- #36
Esperanto
- 73
- 0
http://www.wanttoknow.info/020812ap
here is an AP article that says there was 67 scrambles between June 2000-Sept 2001.
here is an AP article that says there was 67 scrambles between June 2000-Sept 2001.
So, you're saying that you'd set up a command center in a buring building? Personally, I wouldn't, but ok... In any case, that isn't really evidence of anything.Esperanto said:The building seven was burning for seven hours before it collapse at 5:30 p.m. People were evacuated an hour or two before. That's how mild the fires were.
Thank you. As you can see, it was sloppilly written. What it says is:here is an AP article that says there was 67 scrambles between June 2000-Sept 2001.
Since the comparisons don't match up, there are two possible assumptions: either she's comparing scrambles in 2000 to scrambles and diverts in 2001-2, or she meant scrambles or diverts for the second one. Since the first option would mean a discontinuity in the comparison, rendering it meaningless, she must have meant scrambles or diverts for the second one as well.From Sept. 11 to June, NORAD scrambled jets or diverted combat air patrols 462 times, almost seven times as often as the 67 scrambles from September 2000 to June 2001, Martin said.
russ_watters said:I used the term "word salad" in the previous thread, and I'll use it again. Lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of nothing there, Sub_Zero. If you want a discussion, we'll take these things one at a time: pick your one strongest point and argue it.
How about the the-buildings-fell-at-freefall-speeds point...? That's my personal favorite...
Entropy said:Okay, I'll take the first crack at this. Alright, let's say the government was responsible for the attacks. Then why did they bother putting explosives in the towers and crashing a plane into it? Even if a plane crash wasn't capable of destroying the towers, why have a plane hit it AND put bombs in it? Wouldn't a plane crashing into a building prompt just as much vigor against terrorism even if it didn't bring the entire building down?
Sorry, I'm not going to write a book in response to your flood. Pick your one strongest/favorite argument and explain it in your own words.Sub-Zer0 said:Well let's do it, I've layed out the case, attack it.
Pengwuino said:Although it can be said that having the 2 largest towers actually collapsing could be a better motivator for war in the publics mind... why in gods name would they intentionally collapse the other WTC buildings as well? If there was a conspiracy, it would have made no sense to bring down the other smaller towers as well for many reasons. 1) No one will notice htem compared to the 2 largest tower to add to the "effect". 2) Why wait 8 hours for the rest? Thats 8 whole hours that more and more cameras and people and experts can arrive on the scene to see signs of a controlled demolition on the smaller tower (7 i believe) if it did occur.
Pengwuino said:No its not, its total lies or ignorance. Everything he said about the engineering aspects were 100% debunked BS. He shows 0 understanding of engineering and how the military works... or hell, how the entire government works. He says the CIA is suppose to be on watch for stock trades (I wonder what the SEC does all day)
russ_watters said:I don't see an argument anywhere in that post, Rude Boi MC - do you have one or is namecalling all there is? If I don't know what I'm talking about, show us why you think that. And for my part, I'll assume that you're serious about all this. :uhh: No, first you examine the victim and the scene to determine if a crime even took place. This is a big part of the problem with conspiracy theory - you start with an assumption about the crime and jump straight to the suspects. But oops... the crime didn't happen the way you wanted it to, so your suspects are, well, suspect. So again, make an argument as to why you think the WTC was felled by explosives. And by "why", I don't mean the motive, I mean what evidence is there that it was felled by explosives. Again, if I can make a suggestion, my favorite bit of evidence is the speed at which it collapsed. Would you like to discuss that piece of evidence? If so, lay out a case for what that piece of evidence shows.
Esperanto, one of the problems with conspiracy theory sites is they copy and paste each other's material. As a result, there really isn't any confirmation, just regurgitation. For example, that August 9, 2002 news release from the FAA is probably talking about intercepts from September of 2001 to June of 2002, but since none of the conspiracy theory sites have/link a copy of the news release, we can't check to be sure. Heck, its even possible it was made up by one of the conspiracy theory sites and the others just keep regurgitating it because they want to believe it.
