What brought down WTC7

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

That the government had foreknowledge of 9/11 is entirely possible, I firmly believe .

I don't!.... I mean, to think that is possible would be grounds to seek and investigation with the expectation of an indictment for... dang most everything... they are sworn to protect and defend the Constitution ... [somewhere in that document is the implied right for people to live and that would be a good start]

FDR had "foreknowledge" of Pearl Harbor. Hindsight is 20/20. There's reasons why you don't always believe your "foreknowledge".

I expect that if FDR had foreknowledge... he most likely, assuming it to be true, ordered it along with 'Lend Lease'... but that is another story.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Vic
Steel doesn't have to melt in order to undergo a serious reduction in its tensile strength. You can just look at the charcoal grates in a cheap grill (and we've all owned one) to see that. Charcoal doesn't get anywhere hot enough to melt steel, but those thin steel grates will warp under the weight of those hot coals just the same. The same thing but on a much larger scale took place inside the WTCs too.

Dude. Everyone knows that the CGN (Cheap Grill Ninjas) are sabotaging your grates with nano-thermite. The EGI (Expensive Grill Illuminati) don't want you buying cheap grills in the first place. It's the only possible, true explanation.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
The exterior of the structure consisted of columns as well. While those columns were not designed by themselves to handle the gravity load of the building (they were designed to tolerate lateral and some tortional loads) they would still stand until enough of the interior beams had broken away because the beams at each floor imparted vertical stiffness to the exterior columns. Once enough internal beams were gone and no longer imparted enough rigidity to the exterior columns, the entire exterior structure was bound to come down because those exterior columns weren't designed to handle the massive load suddenly shifted to them.

It seems to be a basic principle to me. However, I've worked closely with engineers of nearly all disciplines for close to 25 years now so it's something I'm pretty well versed in already. Maybe I'm assuming too much that others should be able to readily see what I'm already familiar with?

Last bit first The Engineers and the Designers of the Engineering company were mainly Electrical and Mechanical but we had a Structural one tossed in to meet EEO standards... <---- a funny. The Construction Co. Had a Structural component too with the obligatory Structural type. Built a few buildings and the like... But, with all that I don't think much rubbed off on me. If they talked about using #18 bar I knew it meant 18 1/8ths but not why they'd use that in a thing for a bridge. I'm a or was a CFO/Controller for well, since forever. We know a bit about all of it, I suppose, but not enough to question the why or where for of some CNG Retrofit or Bridge Construction or Power Plant thingi... Design/Build is far more risk oriented but we did it and the stuff still stands... I've no idea why.

Now to the meat... Yes, I can see Column 1 -57 are perimeter support and 58 - 81 are 'core' my NIST drawing omits numbering a few but I presume they exist there as I can see them on the drawing. I see the floor beams and girders.. I see they connect in the fashion as depicted.
NIST postulates that 44 'walked' off of 79 and that sort of started the ball rolling. For you that may seem obvious. To me, I wonder about the structure on the west side there.. columns 5 and 1 and in that area in general.. I've watched the video Sim maybe 100 times trying to grasp how the loss of 79 by virtue of 44 walking could make the beams pull 63 toward 16 and me not notice it on the upper floors.. this is typical 8 - 45 floor design. I see 81 pulling 27 but don't see that affect visually in the video of collapse.....
This is my problem... it is sort of spaghetti all glued together and uncooked then resembling a fully cooked bunch with some acting uncooked... They said the fire was in the North and and East sections that was hot enough and on 11 - 13 and it started in the East and counter clockwise to the North... the fires in 5, 6, and those floors didn't matter as I read it... Anyhow, I'm sure I'll get it sooner or later... I'm still trying to see what it is they're saying atm.. not applying some other scenario to it all..

