The video that 9-11, OS movement cant handle and rather pretend it dosnt answer EVERYTHING!

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by Myendica

 

Seems to be an accurate representation of those who think it was the ebil gubermint that did it. Why delete it?

you see.. Thats what im talking about. Ignorant people will equate this ridiculous conjuring to the entire whole of people who oppose the official story. Drop yourself down a peg. I oppose the os. Not because I feel the, how did you say it? "ebil guberment" did it, but because I feel it was half baked investigation. It was ignorant for them to publish "official answers" without doing proper securing of the evidence, and without proper experiments. You are extremely ignorant to assume that those who oppose the OS, are moronic, dillusional beings that they cant talk right, and "ebil gubment" is just you being silly. Grow up.

reply to post by 911files


Are you going to completely ignore building 7? It is the smoking gun to this whole thing.

Look up some videos on youtube on building 7 and see for yourself. WTC 7 is the FIRST skyscraper in the world to go down by fire. By the way, there were barely any fires at all, (as you can see from the video.) you can also see the videos of wtc 5, which was a smoldering inferno, and of course, it did not fall.

But wait, the NIST and gov. said the building fell to a fire. It has to be true. For this happen, every critical core column in that building had to be destroyed at the exact same time, for it to fall at free fall speed.

Really starting to get sick of these shills.

Originally posted by 911files
I really hate misleading threads/videos like this. Who exactly is the "OS movement"? If you are talking about the NIST report, do you really not understand that up against it a silly YouTube video is like a gnat flying around making a nuisance of itself?

I for one (as a layman) have seen nothing that suggests anything happened at the WTC 1 and 2 other than a structural failure resulting from 2 large planes impacting the buildings at high speed. That has nothing to do with me being an "OS" (whatever that is) believer or anything else.

So since every video is bunk then switch over to debunking my signature.

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by onecraftydude

 

No building rated for an airplane attack has EVER collapsed before!

Build rated for airplane attack....?

So who issues the rating ? Underwriter Laboratory?

We have tested this building and rate it for airplane attack

Say a sliding scale..... Rated for Cessna ... 737..... 767 .... 747 ,, Airbus 380

I'd say are little confused

What the designers of WTC did was calculate the force that am aircraft impact, in this case a Boeing 707,
would create Determined lateral forces that such a impact would create was 13 million ft lbs

The side of the WTC could resist 17 million ft lbs - so designers said would not topple over if hit

Failed to consider whole range of other effects - fires created by fuel load, fireproofing would be dislodged by
impact, elevators being disabled so Firefighter could not reach the upper floors, etc.

How in hell do you know the fireproofing dislodged?

Assumptions?

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno
How in hell do you know the fireproofing dislodged?

Assumptions?

The type of fireproofing that was on the steel will crumble in your hand like a powder. It's fairly straightforward that it would dislodge into the air in the event of a collapse.

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno
How in hell do you know the fireproofing dislodged?

Assumptions?

The type of fireproofing that was on the steel will crumble in your hand like a powder. It's fairly straightforward that it would dislodge into the air in the event of a collapse.

Which means it wouldn't hold water in court of law. "Fairly strait forward" means speculation. Get it?

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno

How in hell do you know the fireproofing dislodged?

Assumptions?

Powder from the fireproofing was covering the streets, downwind after the aircraft impact, and before the collapse.

You can also watch it fall in the impact videos. Everything that looks like smoke below the red arrows is fireproofing. How do we know it's fireproofing and not smoke ? Smoke doesn't just fall to the ground and lay there.



It kinda needs to be dislodged in order for it to do that.


Have you calculated the tipping point for your signature yet ?

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno
How in hell do you know the fireproofing dislodged?

Assumptions?

The type of fireproofing that was on the steel will crumble in your hand like a powder. It's fairly straightforward that it would dislodge into the air in the event of a collapse.

Which means it wouldn't hold water in court of law. "Fairly strait forward" means speculation. Get it?

It's better than some on this site, who claim that any number of situations are impossible based on their gut feeling.

Fireproofing being a powder is something that is easily verifiable.

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno
How in hell do you know the fireproofing dislodged?

Assumptions?

The type of fireproofing that was on the steel will crumble in your hand like a powder. It's fairly straightforward that it would dislodge into the air in the event of a collapse.