Regarding Payne Stewart's plane, the http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/2000/AAB0001.htm is available online, so there is no need for 3rd party accounts. A careful read shows it was, indeed, an hour and 19 minutes, not just 19 minutes for the intercept. A careless conspiracy theorist missed the fact that the plane moved from the eastern to the central time zone.
Also, the intercepting planes were not part of a combat unit, they were part of a flight-test unit. So it took an hour and 19 minutes for the intercept, and then only from unarmed planes because they were the closest at the time (already airborne on a training/test flight). Makes the difficulty of an armed intercept on 9/11 a lot clearer, doesn't it? Um, you find it curious that Guiliani didn't set up headquarters in a burning building? :rofl: And he was right: the buildings did withstand the impact!
Sub-Zer0 said:First of all it’s important to say that fire has never once brought a steel structure down. Out of 100 uncontrolled fires in the last 50 years NEVER has fire collapsed a steel building, only earthquakes and explosives have been able to flatten these modern structures.
You see, building seven DECENTEGRATED INTO RUBBLE in a vertical symmetrical fashion in 6.5 seconds. If building seven was taken down by an aircraft impact (even though it was not) it would have thrown back horizontally, transferring the energy away from the airplane impacts. And if it was fire, eventhough the flames would have had to have burnt exponentically hotter for a much longer time, we would have seen the structure reduced into liquid metal, and the streets would be a river of flame. But this building simply fell straight to the ground and crumbled.
I need to explain something about controlled demolition. First of all, when buildings are demolished the explosives are placed in the central column, so the structure falls inwards and does not damage other surrounding buildings. So they only way the building can fall like this or fall period is through the use of explosives.
“Each of the following videos shows the entire visible portion of the building falling with a vertical precision otherwise seen only in controlled demolition. Moreover, they show that the collapse took only about 6.5 seconds from start to finish. That rate of fall is within a second of the time it would take an object to fall from the building's roof with no air resistance”
NOW, it's extremely important to mention that rigging buildins with explosives is a tiresom and very time consuming process, and to properly plant explosives in amathematicaly harmonious fasion to create a smooth symetrical drop. Actually it would take weeks to prepare for the demolition. So not only does Larry Silverstine, the owner of the complex admit to blowing up building seven, But building seven COULD NOT have been demolished on such short notice. Weeks of demolitions planning does not jive well with Osama's surprise attack. In fact it's impossible.
1. Each collapse occurred at virtually free fall speed;
2. Each building collapsed straight down, for the most part onto its own footprint;
3. Virtually all the concrete was turned into very fine dust;
4. In the case of the Twin Towers, the dust was blown out horizontally for 200 feet or more;
5. The collapses were total, leaving no steel columns sticking up hundreds of feet into the air;
6. Videos of the collapses reveal "demolition waves", meaning "confluent rows of small explosions";
7. Most of the steel beams and columns came down in sections that were no more than 30 feet long;
8. According to many witnesses, explosions occurred within the buildings;
9. Each collapse was associated with detectable seismic vibrations (suggestive of underground explosions);
10.Each collapse produced molten steel (which would be produced by explosives), resulting in "hot spots" that remained for months.?
Please post a list of all buildings that had a large airliner full of fuel crash into them and that did not collapse so we can compare that data to the WTC airline crashes.Sub-Zer0 said:First of all it’s important to say that fire has never once brought a steel structure down. Out of 100 uncontrolled fires in the last 50 years NEVER has fire collapsed a steel building, only earthquakes and explosives have been able to flatten these modern structures.
Quote:
here is an AP article that says there was 67 scrambles between June 2000-Sept 2001.
Thank you. As you can see, it was sloppilly written. What it says is:
Quote:
From Sept. 11 to June, NORAD scrambled jets or diverted combat air patrols 462 times, almost seven times as often as the 67 scrambles from September 2000 to June 2001, Martin said.