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Vic
Steel doesn't have to melt in order to undergo a serious reduction in its tensile strength. You can just look at the charcoal grates in a cheap grill (and we've all owned one) to see that. Charcoal doesn't get anywhere hot enough to melt steel, but those thin steel grates will warp under the weight of those hot coals just the same. The same thing but on a much larger scale took place inside the WTCs too.

Dude. Everyone knows that the CGN (Cheap Grill Ninjas) are sabotaging your grates with nano-thermite. The EGI (Expensive Grill Illuminati) don't want you buying cheap grills in the first place. It's the only possible, true explanation.

That was funny... CGN... ha..

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Vic
Steel doesn't have to melt in order to undergo a serious reduction in its tensile strength. You can just look at the charcoal grates in a cheap grill (and we've all owned one) to see that. Charcoal doesn't get anywhere hot enough to melt steel, but those thin steel grates will warp under the weight of those hot coals just the same. The same thing but on a much larger scale took place inside the WTCs too.

Dude. Everyone knows that the CGN (Cheap Grill Ninjas) are sabotaging your grates with nano-thermite. The EGI (Expensive Grill Illuminati) don't want you buying cheap grills in the first place. It's the only possible, true explanation.

LOL

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: Wheezer
OH GOODY! another "The WTC was a giant conspiracy" thread...can't get enough of those...no siree.

Oh! goody goody another man of reason who can't put the facts together. I think ya best find out whats going on around you . The Fema death camps are gaining creditability with National news media . Many other conspirecy theories are No longer being Scuffed off as sonsense .

You should all think about this video


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSOJoo40TGs

I nor anyone in my family will take this flu shot . No man can make be do what I know is wrong. 3 shots in all. Why the young ones first? Those fema coffins will come in handy after these shots are forced upon YOU and your Freedom of choice . Remove Choice and your a slave. I for one will die happy refusing to do what is a GOD given Choice . Screw this government.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Here is an enjoyable video . It should eas many here . I mean what could happen ???

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlvxIdSI7V4

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Cogman
And How do you know that the supports were simply not providing negligible resistance?

Rather, I know for a fact that:

Originally posted by: kylebisme
...not only were the north face columns [NIST mentions in their video analysis] not providing any notable support, neither were those of any other face, or all of the mass that made up the floors and everything else in the building [all of which NIST simply ingores in their video analysis].

And I know this because:

Originally posted by: kylebisme
This is simply inherent to the definition of the term free fall, as documented here:

free fall
?noun
1. the hypothetical fall of a body such that the only force acting upon it is that of gravity.

That said:

Originally posted by: Cogman
Ok, So now we know that free-fall technically doesn't happen on earth.

Rather, it technically doesn't happen anywhere, only:

Originally posted by: kylebisme
...in the hypothetical case of a complete vacuum...

And not even the darkest depths of space is a complete vacuum. On Earth, the mass which makes up the atmosphere doesn't provide notable resistance against the fall of a considerably denser mass either, at least not until it is falling so fast that even pushing the air out the the way quick enough to keep accelerating requires considerable force. To drop such a dense mass through thin air without having it archive a period of acceleration indistinguishable from free fall, one would need to strap something with a large surface area to mass ratio to it to act as a parachute.

I'm going to stop at that for now to see if you are clear with what I've said so far. If you have any questions or arguments with anything in this post, please present them, and if not then a simple "agreed" will do, at which point I will move on to addressing another section of your reply. Note that I did skip over your request for the math here, and I've explained why before; the math won't be any good to you until you are comfortable with the principles of physical reality which it describes.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: Number1

Originally posted by: kylebisme

BLAH BLAH, rather than deferring to others to do his thinking for him as you are so obviously fond of doing.

I have to admit I am heavily influenced by the stuff I read. I read stuff like:

Scientific American.

Popular Science.

Popular Mechanic.

New Scientist.

AnandTech

The BBC

The CBC

The Globe and Mail

The Toronto Star

The National Post

ZD Net

ARZTechnica

Tom Hardware.

