proof that 9/11 was planned by us gov.

[SpeedRacer 1]

The steel didn't need to melt. It loses 90% of its strength at only 1000C. read my post.

crap, this is ridiculous. you can argue with conspiracy theorists all day long. Once you debunk one thing, they ignore the debunking & pull up something else. Debunk that & they eventually just post something else that was already debunked dozens of posts ago.

Fuck it. If you're determined to have your conspiracy theory, no amount of debunking is going to change that.

edited to add: clicky

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[busaunit 0]

if i took just under an hour for a building to drop by fire in america and a building in madrid can burn for 24 hours plus.
something has to be said about the way america builds there buildings now that could be where the true crime is.
building codes etc could this be the true problem.

someone built two of the shitest buildings in the world and built them side by side

or someone used explosives to drop them
end of story.

[sundevil777 94]

Quote

if i took just under an hour for a building to drop by fire in america and a building in madrid can burn for 24 hours plus.
something has to be said about the way america builds there buildings now that could be where the true crime is.
building codes etc could this be the true problem.

someone built two of the shitest buildings in the world and built them side by side

or someone used explosives to drop them
end of story.

I think that would be an example of a 'false choice'.

You present only 2 possibilities, but there are more. A fully loaded wide body plane flown at very high speed crashed into the buildings, helping along with the collapse.

Perhaps you forgot about that little bit of the story.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[sundevil777 94]

Quote

Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all.

I think he knows the difference, but was just speaking 'off the cuff'. I don't think that is so hard to understand?

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[bch7773 0]

Quote

if i took just under an hour for a building to drop by fire in america and a building in madrid can burn for 24 hours plus.
something has to be said about the way america builds there buildings now that could be where the true crime is.
building codes etc could this be the true problem.

someone built two of the shitest buildings in the world and built them side by side

or someone used explosives to drop them
end of story.

Some guy in africa got cancer, and survived it and beat it.

Some guy in america got the same cancer, and died.

THEREFORE, people in america are getting poisoned secretly by our government. how else can you explain this?

exact same logic you just used.

MB 3528, RB 1182

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Some guy in africa got cancer, and survived it and beat it.

Some guy in america got the same cancer, and died.

THEREFORE, people in america are getting poisoned secretly by our government. how else can you explain this?

I KNEW IT!!

Do you have any more details? I'd like to subscribe to your newletter.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[bch7773 0]

Quote

Quote

Some guy in africa got cancer, and survived it and beat it.

Some guy in america got the same cancer, and died.

THEREFORE, people in america are getting poisoned secretly by our government. how else can you explain this?

I KNEW IT!!

Do you have any more details? I'd like to subscribe to your newletter.

sorry I don't have a newsletter. I am making a video though... I'm using the one in this thread as a guide.

MB 3528, RB 1182

[Casurf1978 0]

Actually the twin towers were some of the best buildings in the World. Period. Have you even considered the amount of energy those buildings withstood when a 767 slammed it them? Just for a moment try to understand the energy released by a plane that can weight anywhere between 305,000 lbs and 450,000 lbs traveling a few hundred miles an hour slamming into a building.

[Remster 24]

Quote

Just for a moment try to understand the energy released by a plane that can weight anywhere between 305,000 lbs and 450,000 lbs traveling a few hundred miles an hour slamming into a building.

But the fact that no other building that was hit by a 767 crumbled to the ground is proof that something was planned by the government...

Remster

[willard 0]

My tent got run over by a pickup truck once. But it wasn't the truck's fault, it was a government conspiracy! I know because I found unexploded canisters of propane nearby! And satellite images showed hotspots on the ground! (Some said they were from the campfires, but I know better!)

This thread is totally rediculous

[chrismgtis 0]

Quote

Quote

To claim that the fire exposed the steel to just 500 F is ridiculous.