Since the comparisons don't match up, there are two possible assumptions: either she's comparing scrambles in 2000 to scrambles and diverts in 2001-2, or she meant scrambles or diverts for the second one. Since the first option would mean a discontinuity in the comparison, rendering it meaningless, she must have meant scrambles or diverts for the second one as well.
In fact, the article you quoted is the original - she updated the article the next day and it has 70 more words in it. Its quite possible that she clarified it (though I'm not willing to buy it to find out).
In fact, the entire point of the article is that they weren't capable of adequately dealing with 9/11, and plenty of evidence is given to back that up. Its ironic that these conspiracy theory sites are paraphrasing an article that argues the opposite of what they want to believe.
brewnog said:You're like a stuck record. Do you mind if I reduce the size of your sensationalist headlines when I quote you, especially since you've posted much of it twice, rather than responding to requests to pick a single point for discussion? Cheers.
brewnog said:So what? Just because it's never happened before doesn't mean that it's impossible. How many other buildings have you seen which were hit with airliners full of aviation fuel, which collapsed differently? No? Oh well.
brewnog said:Nonsense. Metal does not have to be reduced to liquid for it to lose its strength. Why do you think we heat metal until it's red hot before forming it? Molten metal has absolutely nothing to do with the failure of structural steel. Under heat, a building will collapse long before the steel has had a chance to even think about melting.[/i]
brewnog said:This is incredibly poor logic. That's like saying "My cow is brown. Therefore, if something is brown, it is a cow". Not only do you need to read up on some basic materials science and structural engineering, some logic would help too.[/i]
brewnog said:Right. One of the questions you could ask yourself here is "how come nobody noticed these buildings being prepared for controlled demolition?"..[/i]
brewnog said:My answer to all of those is "so what?".
So I would suggest that you take a deep breath, sit back and consider that you’ve been lied to by the Bush Administration and mass media
What's more likely, a shadowy group with enormous gains to profit from attacks blowing up the buildings for reasons we don't quite undersand, or the laws of physics being ignored, or impossible time constraints in which it takes to wire buildings w/ explosives being achieved?
You see, building seven DECENTEGRATED INTO RUBBLE in a vertical symmetrical fashion in 6.5 seconds.
And if it was fire, eventhough the flames would have had to have burnt exponentically hotter for a much longer time, we would have seen the structure reduced into liquid metal, and the streets would be a river of flame. But this building simply fell straight to the ground and crumbled.
The maximum tempeture a hydrocarbon fire can reach is 825 deg C (1,520 deg F), which is not enough to make the steel forgible or bend, and the fire fighters inside the building already have indicicated that the fires were quite sporadic, and not spread through the entire building.
Sub-Zer0 said:Ok, I didn't say it was impossible for fire to bring down a building, however steel does not melt until it reaches 3000 degress of temperature, Steel does not weaken or beomce able till be molded until 2000 degrees.
How can an hellfire inferno which the governments story depends on existing to legitmize their claims, how can a hellfire such as that be described as "two isolated pockets of fire."
The answer is, it can't be, this fireman is telling his team that these fires are almost out, and he's calling for more firemen to be brought up the stairs to put out the "two isolated pockets of fire", interestingly he's not concerend with the strucutral integrity of this building at all.
The maximum tempeture a hydrocarbon fire can reach is 825 deg C (1,520 deg F), which is not enough to make the steel forgible or bend, and the fire fighters inside the building already have indicicated that the fires were quite sporadic, and not spread through the entire building.
This link is for blade steel, and is completely unrelated.Here's the links to the engineering information, on steel melting tempetures which I presented.
http://ajh-knives.com/metals.html
This is a link describing how an Oxy-acetylane torch works. Completely unrelated.http://topsoil.nserl.purdue.edu/nserlweb/safetywebsite/SOPs/Oxy-Acetylene%20Torch.html
This is another "no building has collapsed from fire, therefore the WTC was blown up" conspiracy site.