Those are respected and well established publications. When they look at 911 conspiracies it is always to debunk them. When those publications start proving that 911 was an inside job I will believe it. Why? Because those publication are credible.

I don't give any 911 twuthers web site any credibility but what really made up my mind was the debunking of the movie Loose Change proving the absurdity of most of the claims in that movie.

It's simple, it's common sense. These stories about mass murder and subsequent administrations covering up for each other is pure baloney.

Twuthers often want to concentrate on a single event that might not have been explained perfectly by official sources. They therefor conclude that everything else was an elaborate cover up. This tactic might work with gullible people out there but not with me.

Creditability is a joke . Here try this read world News as presented to us By those you trust. Than Actually go read world news that isn't USA/Europe propaganda. You creditable sources are liars as is our government as are our teachers / Ministers/ politicans/ Bankers/ NV/ AMD / Intel . The list is so long it would be way faster to name the people who still have Honor/Pride and good work ethics.

Na your so attached to the lies . You won't see the train that plows you under.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
Here is an enjoyable video . It should eas many here . I mean what could happen ???

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlvxIdSI7V4

The Onion does good stuff. I'm guessing you didn't realise that is parody though, did you?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Last bit first The Engineers and the Designers of the Engineering company were mainly Electrical and Mechanical but we had a Structural one tossed in to meet EEO standards... <---- a funny. The Construction Co. Had a Structural component too with the obligatory Structural type. Built a few buildings and the like... But, with all that I don't think much rubbed off on me. If they talked about using #18 bar I knew it meant 18 1/8ths but not why they'd use that in a thing for a bridge. I'm a or was a CFO/Controller for well, since forever. We know a bit about all of it, I suppose, but not enough to question the why or where for of some CNG Retrofit or Bridge Construction or Power Plant thingi... Design/Build is far more risk oriented but we did it and the stuff still stands... I've no idea why.

Now to the meat... Yes, I can see Column 1 -57 are perimeter support and 58 - 81 are 'core' my NIST drawing omits numbering a few but I presume they exist there as I can see them on the drawing. I see the floor beams and girders.. I see they connect in the fashion as depicted.
NIST postulates that 44 'walked' off of 79 and that sort of started the ball rolling. For you that may seem obvious. To me, I wonder about the structure on the west side there.. columns 5 and 1 and in that area in general.. I've watched the video Sim maybe 100 times trying to grasp how the loss of 79 by virtue of 44 walking could make the beams pull 63 toward 16 and me not notice it on the upper floors.. this is typical 8 - 45 floor design. I see 81 pulling 27 but don't see that affect visually in the video of collapse.....
This is my problem... it is sort of spaghetti all glued together and uncooked then resembling a fully cooked bunch with some acting uncooked... They said the fire was in the North and and East sections that was hot enough and on 11 - 13 and it started in the East and counter clockwise to the North... the fires in 5, 6, and those floors didn't matter as I read it... Anyhow, I'm sure I'll get it sooner or later... I'm still trying to see what it is they're saying atm.. not applying some other scenario to it all..

Are you factoring localized thermal expansion into the equation? It's one of the primary contributors to the initiation of the collapse.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Are you factoring localized thermal expansion into the equation? It's one of the primary contributors to the initiation of the collapse.

On the East side yes.. and the North as well... I presume that is why 44 walked off 79 at floor 13. Problem is and I've given up on the sims here The sim is sort of not what I see with the building exterior

I'm going to figure out this tangle of beams/columns/girders someday.

 

[Cogman]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: Cogman
And How do you know that the supports were simply not providing negligible resistance?

Rather, I know for a fact that:

Originally posted by: kylebisme
...not only were the north face columns [NIST mentions] not providing any notable support, neither were those of any other face, or all of the mass that made up the floors and everything else in the building [all of which NIST simply ingores].

And I know this because:

Originally posted by: kylebisme
This is simply inherent to the definition of the term free fall, as documented here:

free fall
?noun
1. the hypothetical fall of a body such that the only force acting upon it is that of gravity.