Which means it wouldn't hold water in court of law. "Fairly strait forward" means speculation. Get it?

It's better than some on this site, who claim that any number of situations are impossible based on their gut feeling.

Fireproofing being a powder is something that is easily verifiable.

If its easily verifiable, where's the verifying?




Thats what I thought

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno

How in hell do you know the fireproofing dislodged?

Assumptions?

Powder from the fireproofing was covering the streets, downwind after the aircraft impact, and before the collapse.

You can also watch it fall in the impact videos. Everything that looks like smoke below the red arrows is fireproofing. How do we know it's fireproofing and not smoke ? Smoke doesn't just fall to the ground and lay there.

It kinda needs to be dislodged in order for it to do that.


Have you calculated the tipping point for your signature yet ?

edit on 24-6-2012 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)

By a picture ,,,you are stating that's powder not smoke???


Assumptions my friend.. Huge difference than fact. Know the definition of "fact"? Take a look at my signature. Try fireproofing that.

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno
If its easily verifiable, where's the verifying?




Thats what I thought

Nice that you assume there is no evidence without even waiting for a response. Do I have to back up everything I say with documentation, while you sit idly by and just reject everything, offering no evidence yourself? It's trollery 101.

But I'll bite, because I know how you guys work, and the quickest way to shut down your crap is to act all polite and give in to your idiotic demands.

Investigators at the Building and Fire Research Laboratory recreated the formula used at the trade center and applied it to mock-ups of the trusses in their laboratories. Dried and in place on the truss bars, the material is friable, even dusty to the touch. It tends to crumble under the slightest pressure.

Got it from this article.
Please do some research yourself instead of assuming that I'm lying.

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno

By a picture ,,,you are stating that's powder not smoke???


Assumptions my friend.. Huge difference than fact. Know the definition of "fact"? Take a look at my signature. Try fireproofing that.

So where do you think the dust on the street, down wind of the impact, and before the collapse, came from ?

Do you know of any smoke that falls to the ground and just lays there ?


Have you calculated the tipping point for your signature yet ?

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno
If its easily verifiable, where's the verifying?




Thats what I thought

Nice that you assume there is no evidence without even waiting for a response. Do I have to back up everything I say with documentation, while you sit idly by and just reject everything, offering no evidence yourself? It's trollery 101.

But I'll bite, because I know how you guys work, and the quickest way to shut down your crap is to act all polite and give in to your idiotic demands.

Investigators at the Building and Fire Research Laboratory recreated the formula used at the trade center and applied it to mock-ups of the trusses in their laboratories. Dried and in place on the truss bars, the material is friable, even dusty to the touch. It tends to crumble under the slightest pressure.

Got it from this article.
Please do some research yourself instead of assuming that I'm lying.

An article before 911 would be nice...lol

Understand something articles,videos,photos and eyewitness accounts means squat. Only logic my friend ,only logic. The article is assuming and every source you provide is to dam convenient. Why don't you use your motivation on debunking my signature. Oh ,, that's right ,,, you can't.


Keep sending articles, I'm making a collage of disinformation.

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno
An article before 911 would be nice...lol

Understand something articles,videos,photos and eyewitness accounts means squat. Only logic my friend ,only logic. The article is assuming and every source you provide is to dam convenient. Why don't you use your motivation on debunking my signature. Oh ,, that's right ,,, you can't.


Keep sending articles, I'm making a collage of disinformation.

No. I'm not going to answer you anymore if you refuse everything. It's pointless to even respond, so I'll ignore you from here-on-out.

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno
An article before 911 would be nice...lol

Understand something articles,videos,photos and eyewitness accounts means squat. Only logic my friend ,only logic. The article is assuming and every source you provide is to dam convenient. Why don't you use your motivation on debunking my signature. Oh ,, that's right ,,, you can't.


Keep sending articles, I'm making a collage of disinformation.

No. I'm not going to answer you anymore if you refuse everything. It's pointless to even respond, so I'll ignore you from here-on-out.

Did you read the last paragraph of your article?

Care to post those additional calculations and inspections?

All you OSers do is speculate based on blind faith from internet sources.


Did you get your google diploma yet?

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno
An article before 911 would be nice...lol

Understand something articles,videos,photos and eyewitness accounts means squat. Only logic my friend ,only logic. The article is assuming and every source you provide is to dam convenient. Why don't you use your motivation on debunking my signature. Oh ,, that's right ,,, you can't.