Not only that but the Jet Fuel would have all burnt up in any time span anywhere from 30 secconds to two minutes.
Not only that, there was a MUCH hotter fire in the WTC in 1975, which did nothing to damage the structure of the building.
Not only that, but the WTC project manager, an engineer said that the towers were designed withstand having several fully loaded boeing 707's crash
into it.
Let's assume you still buy the fire explanation, well look at the Windsor building in Madrid Spain.
Monday, 14 February, 2005: Hotel Windsor Fire In Madrid Burns far more fiercely far longer (24 hours) than building 7 or the Towers and does Not Collapse.
Well the orignal press reports ALL claimed that MELTING STEEL had cause the towers to collapse which had independent invesitagtors taking another look. Since all of our refutation of the original information, they have changed there story to say the steel WEAKENED rather than MELTED, that's an interesting fact in and of it self, however I think I've prooved my point about the WTC steel.
LOL, perhaps you need to reread the post, THIS IS NOT LOGIC, or reasoning, this my friend is fact, simple fact about the inner workings of how controlled demolition is pulled off. I think you need to study how buildings are blown up, and perhaps even study up on what the defintion of the word "logic" is, but I don't believe on attacking the messanger as you do, so I will move on to this. But that, was a very pathetic point, it didn't even make sense.
Man, you're quite venomous indeed, ludicrous arguments? Not nearly as ludicris as the points you seem to think are so much more important, Forsenic information always trumps logic, because we never know what people are thinking but we can almost always count on the laws of physics to remain the same. Let's just take a stab at a few of these.
First of all the symetrical collapse is exactly what controlled demolition does, it's a very neat a mathetmatically calculated process, given the fact that it takes weeks to plan this precise and calculated collapse, what are the chances 19 arabic idiots fly into the building and make the collapse exactly like a controlled demolition.
Not only that but nearly every square inch of the building was pulverized into dust particles, litterall turned into nothing but debrist, this wasan't done from the plane impact because the towers still stood an hour after the boeing slammed into the tower, Fire would not desentegrate metal IT WOULD MELT IT, and the fires would have had to be spread evenly throughout the enitre support structures of the building to weaken it in this way, however that aside, it would not have pulverized the concerete explain this. or show me any time when fire has pulverized concerete. So what about this ? haha I thought not.
Steel does not weaken or beomce able till be molded until 2000 degrees.
Sub-Zer0 said:Just because someone can deunk something it does not mean it was not true, it just means you believed what they told you.
Data and be distored and manipulated, how much science do you think is behinde ADD? Don't switch off the thinking process. Aside from the towers, demolition, and engineering information there have been at least 200 aritcles written by separate journalists that massively conflict w/ the offical line we have been fed. Do you discount all of that as well?
outsider said:this is almost as bad as the right wing KKK stuff...
How fast was it suppost to fall? Do the math. Things accelerate in Earth's gravity at 9.8 m/s^2. Are you saying that the government was also involved in changing the Earth's gravity so the towers would fall faster?
WRONG. Steel (like the steel in the WTC) loses 90% of it's strength at 1000F. 1000F isn't very hot for fire, especially fire from jet fuel. Think I can get my fireplace hotter than that.
Perhaps the one fireman who saw these two pockets of fire wasn't actually at the area where there was a burning airliner present? I'm sorry, I fail to see how an airliner slamming into a building at (what, 300kts? 400kts?) only produces two isolated pockets of fire. Just because the chap saw these fires does not mean that they were the only fires present in the entire building.
Can I please have links to the source you've got which tells you that temperatures of 825 Celsius will not affect the yield, or ultimate tensile strengths of whatever kind of steel you think these buildings were made out of?
Urrm, what?! Assuming this were true, are you naive enough to think that this would still just cause two, isolated fires?
Quote:
Let's assume you still buy the fire explanation, well look at the Windsor building in Madrid Spain.
