Register to reply

The Truth about 911 gutting the disinformation, LETS GET IT ON

by Sub-Zer0
Tags: disinformation, gutting, truth
Share this thread:
Pengwuino
#55
Aug18-05, 07:42 PM
PF Gold
Pengwuino's Avatar
P: 7,120
Quote Quote by Sub-Zer0
Just because someone can deunk something it does not mean it was not true, it just means you believed what they told you.
Actually, if I, and others prove that your data is wrong, that means you are wrong because you are now using illogical information.

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?
Data can be distorted and manipulated? I didn't know decades of structural engineering resources can all single handedly be changed so that its properties no longer are the same as they use to be. Please present these articles from structural engineers with the contradictory facts (Yes, structural engineers because most journalists know about as about engineering as a 10 year old knows about cars)

Looks like these people are obsessed over the idea that steel MUST melt before a building collapses. What about every other building failure in history? Did the metals all melt into streams of death that covered the street like you assume would have to happen for them to melt? I love seeing the "proof" that airliners cant bring down towers. They show them hitting like... one is about 30 stories high and hit near the top, another hit a real WTC-like tower but at about 7 stories from the top, and another was another short tower hit near hte top, pfff. You try to tell them how engineering works and how metallurgy works and they just deny it all the way and think that personal experience and "eye-witness" testimony is the #1 top priority in all cases.
TheStatutoryApe
#56
Aug18-05, 07:59 PM
TheStatutoryApe's Avatar
P: 1,550
Ok Sub_Zero. There's alot 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.
outsider
#57
Aug18-05, 08:34 PM
P: 236
this is almost as bad as the right wing KKK stuff....
Pengwuino
#58
Aug18-05, 09:03 PM
PF Gold
Pengwuino's Avatar
P: 7,120
Quote Quote by outsider
this is almost as bad as the right wing KKK stuff....
Well everyone has their nut-cases. Best to deepfry them and feed them to cows
Esperanto
#59
Aug18-05, 09:18 PM
P: 68
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?
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.

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.
And weakened steel caused the first two wtc's to collapse nearly at freefall rate?

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.
The airplanes blew up really fast consuming most of the fuel. After 10 or 15 seconds at most the fireballs get much smaller.

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?
Tell me, please, how fire disintegrates steel.

Urrm, what?! Assuming this were true, are you naive enough to think that this would still just cause two, isolated fires?
Picture evidence shows the fires were really weak, people were standing where the planes made holes.

http://italy.indymedia.org/uploads/2...till-alive.jpg

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.
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.

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.
Fire still does not turn steel to dust.

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.
Hey, all you have to do is prove fire makes buildings collapse at near freefall levels.

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.
the buildings caved in. if it's not demolition then it's intelligent, steel pillar seeking and detonating fire.

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.
I will drop some conrete and if it turns to dust... mwahaha you are so silly.

Actually, if I, and others prove that your data is wrong, that means you are wrong because you are now using illogical information.
http://img23.exs.cx/img23/1848/cnn911poll_update6.jpg

Ok Sub_Zero. There's alot 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.
He did not say the buildings should have toppled horizontally. OK?
Pengwuino
#60
Aug18-05, 10:56 PM
PF Gold
Pengwuino's Avatar
P: 7,120
Quote Quote by Esperanto
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.
Technically, if the building did not fall INSTANTLY, then they should not have fallen due to the impact. But unfortunately, the impact did not cause the collapse. The energy released by the fuel weakened the steel enough over a period of time to make the ... god knows how many millions of pounds of building above the impact points to fracture the steel at the impact site and make it fall.

Also, what no one seems to want to point out is that in order to demolish a building, it takes months to plan out and bring down a building. You have to set the charges in a way that the building would come down correctly, wire it all up, etc etc. You can't just run in, throw in a crate of dynamite and set it off (and of course, steel buildings require extra procedures to down them)



Quote Quote by Esperanto
And weakened steel caused the first two wtc's to collapse nearly at freefall rate?
Ok one thing I really have to ask. If there was a controlled explosion demolition.... how exactly is that suppose to change the rate at which the buliding collapses? You can subscribe to two theories, both of which are rediculous

1) bombs went off from inside the airplane (or well, it was on-board). How would this change the rate at which it fell? It wouldnt, it would fall at the exact same rate it would if the official story is correct.

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. Once one floor gives, thats it, theres no chance its staying up. Its like making a human pyramid and then dropping a car on it. That car is coming down and nothings going to slow it down. Russ also pointed out in another thread that the air would have been pushed out of the actual levels so quickly that the impulse would have been insignificant.


Quote Quote by Esperanto
The airplanes blew up really fast consuming most of the fuel. After 10 or 15 seconds at most the fireballs get much smaller.
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.


Quote Quote by Esperanto
Tell me, please, how fire disintegrates steel.
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.



Quote Quote by Esperanto
Picture evidence shows the fires were really weak, people were standing where the planes made holes.

http://italy.indymedia.org/uploads/2...till-alive.jpg
Thats nice. Show a photo saying the fires are weak and then show a grainy badly positioned picture as proof. Nice.