That said:

Originally posted by: Cogman
Ok, So now we know that free-fall technically doesn't happen on earth.

Rather, it technically doesn't happen anywhere, only:

Originally posted by: Cogman
...in the hypothetical case of a complete vacuum...

And not even the darkest depths of space is a complete vacuum. On Earth, the mass which makes up the atmosphere doesn't provide notable resistance against the fall of a notably denser mass either, at least not until it is falling so fast that even pushing the air out the the way quick enough to keep accelerating requires considerable force. To drop such a dense mass though thin air without having it archive a period of acceleration indistinguishable from free fall, one would need to strap something with a large surface area to mass ratio to it, to act as a parachute.

I'm going to stop at that for now to see if you are clear with what I've said so far. If you have any questions or arguments with anything in this post, please present it, and if not then a simple "agreed" will do, at which point I will move on to addressing another section of your reply. Note that I did skip over your request for the math here, and I've explained why before; the math won't be any good to you until you are comfortable with the principles of physical reality which it describes.

I already provided my argument, and they you got caught up on the fact that I agreed with you that free fall doesn't happen on earth :rolleyes;

In fact, it's laughable because not only did you fail to prove that the columns didn't fail because of weakening, you just quoted your self saying it is impossible.

Maybe you simply don't understand what negligible means. It means that the resistive force is so small that it is hardly worth noting. For example, If one column was full strength and the rest magically disappeared, that column would provide a negligible resistance to the falling structure. It would fail so fast it would make your head spin.

Air isn't the only thing that can be negligible. When the force of the falling object is far greater then the tensile strength of the material it is falling on, the force provided by it will be negligible.

Think of it this way, you have a tower made of toothpicks that is just barely supporting its own weight (generally the case with buildings. They aren't built to hold much more then their own weight really.) Now, with that stack, take the top couple of levels, pick them up about the height of 1 level, and drop them on the stack. What will happen? The stack will fail and the decent of the top stack for a period while the rest of the stack was falling would look to be in a free fall.

When talking about dropping an object, resistive forces act in an exponential fashion. That means that the building falling at 2 m/s might look to be in a free fall while at 3 m/s you reach a sort of maximum velocity. Sure, the time where it is accelerating to 3 m/s may look to be a free fall, but that is because the resistive forces are minimal. compared to the acceleration due to gravity.

And you still haven't answered to the fact that it could have easily been going slightly faster in stage 1. IE it needed to be going 3.2 m/s if it was to descend in a free fall. However, what if it was going 3.21 m/s? all the sudden, I didn't have to be a total free fall and it STILL could have covered the distance that NIST said it did. With that much mass, 0.01 m/s faster makes a HUGE difference on the amount of force applied to the joints. Yet it would be something very hard to measure, especially considering the fact that the frame rate of phones is approx 0.05 seconds / frame. They didn't have high speed cameras capturing the building falling, thus their measurements on falling speeds are going to be semi-rough.

There are plenty of explanations, reasonable and logical to your issue. And you haven't discredited one of them. All you've said is "That's physically impossible!". Prove it.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Cogman
...you got caught up on the fact that I agreed with you that free fall doesn't happen on earth.

Rather, I took your statement that Earth is a place where free fall technically doesn't happen as to suggest that it could happen in other places, and hence pointed out the fact that it simply can't in reality, only in one's imagination. I then went on to explain that a mass considerably denser than that of Earth's atmosphere can achieve an acceleration indistinguishable from free fall here on Earth, and to prevent such a mass from doing so though thin air requires some sort of parashoot. Are you comfortable with these facts?

I'm going to need a "yes" for this before I address the rest of your comments. Granted, I don't expect you to agree until you understand, so again feel free to present whatever questions our arguments you might have in regard to what I've said in this post.