Monday, 14 February, 2005: Hotel Windsor Fire In Madrid Burns far more fiercely far longer (24 hours) than building 7 or the Towers and does Not Collapse.
Chalk and cheese mate, chalk and cheese.
I rarely pay attention to press reports. I do, however, know two things. The first is that the press will dumb things down so that they sound more exciting, and so that the average Joe will understand them. After all, reports on the yield stress response to temperature of mild steel does not make for front-page reading. The second thing is a big surprise: Steel weakens with temperature! You have proved absolutely nothing, except for your lack of knowledge about the effects of elevated temperatures on structural materials.
I've re-read it. I don't see how saying "controlled demolitions look like this. The WTC collapse looks like this. Therefore, the WTC was a controlled demolition" shows anything other than a complete lack of understanding of logic, without even looking at anything in an engineering context. Sorry if you thought I was making a personal remark though, no offence intended.
I'll accept that controlled demolitions do look similar to the WTC collapse. However, how many buildings have you seen collapse through other means? The weeks of preparation are generally to ensure that the buildings don't collapse on anything else, since that would be a disaster. That doesn't mean it takes weeks to make a building collapse straight down.
Again, under what circumstances have you seen concrete, plasterboard, insulation, plaster, brickwork, whatever being dropped from several hundred feet onto the floor? Why are people surprised that the debris is dust? And no, the fire would not melt most of the steel; it would have failed long before that.
Actually, if I, and others prove that your data is wrong, that means you are wrong because you are now using illogical information.
Ok Sub_Zero. There's a lot here that I don't have time to go through at the moment but I'll be back later. So in response to your claims about the demolition of the building...
I think Brewnog toughed on this but tell me: what other way is the building supposed to collapse. Explain to me where is states in teh laws of physics that a building in such a situation would come down in any other fashion. You mentioned at one point that planes crashing into the building would lend it a sideways momentum that would bring it down horizontally? First off the buildings didn't go down as they were hit by the planes so the momentum of the planes had already been absorbed and disapated long before the building even came down. Secondly perhaps you might want to do a bit of math considering the weight and force applied by the plane hitting the side of the building and the amount of weight that would need to be moved in order to make the building topple horizontally. With out even doing the math I could already tell you it's not going to happen. This just goes to show even more so that there is little other way the building could have collapsed. Try figuring out the amount of force needed to make that much weight and inertia topple in any other fashion for any reason what so ever.
Esperanto said:If the buildings did not fall one or two hours after the crashes, they should not have fallen due to the impact. What he is saying is that the government used explosives so the buildings collapsed with very little resistance other than air resistance.
Esperanto said:And weakened steel caused the first two wtc's to collapse nearly at freefall rate?
Esperanto said:The airplanes blew up really fast consuming most of the fuel. After 10 or 15 seconds at most the fireballs get much smaller.
Esperanto said:Tell me, please, how fire disintegrates steel.
Esperanto said:Picture evidence shows the fires were really weak, people were standing where the planes made holes.
http://italy.indymedia.org/uploads/2005/04/still-alive.jpg
Esperanto said:So the Windsor hotel in Madrid burned entirely and at a much higher temperature than the WTC one and two yet didn't fall and that means nothing to you? It's tempting to make a comment on America's structural engineers if Spain's are so superior.
Esperanto said:Hey, all you have to do is prove fire makes buildings collapse at near freefall levels.
Esperanto said:the buildings caved in. if it's not demolition then it's intelligent, steel pillar seeking and detonating fire.
Esperanto said:http://img23.exs.cx/img23/1848/cnn911poll_update6.jpg
Then maybe it was someone else. Regardless the point remains; What way were the buildings supposed to collapse other than straight down into themselves? If he's not here and you or someone else wants to take up the argument by all means please explain to me what other fashion they should have fallen in? And don't give me any narrow minded bs about nothing being able to take them down besides explosives or an earthquake. I don't care which one of you said it originally, it's bs and I'm not buying it.Esperanto said:He did not say the buildings should have toppled horizontally. OK?
