our dues to pay... how can you live with yourself knowing you are in collusion with mass murder? How do you sleep at night and not dream of the souls that jumped/fell to their deaths that day... or the ones still inside when it was blown to hell or the ones who were told to remain in their offices the fire in one tower wasn't meriting an evacuation.? Hey, by your own rationalization the effects and science of fire is well known.

As well known as the foreknowledge that this attack was coming... a warning from 1993 written by the head of the task force?... and the guy who wrote the Bin Laden book two weeks after 911

ISBN 1-56171-269-8

##SNIP##

... to thine own self be true



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by anoncoholic
I posted in a couple of videos but instead want to take the conversation elsewhere.. Your silence regarding those videos speaks volumes.



YOUR videos?

Try sticking to the OP dude.

it presents as evidence that other buildings fail from fire, and therefore it is suspicious that 7 fell due to fire.

This is incredlity and nothing more.

You either will not or cannot discuss the science, and whether or not incredulity is a reason to believe that 9/11 was an insibe jobbity jerb, which I find about par for the course.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by hdutton
 


For you to consider:

The WTC had no horizontal steel beams (except core).

It relied on floor trusses and spandrels (flat plate steel).
The actual structure of trusses is not much more than round rebar steel. It cannot conduct heat away like an 'I' beam could. Hense the need for fire insulation.

I'm sure you can understan how flat plate steel can warp with heat.


And why don't we have droves of stuctural steel engineers world wide screaming "cover up"?



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by anoncoholic
I posted in a couple of videos but instead want to take the conversation elsewhere.. Your silence regarding those videos speaks volumes.



YOUR videos?

Try sticking to the OP dude.

it presents as evidence that other buildings fail from fire, and therefore it is suspicious that 7 fell due to fire.

This is incredlity and nothing more.

You either will not or cannot discuss the science, and whether or not incredulity is a reason to believe that 9/11 was an insibe jobbity jerb, which I find about par for the course.


I am not talking to OP I am talking to you. Your silence on the videos I posted still speak volumes. Your condescending tone also says a lot about the strength of your argument.

You are hell bound, nothing anyone says will change that.. You see what you are told to see and never watch anything that might compromise your ability to lie.

some of us have been looking at this and speaking out since 911 so don't think my info is limited to a couple of videos... your condescending attitude however isn't unexpected.. it is what is par for the course. Want me to predict what you will be told to do when too much damning info becomes evident in this thread?

Here, explain why this particular article which was 4 years later still has remains being found yet all the evidence of the crime was removed in haste contrary to any laws of criminal investigation.

www.cbsnews.com...

which tends to refute the senior editor from popular Mechanics and their Debunking 911 myths hatchet job



There are many stories and even from 2010 of bone fragments still being discovered... oh wait, that was a leftover from the dinosaurs right?

You are so vile and evil in my eyes I really want you to have nightmares about this evidence because I have plenty of info about that day you are told not to consider.

Lets start with the MSM

www.archive.org...#/



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by hdutton
reply to post by hooper
 


Please to define the differences in steel frame building and steel frame building .


I really need your help, I am getting confused.
edit on 4-10-2011 by hdutton because: (no reason given)


May I suggest, in terms of help, four or more years at an accredited university and a major in civil engineering with an emphasis on structural engineering.

All you did was trade one meaningless label for another meaningless label.

Different building, different circumstances, different results. This is really quite basic.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by hdutton
 


For you to consider:

The WTC had no horizontal steel beams (except core).

It relied on floor trusses and spandrels (flat plate steel).
The actual structure of trusses is not much more than round rebar steel. It cannot conduct heat away like an 'I' beam could. Hense the need for fire insulation.

I'm sure you can understan how flat plate steel can warp with heat.


And why don't we have droves of stuctural steel engineers world wide screaming "cover up"?


oh maybe because they are afraid? Maybe they have mouths to feed and a family to protect? Maybe they are as hedonistic as the majority of Americans and just couldn't give a flip until it personally affects them?

oh wait a minute, people around the world are speaking out aren't they? Maybe when there is a safety in numbers aspect from the people themselves then the others would come forward?

Are you a structural engineer? What gives you the brainpower to even question a single one of them?

edit on 4-10-2011 by anoncoholic because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by anoncoholic

I am not talking to OP I am talking to you.


You're neither talking to the OP, nor about the OP.

Instead, another credulity based rant bout something is evidence enough for you to convince you that yet another incredulity based video, aiming to connvince their incredulity is valid, is good evidence...




posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by anoncoholic

I am not talking to OP I am talking to you.


You're neither talking to the OP, nor about the OP.

Instead, another credulity based rant bout something is evidence enough for you to convince you that yet another incredulity based video, aiming to connvince their incredulity is valid, is good evidence...



looking at your signature it is obvious you made a career out of your mouth.