 

[Cogman]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: Cogman
...you got caught up on the fact that I agreed with you that free fall doesn't happen on earth.

Rather, I took your statement that Earth is a place where free fall technically doesn't happen as to suggest that it could happen in other places, and hence pointed out the fact that it simply can't in reality, only in one's imagination. I then went on to explain that a mass considerably denser than that of Earth's atmosphere can achieve an acceleration indistinguishable from free fall here on Earth, and to prevent such a mass from doing so though thin air requires some sort of parashoot. Are you comfortable with these facts?

I'm going to need a "yes" for this before I address the rest of your comments. Granted, I don't expect you to agree until you understand, so again feel free to present whatever questions our arguments you might have in regard to what I've said in this post.

umm, yes, I agree. I don't believe I ever stated otherwise. Does that mean that you will address the other comments now?

 

[event8horizon]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: event8horizon
tlc stated:
"The temps were measured remotely using AVIRIS.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/o...-0429/thermal.r09.html

Nothing indicates that the temps were anywhere near hot enough to melt steel."

lets take a look at what he is saying here. aviris flew over the pile 5 days after the attack. the highest temp was around 720C. ok good enough, but guess what temp sisson and bierdman suggest that the eutectic formed so that the steel can "corrode". ooooopppsss that would be 1100C. so what TLC is really saying is that he has NO idea what temp was underneath in the pile.

TLC- question for ya. how far beneath the surface could aviris "see"???

please see fema bpat report appendix c for details.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wt...allurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm

Pssst. 1100C is not hot enough to melt steel either. As far as eutectic reactions, that's already been dealt with in links I posted previously. You're a dollar late and a day short on that subject, as usual.

And back to my previous question to you - How can you cite someone as an "expert" and in your next post claim he doesn't have all the data? Please explain. I expect you won't though and I see another "Oops, gotta go." post in your near future. Keep running away from any answer, kiddo. You never provide any answers as it is so I don't expect you to suddenly begin providing them now. If you can't copy & paste your responses from some truther website you're lost anyway. That much has always been clear about you.

so you really dont know how hot it was underneath the rubble pile do you.
aviris could only "see" how hot the surface was. aviris had no idea what temp was underneath the rubble pile.

and as for the eutectic, your iron, sulfur, oxygen slag at 1100 has also been dealt with here by me. and sisson says in 24hrs, little steel was removed by that route.

i ask again, how did 15.9 mm of steel "corrode" in 8 days if sisson could get just alittle steel to corrode in 24hrs?

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: BeauJangles
Oh I see how it works now. "The will of the people" now means whatever you truthers want it to mean.

It means allowing people to the freedom to vote for or against a new investigation as they choose, rather than having that choice stripped from them by the powers that be.

I could get 80,000 signatures on a petition to send Godzilla and King Kong to the moon for a battle royale if I just set up a table in Times Square for a week.

I'm also pretty damn sure that both of them were involved in the collapse of WTC7 on 9/11. I have conclusive proof that it's true, but all of you simple people won't believe it, even if I show it to you in black and white... or IMAX. :|

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: event8horizon

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
this is also of interest. the fbi had to pre approve wtc photographs before they were released for public view. --- thats bull...please provide a link concerning the FBI pre-approving .....pretty please????

http://www.seau.org/SEAUNews-2001-10.pdf

Reading their statement, it does not indicate that the FBI were censuring all media video/photos. At the time; FBI were also on the hunt for terrorist clues.

This is a Engineering Organization newsletter flyer.

While interesting, something more mainstream confirming that this was an policy and/or from the FBI itself would stand up to scrutiny.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: kylebisme
It was around 66% of New Yorkers calling for new probe according to a Zogby poll back in 2004, and I've seen no evidence to suggest the numbers have dropped since then.

http://www.rasmussenreports.co..._11_attacks_in_advance

Um, really, no evidence?