And what speed should it have fallen at? We're talking about a building here not geological erosion or a slab of something melting away. And no one except the conspiracy people and ill informed reports have ever stated that the metal melted.Esperanto said:If the buildings did not fall one or two hours after the crashes, they should not have fallen due to the impact. What he is saying is that the government used explosives so the buildings collapsed with very little resistance other than air resistance.
----------------------
And weakened steel caused the first two wtc's to collapse nearly at freefall rate?
Tell me please who ever stated that the steel was disintegrated? And if you believe that it was please explain how anything involved in the destruction of the building accomplished that.Esperanto said:Tell me, please, how fire disintegrates steel.
If you have read up on this much I'm sure that you have heard it was admitted that not all of the structural elements in the building were up to snuff.Esperanto said:So the Windsor hotel in Madrid burned entirely and at a much higher temperature than the WTC one and two yet didn't fall and that means nothing to you? It's tempting to make a comment on America's structural engineers if Spain's are so superior.
Again, who aside from conspiracy theorists believes this happened?Esperanto said:Fire still does not turn steel to dust.
I assume you've watched the videos? If not there are plenty of links to them in this thread alone.Esperanto said:Hey, all you have to do is prove fire makes buildings collapse at near freefall levels.
Again how else should it have collapsed? When you have a structure that is mostly empty space inside where do you think everything is going to go when it collapses?Esperanto said:the buildings caved in. if it's not demolition then it's intelligent, steel pillar seeking and detonating fire.
Perhaps if we applied several tons of force to your person you may begin to understand how some concrete may have been crushed into fine dust?Esperanto said:I will drop some conrete and if it turns to dust... mwahaha you are so silly.
Tell me, please, how fire disintegrates steel.
Evo said:Please post a list of all buildings that had a large airliner full of fuel crash into them and that did not collapse so we can compare that data to the WTC airline crashes.
Without this data, you have no argument.
2) The building was fully imploded so that the bottom levels fell at the same time the upper levels did. This would be at almost exactly free-fall. Problems. One, how would you wire the ENTIRE tower for implosion without anyone knowing? Two, if every level did have charges in it or anywhere near all of them, we would have seen the entire wtc seemingly explode. Every eye-witness and every video shows that absolutely nothing was happening on the lower levels when the towers started falling. There would be very noticable flashes of light coming out of the levels if it was demolished.
Or of course, you can subscribe to the 3rd option, the offical story, where magically, millions of pounds of steel on the upper floors decided that it was not going to be slowed down by a few support bars.
Completely incorrect. We're talking about an airplane with an 11,000 gallon fuel capacity. Very few forces in nature are going to be consuming hundreds or gallons of fuel per second. Also, "fireballs got much smaller". Irrelevant. What you see does not matter. I know people who have seen "UFOs" but that does not mean they actually saw aliens. Personal experience is on the lower-rungs of scientific debate. I might as well tell everyone I believe in God because i saw Mary's face in my popsicle.
Again, another problem with the conspiracy theorists lack of knowledge. No one has stated that steel needed to be melted in order for teh building to collapse except for the conspiracy theorists themselves. A basic basic basic understanding of physics or engineering will tell you that by simply heating a piece of metal, you are effectively reducing its ability to hold a load. It does NOT need to melt for it to give way. Every engineer on this planet agrees with that, every test agrees with it, you are wrong, deal with it.
Thats nice. Show a photo saying the fires are weak and then show a grainy badly positioned picture as proof. Nice.
Again, of course, you need to prove to us exactly how controlled demolitions were going to accomplish free-fall speeds as OPPOSED to why the official story would NOT accomplish free-fall speed.
That makes absolutely no sense
Ok you got us, a public opinion poll trumps every and all scientific study done. Hey did you know a majority of Europeans think the US faked the moon landings? Yah, exactly, your point is rather stupid, I am glad you agree.