The thing is, the millions of subsequent dead will all be demanding you pay for your behavior



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 02:26 PM
link   
I think there is yet to come out even more revealing footage than this cockpit recording but who can say when the whole truth will be revealed to us....probably when the next administration finishes its examinations of the past admins war crimes and scams off the populace.
Thatll have to happen soon or not at all.....
youtu.be...



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by hdutton
 


For you to consider:

The WTC had no horizontal steel beams (except core).

It relied on floor trusses and spandrels (flat plate steel).
The actual structure of trusses is not much more than round rebar steel. It cannot conduct heat away like an 'I' beam could. Hense the need for fire insulation.

I'm sure you can understan how flat plate steel can warp with heat.


And why don't we have droves of stuctural steel engineers world wide screaming "cover up"?


It would appear you have not looked at the blueprints for floor trusses or you do not understand that a rebar mat would never be used without trusses as sopport structures.

As for heat transfer. This is the same figures for steel reguardless of it's diminsions or configuration. You would also not use flat plates within a floor except around access areas, which would be very limited.
"IF" the floors had "pancaked" as was reported they were designded to do, what happened to the core columns ?

What ever it was, happened all the way down ! !



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by anoncoholic

oh maybe because they are afraid?



This is just projection of your own failings onto others.

In fact, all truthers are cowards, and they expect to find a similar personality trait in others.

They are bayonetting a scarecrow....

www.monbiot.com...

"Faced with the mountainous challenge of the real issues we must confront, the chickens in the “truth” movement focus instead on a fairytale, knowing that nothing they do or say will count, knowing that because the perpetrators don’t exist, they can’t fight back. They demonstrate their courage by repeatedly bayoneting a scarecrow."



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by anoncoholic

The thing is, the millions of subsequent dead will all be demanding you pay for your behavior



I'm comfortable with you having this opinion, cuz it is an obvious ploy to avoid talking about the fire science that is left out of the OP's video.

And as such, it proves that you have no legs to stand on in a technical discussion.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by stirling
I think there is yet to come out even more revealing footage than this cockpit recording but who can say when the whole truth will be revealed to us....probably when the next administration finishes its examinations of the past admins war crimes and scams off the populace.
Thatll have to happen soon or not at all.....
youtu.be...


don't get your hopes up. You put your faith in man and man will let you down, Faith belongs with God.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You will see that the government is a business and nothing changes the business plan.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
reply to post by anoncoholic
 


IOW, no, you do not care to discuss the science of fire and its effects on steel.

Cool


Well we could discus fire science for sure. It amazes me you think fire can get hot enough in an hour to weaken steel to the point of creating complete failure of the building...


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.


You don't understand the science if you really believe an hour of fire could cause thousands of tons of steel to instantly fail...


It is common to find that investigators assume that an object next to a flame of a certain temperature will also be of that same temperature. This is, of course, untrue. If a flame is exchanging heat with a object which was initially at room temperature, it will take a finite amount of time for that object to rise to a temperature which is 'close' to that of the flame. Exactly how long it will take for it to rise to a certain value is the subject for the study of heat transfer. Heat transfer is usually presented to engineering students over several semesters of university classes, so it should be clear that simple rules-of-thumb would not be expected. Here, we will merely point out that the rate at which target objects heat up is largely governed by their thermal conductivity, density, and size. Small, low-density, low-conductivity objects will heat up much faster than massive, heavy-weight ones.


www.doctorfire.com...

You are nothing but an expert on repeating the claims found at 911myths.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by anoncoholic

oh maybe because they are afraid?



This is just projection of your own failings onto others.

In fact, all truthers are cowards, and they expect to find a similar personality trait in others.

They are bayonetting a scarecrow....

www.monbiot.com...

"Faced with the mountainous challenge of the real issues we must confront, the chickens in the “truth” movement focus instead on a fairytale, knowing that nothing they do or say will count, knowing that because the perpetrators don’t exist, they can’t fight back. They demonstrate their courage by repeatedly bayoneting a scarecrow."


You are merely baiting a response to bury the links so here is the links once again...


Google Video Link




Google Video Link


As far as who the chickens are, it is hardly even worthy of addressing. It is you who refuses to join humanity



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


I gather from your statements that you are an exceptionally wise and educated individual.

It is easy to understand how you have come to all the right and proper decisions on this matter.

The way you have address the things within this thread from it's inception has been most excellent.

My only problem I have found is the very clear observation that you just can't believe those lying eyes.

It would seem your vision has become clouded by some unwillingness to rely upon your sense of observation to tell you what is staring you in the face.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 02:38 PM
link   

ENOUGH!!!!!



Members are advised to discuss the topic and not each other.
Further posts dealing with comments of a personal nature, rather then the events on 9/11 will be remove and the poster warned.

Due to member demand, the 9/11 forum is now under close staff scrutiny.

You are responsible for your posts





new topics
top topics
 
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join


ATS Live Reality Remix IS ON-AIR! (there are 21 minutes remaining).
ATS Live Radio Presents - Reality Remix Live SE6 EP6

atslive.com

hi-def

low-def