500 F wouldn't even broil a steak.

I've seen large bonfires at the DZ that were hot enough to melt beer bottles, which melt at about 1000C (1832F) . Do you think a passenger plane full of fuel burning in an enormous building full of flammables wouldn't burn as hot a bonfire set up by some drunk skydivers?

The end of a cigarette burns at over twice that temperature. That's enough proof in itself in my opinion as far as making that 500'F temp sound pretty ridiculous.

Rodriguez Brother #1614, Muff Brother #4033
Jumped: Twin Otter, Cessna 182, CASA, Helicopter, Caravan

[no7rosman 0]

Quote

crap, this is ridiculous. you can argue with conspiracy theorists all day long. Once you debunk one thing, they ignore the debunking & pull up something else. Debunk that & they eventually just post something else that was already debunked dozens of posts ago.

Fuck it. If you're determined to have your conspiracy theory, no amount of debunking is going to change that.

I agree. Your Empire State Building was a great example.

[377 21]

One of the skeptic magazines (Skeptical Inquirer?) ran a piece on the 911 conspiracy. They found no evidence of melted steel and had bldg demolition experts give their opinions on whether the videos showed any evidence of intentional demolition, all said no. The so called melted steel seen by some responders and clean up crews was most likely melted aluminum blackened by ash and carbon. Not one piece of melted steel confirmed to be from the 911 attack on the WTC has been produced for analysis. The best logical point made, is why on earth would you need to coordinate planes hitting a bldg and intentionally placed explosives in the bldg? Just blow up the bldg and blame it on terrorists. No need to complicate it with planes. Many of the 911 conspiracy devotees ignore contrary evidence. They say there is no evidence of aircraft wreckage near the Pentagon crash. There is an ABUNDANCE of such evidence including many photos and eyewitness accounts. If the govt wanted to manufacture a reason to invade IRAQ they did a poor job as none of the 911 terrorists had IRAQ connections, rather they were mostly tied to Saudi Arabia, our so called friend.

2018 marks half a century as a skydiver. Trained by the late Perry Stevens D-51 in 1968.

[busaunit 0]

1. the people that i saw that designed the building designed it for a impact for a jet liner. and the outside of the the structure was designed to break up a plane. so did it work.?

2. i work in commisioning building fire systems and the amount of water that would have been flooding that fire is well a shit load. i was in a building just the other day when the plumber turned the water on and some of the pipes had not been joined correctly trust me the place was fucted. 1000s of liters of water. i agree that a fire could have been burning as i have seen the amount of shit office workers take to work to flash up there desks, but for two builds to fall perfect like that y spend millions on exposive experts when all you need is some av gas and a few old computer desks. seems like, looks like, a perfect science.


+ they have designed av gas to burn fast in case of landing crashes.

Now what about the other building that fell. y how



600 billon has been spent on weapons that are made in america and in troops wages so in the end america wins

[sundevil777 94]

To the extent that the building should have been able to withstand an impact with a jet airliner, it was probably figured that the plane would be going about 1/2 the speed it did on 9/11 (as if it was at a normal speed while flying a landing pattern). Double the speed means it would have 4 times as much energy. Also, the buildings did survive the impact. What was not realized was that the fireproofing would get blown off, that changes the entire picture of whether the fire will burn out before the steel gets too hot.

I used to work for Factory Mutual, which is the equivalent of Underwriter Laboratories for fire control. I do not agree with your assessment that the sprinkler system combined with broken pipes should have been able to suppress the fire. Sprinkler systems are designed to prevent small fires from getting big. If the fire is big to begin with, it won't work, and the fire not only started out big, but the sprinkler systems would have suffered broken pipes. Having water gushing out of broken pipes is not an effective way of putting out such a huge fire, no matter what you think.

Jets don't use av gas, that is used in piston planes, jets use a fuel much like kerosene, and pools of it will burn for a very long time (from personal experience testing helicopter fuel tanks).

Where did you get the idea that the fuel is "designed" to burn fast in case of landing crashes?