Then maybe it was someone else. Regardless the point remains; What way were the buildings supposed to collapse other than straight down into themselves? If he's not here and you or someone else wants to take up the argument by all means please explain to me what other fashion they should have fallen in? And don't give me any narrow minded bs about nothing being able to take them down besides explosives or an earthquake. I don't care which one of you said it originally, it's bs and I'm not buying it.
And what speed should it have fallen at? We're talking about a building here not geological erosion or a slab of something melting away. And no one except the conspiracy people and ill informed reports have ever stated that the metal melted.
Tell me please who ever stated that the steel was disintegrated? And if you believe that it was please explain how anything involved in the destruction of the building accomplished that.
The actual site of the destruction of the Twin Towers is now called “Ground Zero.” It does, in fact, look like a scene of death and destruction from some of the most horrific bombing raids from WWII. Rescue and recovery workers I spoke with described their efforts to penetrate and remove the wreckage. Much of the steel is still hot, and for the most part, the more than seven stories of rubble above ground is just pulverized concrete and twisted steel. Yet as of my visit, the workers held out hope for a miracle of finding someone still alive. The spirit of the workers on site and all the related support personnel was powerful, and I made a pledge to do all that I could to support their efforts.
If you have read up on this much I'm sure that you have heard it was admitted that not all of the structural elements in the building were up to snuff.
The claim that the core of each of the Twin Towers was “a hollow steel shaft”---a claim that denied the existence of the 47 massive steel columns that in reality constituted the core of each tower and that, given the “pancake theory” of the collapses, should have still been sticking up many hundreds of feet in the air (27-28).
Again, who aside from conspiracy theorists believes this happened?
I assume you've watched the videos? If not there are plenty of links to them in this thread alone.
Again how else should it have collapsed? When you have a structure that is mostly empty space inside where do you think everything is going to go when it collapses?
Perhaps if we applied several tons of force to your person you may begin to understand how some concrete may have been crushed into fine dust?
Whoa whoa whoa, big deception going on here. He said that they decided to pull teh building "and then we watched the building collapse". He DID NOT say that they actually did go in and set the explosives (of course, this would have taken many hours if not days to actually do). He simply said they made a decision, the building collapsed. You must be fooled into ASSUMING they actually went in and took it down.
Sub-Zer0 said:THe project manager already said in the video I posted that he designed the towers to sustain multiple boeing impacts, And we know how fire reacts in buildings.
Ivan Seeking said:I would like to pause to see if any of our skeptics see any valid points. I think it was Brewnog who indicated that he has an interest in this but is frustrated with the present discussion. If we do find any agreement, then perhaps we could proceed on those issues.
Do you see any credible issues here or not? All skeptics, please chime in.
Entropy said:Sure, I accept that the Administration and the media lies to me, hell I hear it all the time on TV, they're not good enough at lying to pull something like 9/11 off. But the fact is that the evidence, even if you ignore evidence presented by the government and the media, is still overwhelming against you're arguement.
Entropy said:You failed to understand my point. Why would the government plant bombs in the building AND fly a plane into it? A plane being flown into a building by terrorists would have still be enough to show how vulnerable the US was to attacks and achieve just what the government "suppostively" wanted..
Entropy said:How and Osama Bin Ladin, part of that "shadowy" group that wanted to blow up the WTC for reasons we don't know, has been determined to destroy the WTC for the last 10 years! It's no secret! And the reason he wanted to destroy them was because he hates the US and it's ALLIES! What better place to strike than the WORLD trade center?..
Entropy said:How fast was it suppost to fall? Do the math. Things accelerate in Earth's gravity at 9.8 m/s^2. Are you saying that the government was also involved in changing the Earth's gravity so the towers would fall faster??..
Entropy said:WRONG. Steel (like the steel in the WTC) loses 90% of it's strength at 1000F. 1000F isn't very hot for fire, especially fire from jet fuel. Think I can get my fireplace hotter than that.??..