Quote Quote by Esperanto
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.
http://colt.cache.el-mundo.net/fotog...r/img/inc5.jpg

Notice how only the TOP floors burnt. If you would take the time to even consider what we have been telling you since the start of this argument, you would realize that the WTC fell because of the WEIGHT of the upper floors. Notice how the top floors at that OFFICE BUILDING were the ones on fire. There are no floors above it to collapse on the weakened structure.


Quote Quote by Esperanto
Hey, all you have to do is prove fire makes buildings collapse at near freefall levels.
Irrelevant. Since we're telling you this for the 10,000th time, I hope you do listen this time. It was NOT the fire alone that brought the building down. The fire weakened the structure and the top floors of the buildings fell and the rest of the building was not going to stop some 15 or so stories from falling. Like my human pyramid example, the pyramid was not designed to have huge masses falling ontop of it just like the floors below the impact point were not built to survive the top 15 or so floors from falling onto them. They were not oging to stop it and you are going to experience near freefall speeds. 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.



Quote Quote by Esperanto
the buildings caved in. if it's not demolition then it's intelligent, steel pillar seeking and detonating fire.
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, im glad you agree.
TheStatutoryApe
#61
Aug18-05, 11:17 PM
TheStatutoryApe's Avatar
P: 1,550
Quote Quote by Esperanto
He did not say the buildings should have toppled horizontally. OK?
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 arguement 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.

Quote Quote by Esperanto
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?
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.

Quote Quote by Esperanto
Tell me, please, how fire disintegrates steel.
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.

Quote Quote by Esperanto
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.
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.

Quote Quote by Esperanto
Fire still does not turn steel to dust.
Again, who aside from conspiracy theorists believes this happened?

Quote Quote by Esperanto
Hey, all you have to do is prove fire makes buildings collapse at near freefall levels.
I assume you've watched the videos? If not there are plenty of links to them in this thread alone.



Quote Quote by Esperanto
the buildings caved in. if it's not demolition then it's intelligent, steel pillar seeking and detonating fire.
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?


Quote Quote by Esperanto
I will drop some conrete and if it turns to dust... mwahaha you are so silly.
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?
Entropy
#62
Aug18-05, 11:22 PM
P: 609
Tell me, please, how fire disintegrates steel.
The fire didn't do that. The energy from the building falling down did. The hundreds of thousands of tons of material falling from that height has a ton of energy. Enough energy to melt and disintegrates steel.
Sub-Zer0
#63
Aug18-05, 11:51 PM
P: 20
Quote Quote by Evo
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.


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.
Pengwuino
#64
Aug19-05, 12:13 AM
PF Gold
Pengwuino's Avatar
P: 7,120
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.
Ivan Seeking
#65
Aug19-05, 12:16 AM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Ivan Seeking's Avatar
P: 12,497
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.
Esperanto
#66
Aug19-05, 12:20 AM
P: 68
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.
http://reopen911.org/pictures_and_videos.htm#1

This video shows explosions going off. There's stuff flying horizontally pretty far as the building collapses btw.

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.
Ahem, who am I going to believe, Francis DeMartini WTC Construction Manager when he says a jetliner going through one of the two wtc's is like putting a pencil through a screen netting, or you with your "few support bars"?

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...gnedtotake.htm

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.
http://reopen911.org/pictures_and_videos.htm#1

Tell me how many seconds you think it took for the fireball to go away in this clip then.

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.
There was disintegrated steel. So I repeat, Tell me, please, how fire disintegrates steel.

Thats nice. Show a photo saying the fires are weak and then show a grainy badly positioned picture as proof. Nice.
Look at the first video I gave on this post. you got some newscaster telling you there are people standing there.

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.
You can blow up the support at the center, and you won't see debris flying upwards, but you still have a mushrooming effect as you can see from the clip of the south tower falling. Btw, who here thinks steel landing on steel (like FEMA says in their pancake theory, just in case you try to attribute this idea to me) will still fall at the same rate as freefall?

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, im glad you agree.
No, but I was hoping to appeal to your conformist mentality.

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 arguement 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.
Okay, tell me about a steel building that was destroyed by something other than explosives or earthquakes, then I'll tell you how buildings are supposed to collapse other than straight down.

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.
When you drop a dog on a dog, does not the falling dog decelerate? When you drop a pancake on a pancake and that pancake drops on another pancake, isn't there resistance?

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 conspiracy theorists said concrete, steel, whatever disintegrated.

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.
http://www.house.gov/defazio/AtGroundZero.htm

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.
What? You mean the 9/11 Commission Report denying the existence of the towers' core columns?

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).
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/r...i?ArtNum=96206

Again, who aside from conspiracy theorists believes this happened?
The conspiracy theorists believe everything was blown to bits, just look at pictures of ground zero.

I assume you've watched the videos? If not there are plenty of links to them in this thread alone.
You deny them falling at near freefall rate?

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?
Empty space? Okay, let's toss out the core structure why not you people are ignoring everything else.