The other building (if you mean bldg 7) was severely damaged by the WTC collapse, and had a severe fire for several hours.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[skinnyflyer 0]

Quote

What was not realized was that the fireproofing would get blown off

although this is the official cause of the collapse there is no evidence or experiment to back up this claim. the idea that fireproofing was knocked off in areas that were not directly impacted is ridiculous. even NIST experiments with shotgun blasts(favorable to predetermined conclusion) proves that fireproofing would NOT be knocked off areas not directly impacted. please look it up.

Quote

jets use a fuel much like kerosene, and pools of it will burn for a very long time

most experts including the official nist team agreed that the jet fuel burned off rapidly in 15-20 min. which is why the dislodged fireproofing is so important. and here is nists conclusion;

"However, the towers withstood the impacts and would have remained standing were it not for the dislodged insulation (fireproofing) and the subsequent multifloor fires.”

Quote

The other building (if you mean bldg 7) was severely damaged by the WTC collapse,

you're joking right. i posted links to the two official pictures several times. the only damage is on one corner of the building. hardly severe and certainly not enough to cause total symmetrical collapse.
also did this corner damage also knock off the fireproofing in all of building 7?

"Death is more universal than life; everyone dies but not everyone lives."
A. Sachs

[sundevil777 94]

Quote

NIST experiments with shotgun blasts(favorable to predetermined conclusion) proves that fireproofing would NOT be knocked off areas not directly impacted.

Even if the fireproofing was only knocked off the areas directly impacted, that is still a significant area. You are assuming that it is insignificant, with nothing but your intuition to back it up. It is amazing that neither tower collapsed from the initial hits. Not much more of the structure needed to be weakened for it all to fail. Why isn't that intuitive?

Quote

the only damage is on one corner of the building. hardly severe and certainly not enough to cause total symmetrical collapse.

Again, WTC 7 was observed to be bowing/bending long before the collapse. Do you assert that this was part of the intentional demolition? Seems like evidence that the damage sustained was much worse than you want to admit.

When all else fails, trying to pull bldg 7 out of the hat doesn't convince, none of this junk is convincing because so many of the claims are so easily refuted. No matter how many times you add zero to itself it is still zero.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[billvon 2,435]

> the idea that fireproofing was knocked off in areas that were not directly
>impacted is ridiculous.

No one is suggesting that. You're creating straw men again.

> the only damage is on one corner of the building.

The SW corner was damaged, and the south face had been ripped open by the tons of debris falling from the towers. There were fires on floors 6-30; the fires on 11 and 12 went on for hours.

So we have a building that sustained serious impacts from heavy debris, had fires burning for hours on two floors, and an eventual failure of the structural elements resulting in a collapse. Remind you of anything?

[skinnyflyer 0]

Quote

It is amazing that neither tower collapsed from the initial hits. Not much more of the structure needed to be weakened for it all to fail.

actually quite the opposite . according to the nist report only 10-15% of the columns were damaged. and since the colums were capable of sustaining 2000 times their load without failure it is quite shocking that the towers exploded..sorry collapsed.

"Death is more universal than life; everyone dies but not everyone lives."
A. Sachs

[skinnyflyer 0]

Quote

No one is suggesting that

no one except the official nist investigation. this is their official reason for the collapse. dislodged fireproofing allowed the fire to cause the collapse hence the quote above;

"However, the towers withstood the impacts and would have remained standing were it not for the dislodged insulation (fireproofing) and the subsequent multifloor fires.”

their own experiments showed that the fires alone were not hot enough so they blamed the dislodged fireproofing. and then they disprove their own conclusion with the shotgun experiments.(search and you'll find video of it).

these explanations contradict themselves and they fail to expain the collapse of wtc 1 and 2. and it becomes even more absurd if you try and apply this explanation to wtc7.

Quote

The SW corner was damaged, and the south face had been ripped

yes like i said the corner was damaged and if by face ripped open you mean tiny kink then ok.

feel free to try and explain how the fires in wtc 7 caused the simutaneous failure of multiple columns and caused total symmetrical collapse.