Keep sending articles, I'm making a collage of disinformation.

No. I'm not going to answer you anymore if you refuse everything. It's pointless to even respond, so I'll ignore you from here-on-out.

I only refuse speculation. The same as a lawyer,judge, doctor,,,etc,,, get it ?

You're delusional

Its not pointless to respond to me, its pointless to debunk my signature.


Exposed

reply to post by GiodanoBruno


The fireproofing material was very friable - would often peel off the steel work

Every spring the Port Authority would reapply the fireproofing that had peeled off when the building flexed
during the winter storms

Was found that the motion of the air in the duct works created enough vibration to dislodge the fireproofing in
the area

Check out account by George Sleigh, an engineer with American Bureau of Shipping, his office was on the
91st floor of North Tower - the highest floor people were able to escape from

His office was destoyed by the impact - Sleigh was able to look up and seee the steelwork supporting the
floor above - he noticed that the fireproofing was missing off the steel

Account of problems with fireproofing are in book "CITY IN THE SKY: The Rise and Fall of the World Trade
Center" by Eric Lipton/Jaime Glanz from the New York Times

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by GiodanoBruno

 

The fireproofing material was very friable - would often peel off the steel work

Every spring the Port Authority would reapply the fireproofing that had peeled off when the building flexed
during the winter storms

Was found that the motion of the air in the duct works created enough vibration to dislodge the fireproofing in
the area

Check out account by George Sleigh, an engineer with American Bureau of Shipping, his office was on the
91st floor of North Tower - the highest floor people were able to escape from

His office was destoyed by the impact - Sleigh was able to look up and seee the steelwork supporting the
floor above - he noticed that the fireproofing was missing off the steel

Account of problems with fireproofing are in book "CITY IN THE SKY: The Rise and Fall of the World Trade
Center" by Eric Lipton/Jaime Glanz from the New York Times

Would often" = speculating

How was it "found"? In the rubble?

Why didn't poor George notify code enforcement before 911?

So let me get this strait , after the impact he "noticed" the dislodge fireproofing?



Do you have anymore. This is really helpful.

Originally posted by Kang69
reply to post by 911files

 

Are you going to completely ignore building 7? It is the smoking gun to this whole thing.

Look up some videos on youtube on building 7 and see for yourself. WTC 7 is the FIRST skyscraper in the world to go down by fire. By the way, there were barely any fires at all, (as you can see from the video.) you can also see the videos of wtc 5, which was a smoldering inferno, and of course, it did not fall.

But wait, the NIST and gov. said the building fell to a fire. It has to be true. For this happen, every critical core column in that building had to be destroyed at the exact same time, for it to fall at free fall speed.

Really starting to get sick of these shills.

Building 7 had nothing to do with the aircraft that brought down the 2 towers. It is certainly no smoking gun.
That building was rigged when it was built to be destroyed on command lest we had a war in which it would be compromized or any other factor that would threaten the security of what it held. Once it was evacuated.... boom.
It is the only senario that makes sense.

Feel free to ignore this post. I'm one of the head in the sand and whatever else you called them, people who don't really care.

I just stumbled into this and my reaction so far is that the following points have been made:
"The government didn't do a completely satisfactory and thorough investigation." So, when do they ever do anything in a completely satisfactory and thorough manner?

"Everybody should care because it shows the Jews pushed the US into to start a war by blaming some Middle Eastern country. Therefore, you should be mad at the Jews and not the Iraqis." Sorry, that war had been coming for a long time, ask Clinton. Besides, do you want to invade Israel?

"What about the dead, don't you care about their memory?" Not particularly. I'd rather that they weren't dead, but what am I supposed to do about their memory?

"What about exposing the CIA?" Exposing them as what, a large, powerful, secretive organization that doesn't always follow the law?

"What about locking Bush up for planning this?" It's been eleven years and a case hasn't even been opened? What do you expect to do now? I know there's no Statute of Limitations on murder, but unless a paper turns up confessing his role, with his DNA on it, do you think there will be a conviction? Or even a trial?

If you can show me why I should care, beyond the abstract search for knowledge, I might get interested enough in 9/11 to join you in a forum discussing it. Right now, though . . . .