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?
You think dropping concrete a few thousand feet will atomize it?

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.
He said they PULLED it. Demolition term for demolishing.

Ok Ivan. Larry said he blew up 7. Fema said they dunno what happened. Good luck!
Pengwuino
#67
Aug19-05, 12:20 AM
PF Gold
Pengwuino's Avatar
P: 7,120
Quote Quote by Sub-Zer0
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.
I remember the manager being interviewed before. Yes he said htey could sustain IMPACTS but not fires. As we all know, fire in a building will weaken the structure.

And WHOA WHOA WHOA. Ok...

http://www.wtc7.net/vdocs/wtc_7_cbs.mpg

Listen to it closely. Rather says they REMIND HIM of buildings that are demolished with explosives.

Now you are bringing up blatantly false information....
Ivan Seeking
#68
Aug19-05, 12:23 AM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Ivan Seeking's Avatar
P: 12,497
Please stop posting or I'll lock the thread. I want to see where we stand.
Ivan Seeking
#69
Aug19-05, 12:24 AM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Ivan Seeking's Avatar
P: 12,497
Quote Quote by Ivan Seeking
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.
Save your arguments for a bit here.

I will assume that no response means that you're not sure.
Sub-Zer0
#70
Aug19-05, 12:29 AM
P: 20
Quote Quote by Entropy
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.
That's called spin, when you tell a lie you pepper it in truth, most of the population lives in a disinformation matrix, and there are enough paid liars w/ University degrees hanging on the wall to try to silence and discredit the people who bring the truth.

For example, did you know vaccines have a mercury perservative in them which has irrefutable been linked to autism?

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0616-31.htm

How about Depleted Uranium, the true culprit of Gulf War Syndrome, cause seven to ten the birth deffects, and tripple the cancer rates in Iraq? Did you know about that?

http://www.cadu.org.uk/info/index.htm

The globalists who really run our government, and Britian, and France, and Isreal, and no doubt many others which I'm not positive about, have the potencial to pull off 9/11 easily. There's a war being waged on humanity, are you going to let them take all of our liberty away on a pack of lies?

There's hardly ANY evidence for the offical line, I don't see your evidence most of the data is distorted or omited, there' are at least 20 witnesses who heard bombs explosions, over five fire fighters saying that, people in the basment saying that, they reported explosives on three differen't news cats direcly after 9/11, and that's not all the forensic evidence. And I haven't even gotten into building seven, so I think you have this backwards buddy, there's a TON, amazing, incredible amount of evidence on the side of it being some sort of state sponsored event. The fire explanations are VERY far fetched.

What do you think happened in the Windsor building, why didn't it collapse, and the towers fires were almost out, they burned for like 20 minutes, and would have started cooling afterwards.








Quote Quote by Entropy
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..
There's NO way for anyone who was not in the opperation to know what, however, there's no way fire caused it to fall, the fires were not even bad.


Quote Quote by Entropy
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?..
Is this a point? You know Bin Laden was a CIA asset for many years, right? BEsides that, there were tons and tons of warnings of 9/11 before the event, did you see that in my threaD? Did you read it? Yes, why would you make this point then. IT's obvious that without any of this evidence, they allowed 9/11 to happen at the bare minimum.



Quote Quote by Entropy
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??..
LOL, NO! I'm saying the entire central Colum would have to be destroyed to achieve this, And it would have to be the column in the center to acheive a symetrical straight vertical collapse, PLEASE do some research on controlled demolition of sky scrapers, It's not easy to make a building fall down symetrically. are you saying the fire burned at the exact same tempeture all throughout the vertical column, that's what is required to make this happen, aand the flames could not have heated the steel up in the short amount of time before it collapsed. Do some research on Controlled Demoliton, and get back w/ me, you'll see I'm right, tho cognitive dissonence comes into play, and you may not accept it.


Quote Quote by Entropy
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.??..
Where's your link for that buddy? I proivded engineering links for everything I posted, and I don't trust any article that has anything to do w/ 9/11, so get a link to support this that has nothing to do w/ 9/11, most of mine don't and I am right, When blacksmiths forge steel, they heat it up to 2000 degress. Did you click the link?

And btw Jet fuel only burns for 30 secconds to two minutes, so I don't think it was the jet fuel. And steel cna easily withstand 1000 degrees of tempeture bring me a credible non-911 link that says otherwise.
Ivan Seeking
#71
Aug19-05, 12:33 AM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Ivan Seeking's Avatar
P: 12,497
Done.

Subject closed.
Ivan Seeking
#72
Aug19-05, 01:03 AM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Ivan Seeking's Avatar
P: 12,497
Okay, Sub-Zero had indicated that this was an accident; the threads do move pretty fast. So again, I am waiting to hear from the skeptics. Do we have any common ground here?


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Black NC voters attacked with disinformation. Current Events 32
Lets try solving this Introductory Physics Homework 9
Michael Moore - Minister of Disinformation? Current Events 90
Coincidence or Disinformation Campaign? Current Events 0