"Death is more universal than life; everyone dies but not everyone lives."
A. Sachs

[jakee 1,259]

Quote

no one except the official nist investigation. this is their official reason for the collapse. dislodged fireproofing allowed the fire to cause the collapse hence the quote above;

"However, the towers withstood the impacts and would have remained standing were it not for the dislodged insulation (fireproofing) and the subsequent multifloor fires.”

That says nothing about dislodged insulation in areas that were not impacted.

Quote

and it becomes even more absurd if you try and apply this explanation to wtc7.

Of course it would be absurd. WTC-7 was not one of the two towers. Its construction was completely different.

Quote

feel free to try and explain how the fires in wtc 7 caused the simutaneous failure of multiple columns and caused total symmetrical collapse.

Why would anyone need to? The investigation shows a progressive collapse spreading through the building from an initial focal point, not a simultaneous collapse of the entire structure.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[skinnyflyer 0]

Quote

That says nothing about dislodged insulation in areas that were not impacted.

wrong. thats what their theory is based on.look it up.

Quote

Of course it would be absurd. WTC-7 was not one of the two towers. Its construction was completely different.

whats your point.

Quote

Why would anyone need to? The investigation shows a progressive collapse spreading through the building

ok so now the title of the new invented phenomenon, progressive collapse explains everyting so well that we don't even have to explain what it is;
-so how did the buildings collapse?
-it was a progressive collapse.
-whats a progressive collapse?
-a progressive collapse is what happened on 9/11.
-oh ok.

Quote

not a simultaneous collapse of the entire structure.

thats funny it looks pretty symmetrical in the dozens of video clips.

"Death is more universal than life; everyone dies but not everyone lives."
A. Sachs

[jakee 1,259]

Quote

whats your point.

My point is this: In a desperate attempt to try and cast doubt on the official explanations you are turning to deliberately underhanded (or astoundingly stupid) arguments. You have taken the explanation of how the two towers (with their unique construction) fell and said "Hey look! This explanation doesn't fit at all with what happened to WTC-7! WTC-7 fell down in a different way so this explanation must be bogus!"

What you omit from your ranting is that the explanation of the two towers collapse is not intended to cover WTC-7. WTC-7 is a completely different building that collapsed in a completely different way for completely different reasons.

[skinnyflyer 0]

Quote

underhanded (or astoundingly stupid) arguments.

calling my arguments stupid doesn't refute anything and only reveals your credibility and maturity.

Quote

You have taken the explanation of how the two towers (with their unique construction) fell and said "Hey look! This explanation doesn't fit at all with what happened to WTC-7! WTC-7 fell down in a different way so this explanation must be bogus!"

What you omit from your ranting is that the explanation of the two towers collapse is not intended to cover WTC-7. WTC-7 is a completely different building that collapsed in a completely different way for completely different reasons.

no. my argument is that in order to explain an event that has never happened before, the total collapse of a steel framed highrise from fire/debris, we are told in the case of wtc 1and2 that the dislodged fireproofing and subsequent fires are the main reasons fore their collapse. however;
1-this theory is disproved by nist own experiments.
2-this theory cannot be applied to wtc7.
so wtc7 collapsed from minor damage and fire.
so we have 2 different causes to explain one new phenomenon.

"Death is more universal than life; everyone dies but not everyone lives."
A. Sachs

[jakee 1,259]

Quote

calling my arguments stupid doesn't refute anything and only reveals your credibility and maturity.

I'm calling them underhanded, and you know damn well that they are.

Quote

2-this theory cannot be applied to wtc7.

Yes

Quote

so wtc7 collapsed from minor damage and fire.

No! Just because it was not damaged in the same manner in no way means that it did not suffer major damage of its own.

Take these two statements. Bob was shot and died of massive head injuries. Bill was shot and died but did not have any head injuries. Would you automatically conclude that Bill died from minor injuries because he was not shot in the same way as Bob?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?