NYers are overwhelmingly democrat and by 2004 loathed bush and would have supported any investigation if there was a remote chance it would embarass him or hurt his chances for reelection.

The above poll shows 22% of the US in 2007 thought bush "let it happen" and that's skewed overwhelmingly by democrats. One can pretty easily draw the conclusion that political motivation drives their beliefs and not rational understanding of the evidence.

Note that about 20% of NJ thinks Obama might be the antichrist. That's what your poll is worth.

Further, now that the "get rid of Bush" motivator is gone, the number of Democrats who think Bush "let it happen" is only 25%. Compared with 42% of Reps who think Obama wasn't born in the US.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2...ner/entry5332888.shtml

Of course the MAJOR point in all this polling is that people who thought bush "let it happen" IMPLICITLY admit that the "official story" REALLY HAPPENED. What is it that Bush "let happen?" He "let" terrorists crash planes into the buildings to collapse them. The number that believe Bush had explosives planted is minute.

So Sigworthy:

Originally posted by: kylebisme
I'm a facts junkie

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: Cogman

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: Cogman
And How do you know that the supports were simply not providing negligible resistance?

Rather, I know for a fact that:

Originally posted by: kylebisme
...not only were the north face columns [NIST mentions] not providing any notable support, neither were those of any other face, or all of the mass that made up the floors and everything else in the building [all of which NIST simply ingores].

And I know this because:

Originally posted by: kylebisme
This is simply inherent to the definition of the term free fall, as documented here:

free fall
?noun
1. the hypothetical fall of a body such that the only force acting upon it is that of gravity.

That said:

Originally posted by: Cogman
Ok, So now we know that free-fall technically doesn't happen on earth.

Rather, it technically doesn't happen anywhere, only:

Originally posted by: Cogman
...in the hypothetical case of a complete vacuum...

And not even the darkest depths of space is a complete vacuum. On Earth, the mass which makes up the atmosphere doesn't provide notable resistance against the fall of a notably denser mass either, at least not until it is falling so fast that even pushing the air out the the way quick enough to keep accelerating requires considerable force. To drop such a dense mass though thin air without having it archive a period of acceleration indistinguishable from free fall, one would need to strap something with a large surface area to mass ratio to it, to act as a parachute.

I'm going to stop at that for now to see if you are clear with what I've said so far. If you have any questions or arguments with anything in this post, please present it, and if not then a simple "agreed" will do, at which point I will move on to addressing another section of your reply. Note that I did skip over your request for the math here, and I've explained why before; the math won't be any good to you until you are comfortable with the principles of physical reality which it describes.

I already provided my argument, and they you got caught up on the fact that I agreed with you that free fall doesn't happen on earth :rolleyes;

In fact, it's laughable because not only did you fail to prove that the columns didn't fail because of weakening, you just quoted your self saying it is impossible.

Maybe you simply don't understand what negligible means. It means that the resistive force is so small that it is hardly worth noting. For example, If one column was full strength and the rest magically disappeared, that column would provide a negligible resistance to the falling structure. It would fail so fast it would make your head spin.

Air isn't the only thing that can be negligible. When the force of the falling object is far greater then the tensile strength of the material it is falling on, the force provided by it will be negligible.

Think of it this way, you have a tower made of toothpicks that is just barely supporting its own weight (generally the case with buildings. They aren't built to hold much more then their own weight really.) Now, with that stack, take the top couple of levels, pick them up about the height of 1 level, and drop them on the stack. What will happen? The stack will fail and the decent of the top stack for a period while the rest of the stack was falling would look to be in a free fall.

When talking about dropping an object, resistive forces act in an exponential fashion. That means that the building falling at 2 m/s might look to be in a free fall while at 3 m/s you reach a sort of maximum velocity. Sure, the time where it is accelerating to 3 m/s may look to be a free fall, but that is because the resistive forces are minimal. compared to the acceleration due to gravity.

And you still haven't answered to the fact that it could have easily been going slightly faster in stage 1. IE it needed to be going 3.2 m/s if it was to descend in a free fall. However, what if it was going 3.21 m/s? all the sudden, I didn't have to be a total free fall and it STILL could have covered the distance that NIST said it did. With that much mass, 0.01 m/s faster makes a HUGE difference on the amount of force applied to the joints. Yet it would be something very hard to measure, especially considering the fact that the frame rate of phones is approx 0.05 seconds / frame. They didn't have high speed cameras capturing the building falling, thus their measurements on falling speeds are going to be semi-rough.

There are plenty of explanations, reasonable and logical to your issue. And you haven't discredited one of them. All you've said is "That's physically impossible!". Prove it.

Wel;l this debate on free fall at in this age group is a joke. 4th grade science book . Solve problem .

Why if you drop a feather and a penny at same time on earth does the penny fall faster?
AIR resistance. The whole argument about free fall is a laugh. Granted those floors collapsing did have resistance . But fact remains if ya dropped a ball at same time collaspe started both would have hit ground at approxamitlly the same time . Differance being resistance to air ownly . Zero resistance from supporting lower floors. NOT possiable . Show proof of other buildings doing the same . OH ya can't because 9/11 was the first time its ever happened and it happened 3 times in one day . 3 first in 1 day . Than the planes that crashed other places . NO proof of large plane crashes zero . 2 more first in history . NO wreckage. 2 more first in History. That 5 First in the same day . All this taken place in the most protected skies in the world . NOT likely. Impossiable is what odds say . So you go ahead and place your bets against the overwhelming odds.
I suggest you hug your teddy hard . Its going to get nasty . Your bet = Your family and friends. Your willing to sacrifice them against those odds . Its the same as murder. Ignorance is NO excuse for complacency. Shame on U all. And may God have mercy on ya.

 

[Number1]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: LunarRay
That you do not concede there exists a shred of evidence that does not conform to the 'official' version places you firmly in the cement of the majority.

It puts him in the majority here on this forum anyway, but in the grand scheme of things even just believing al Qaeda was behind the attacks puts him in the minority.

There are also millions of people who deny the holocaust ever happened. Does it make them right? I don't think so.

Many of the people cited in your article are also the type of people who deny the holocaust. Some also blame the Jew for the attack, others don't know, they're just not informed about the event.

Like the article mentioned, respondent from the middle east were most likely to name perpetrator other the al quada. How would that surprise anybody considering the wide spread propaganda and hatred of Americans down there?

 

[Cogman]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
Wel;l this debate on free fall at in this age group is a joke. 4th grade science book . Solve problem .

Why if you drop a feather and a penny at same time on earth does the penny fall faster?
AIR resistance. The whole argument about free fall is a laugh. Granted those floors collapsing did have resistance . But fact remains if ya dropped a ball at same time collaspe started both would have hit ground at approxamitlly the same time . Differance being resistance to air ownly . Zero resistance from supporting lower floors. NOT possiable . Show proof of other buildings doing the same . OH ya can't because 9/11 was the first time its ever happened and it happened 3 times in one day . # first in 1 day . Than the planes that crashed other places . NO proof of large plane crashes zero .
I suggest you hugh your teddy hard . Its going to get nasty .

There is no point arguing with you if you are going to completely deny reality.

I suggest that nobody else address him because honestly, what is the point of arguing with someone that will completely deny that the planes crashed into the building, despite thousands of eye witnesses and videos to the contrary.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: event8horizon

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: event8horizon
tlc stated:
"The temps were measured remotely using AVIRIS.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/o...-0429/thermal.r09.html

Nothing indicates that the temps were anywhere near hot enough to melt steel."

lets take a look at what he is saying here. aviris flew over the pile 5 days after the attack. the highest temp was around 720C. ok good enough, but guess what temp sisson and bierdman suggest that the eutectic formed so that the steel can "corrode". ooooopppsss that would be 1100C. so what TLC is really saying is that he has NO idea what temp was underneath in the pile.

TLC- question for ya. how far beneath the surface could aviris "see"???

please see fema bpat report appendix c for details.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wt...allurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm

Pssst. 1100C is not hot enough to melt steel either. As far as eutectic reactions, that's already been dealt with in links I posted previously. You're a dollar late and a day short on that subject, as usual.

And back to my previous question to you - How can you cite someone as an "expert" and in your next post claim he doesn't have all the data? Please explain. I expect you won't though and I see another "Oops, gotta go." post in your near future. Keep running away from any answer, kiddo. You never provide any answers as it is so I don't expect you to suddenly begin providing them now. If you can't copy & paste your responses from some truther website you're lost anyway. That much has always been clear about you.

so you really dont know how hot it was underneath the rubble pile do you.
aviris could only "see" how hot the surface was. aviris had no idea what temp was underneath the rubble pile.

and as for the eutectic, your iron, sulfur, oxygen slag at 1100 has also been dealt with here by me. and sisson says in 24hrs, little steel was removed by that route.

i ask again, how did 15.9 mm of steel "corrode" in 8 days if sisson could get just alittle steel to corrode in 24hrs?

I ask again, how can you cite someone as an expert and then dismiss them in your next breath? If you expect answers from me you better provide answers of your own to the questions I asked first or you're nothing more than a troll.

I'm waiting on your response to this as well:

I'm still waiting to hear your own explanation of why you continually dote on that issue as if it means anything. Of course, you've never explained your beliefs in this forum and run away when questioned on those beliefs, or post some vague handwaving bullshit.

If temps didn't allegedly get hot enough, what is your alternative explanation? Are you implying something nefarious happened? If not, what's your point? If so, then explain whatever that nefarious thing is.

 

[Number1]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1


Creditability is a joke . Here try this read world News as presented to us By those you trust. Than Actually go read world news that isn't USA/Europe propaganda. You creditable sources are liars as is our government as are our teachers / Ministers/ politicans/ Bankers/ NV/ AMD / Intel . The list is so long it would be way faster to name the people who still have Honor/Pride and good work ethics.

Na your so attached to the lies . You won't see the train that plows you under.

Wow, everything I read is a lie?

LOL

Typical twuther thinking, your post speaks for itself.


Twuther brain status:

OMG they are ALL lying to us. OMG OMG.


LOL

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: Cogman

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
Wel;l this debate on free fall at in this age group is a joke. 4th grade science book . Solve problem .

Why if you drop a feather and a penny at same time on earth does the penny fall faster?
AIR resistance. The whole argument about free fall is a laugh. Granted those floors collapsing did have resistance . But fact remains if ya dropped a ball at same time collaspe started both would have hit ground at approxamitlly the same time . Differance being resistance to air ownly . Zero resistance from supporting lower floors. NOT possiable . Show proof of other buildings doing the same . OH ya can't because 9/11 was the first time its ever happened and it happened 3 times in one day . # first in 1 day . Than the planes that crashed other places . NO proof of large plane crashes zero .
I suggest you hugh your teddy hard . Its going to get nasty .

There is no point arguing with you if you are going to completely deny reality.

I suggest that nobody else address him because honestly, what is the point of arguing with someone that will completely deny that the planes crashed into the building, despite thousands of eye witnesses and videos to the contrary.

You're dealing with a guy who believes that "Al Qa'ida" translates to "the database," and that it was created in the bowels of the CIA to drive us all toward the end-times, that those times are now upon us, and that we all need to arm ourselves and prepare for Armageddon.

I just wanted to put it in perspective for ya... the guy is one seriously (un?)medicated whackjob. At one point, I think he even admitted here to growing up or living in a halfway house. For all I know, he could be posting here from a laptop in his tent across the street from the White House.

event8horizon and kylebisme are the same way. Approach with caution.