kentrolla
|
|
September 11, 2012, 02:25:34 PM |
|
when has there ever been a fire fueled by enough jet fuel for a flight from coast to coast? The fire was clearly out of control and cannot be compared to any other fire.
I'm done arguing about this. It has been discussed way too many times. I'm surprised there are people that still believe in the explosions theory lol. It's been 11 years and there are still people this ignorant.
Your belief in "fire that cannot be compared to any other" is purely religious. Ok, what would you compare it with then?
|
█████████████████████████ ████████▀▀████▀▀█▀▀██████ █████▀████▄▄▄▄██████▀████ ███▀███▄████████▄████▀███ ██▀███████████████████▀██ █████████████████████████ █████████████████████████ █████████████████████████ ██▄███████████████▀▀▄▄███ ███▄███▀████████▀███▄████ █████▄████▀▀▀▀████▄██████ ████████▄▄████▄▄█████████ █████████████████████████ | BitList | | █▀▀▀▀ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █▄▄▄▄ | ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ . REAL-TIME DATA TRACKING CURATED BY THE COMMUNITY . ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ | ▀▀▀▀█ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ ▄▄▄▄█ | | List #kycfree Websites |
|
|
|
Atlas (OP)
Jr. Member
Offline
Activity: 56
Merit: 1
|
|
September 11, 2012, 02:25:52 PM |
|
Yes particles and other small flaming debris can collapse a steel structure. You guys are the nutty ones here.
|
|
|
|
Severian
|
|
September 11, 2012, 02:27:22 PM |
|
I find it hard to believe that asymmetric damage caused a perfect, near free-fall symmetric collapse. Most of my fellow citizens appear willing to believe anything, judging by the success of government propaganda of the past 100 years. Skeptical people don't believe what they're told, but the American public does.
|
|
|
|
Atlas (OP)
Jr. Member
Offline
Activity: 56
Merit: 1
|
|
September 11, 2012, 02:28:44 PM |
|
when has there ever been a fire fueled by enough jet fuel for a flight from coast to coast? The fire was clearly out of control and cannot be compared to any other fire.
I'm done arguing about this. It has been discussed way too many times. I'm surprised there are people that still believe in the explosions theory lol. It's been 11 years and there are still people this ignorant.
Your belief in "fire that cannot be compared to any other" is purely religious. Ok, what would you compare it with then? Any other fire. Steel beams in all modern buildings are heavily covered in fireproof material. A steel beam in most research will not reach over 400 degrees Celsius with said coating even when the fire is over 1000 degrees.
|
|
|
|
Atlas (OP)
Jr. Member
Offline
Activity: 56
Merit: 1
|
|
September 11, 2012, 02:30:25 PM |
|
Recent examples of high-rise fires include the 1991 One Meridian Plaza fire in Philadelphia, which raged for 18 hours and gutted 8 floors of the 38-floor building; 1 and the 1988 First Interstate Bank Building fire in Los Angeles, which burned out of control for 3-1/2 hours and gutted 4 floors of the 64 floor tower. Both of these fires were far more severe than any fires seen in Building 7, but those buildings did not collapse. The Los Angeles fire was described as producing "no damage to the main structural members". 2 http://www.wtc7.net/buildingfires.html
|
|
|
|
myrkul
|
|
September 11, 2012, 02:31:16 PM |
|
To play Big Brother's advocate for a minute, the skin of the planes was made of aluminum. The beams were made of steel. It's conceivable that the aluminum interacted with iron oxide on the beams to produce the thermite reaction, which takes a great deal of heat to activate - easily within jet fuel's capability - but produces even more. Enough, even, to melt those beams like butter under a blowtorch.
Of course, this requires that the skin be essentially powdered, and the beams be very rusty... And still doesn't explain building 7.
|
|
|
|
Severian
|
|
September 11, 2012, 02:34:52 PM |
|
And still doesn't explain building 7.
Building 7 was supposed to be hit by Flight 93, the plane that went down in Pa. They pulled the building anyway and got away with it. Modern Americans are the most gullible people to ever walk the face of the earth.
|
|
|
|
Atlas (OP)
Jr. Member
Offline
Activity: 56
Merit: 1
|
|
September 11, 2012, 02:37:48 PM |
|
Also, lol:
During sections of the game (Deus Ex) where the New York skyline is visible in the background, the two towers of the World Trade Center are noticeably missing; the real towers were destroyed a year after the game was released. Harvey Smith has explained that due to texture memory limitations, the portion of the skyline with the twin towers exists in the game's data files but had to be left out of the final game, with the other half mirrored in place of it. According to Smith, during the game's development, the developers justified the lack of the towers by stating that terrorists had destroyed the World Trade Center earlier in the game's storyline.[37] Warren Spector however states "I wish we could say that we did it on purpose and we were sort of seeing the future. But it was actually just a mistake. The artist who did the skybox just uh, left them out. And it sort of worked out in an unfortunate way."
|
|
|
|
hashman
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1264
Merit: 1008
|
|
September 11, 2012, 08:20:38 PM |
|
And still doesn't explain building 7.
Building 7 was supposed to be hit by Flight 93, the plane that went down in Pa. They pulled the building anyway and got away with it. Modern Americans are the most gullible people to ever walk the face of the earth. How do you figure Americans believe that shit? Let me guess, Rupert Murdoch told you so? Wait a minute, who is gullible?
|
|
|
|
Littleshop
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1386
Merit: 1004
|
|
September 11, 2012, 09:04:29 PM |
|
Let us remember the WTC towers were the only buildings known to be perfectly demolished in a linear fashion from small aircraft.
I think you have an unusual definition of small. All the math and engineering add up for the destruction of the towers exactly as it happened on 9-11 from the aircraft hits. The buildings would have not fallen without the fire. The buildings would not have fallen without a key weakness in the floor trusses. The buildings would not have fallen if the heat insulation on the beams had held or the fire suppression system worked (which would be hard to keep intact knowing what hit them).
|
|
|
|
Severian
|
|
September 11, 2012, 09:07:20 PM |
|
Let me guess, Rupert Murdoch told you so? Murdoch is banker scum. He pushed the Officially Sanctioned Conspiracy Theory as hard as any of them.
|
|
|
|
hashman
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1264
Merit: 1008
|
|
September 11, 2012, 10:38:06 PM |
|
Let me guess, Rupert Murdoch told you so? Murdoch is banker scum. He pushed the Officially Sanctioned Conspiracy Theory as hard as any of them. Can be annoying when people judge the US populace based on what they hear Sky news telling them. There's plenty to complain about but pick something that has some truth behind it. Baywatch is not really so popular in the USA, and most new yorkers know it was more than planes and relatively small fires that brought those three steel framed buildings down.
|
|
|
|
Severian
|
|
September 11, 2012, 10:40:48 PM |
|
most new yorkers know it was more than planes and relatively small fires that brought those three steel framed buildings down.
|
|
|
|
interlagos
|
|
September 12, 2012, 12:18:00 AM Last edit: September 12, 2012, 01:11:22 AM by interlagos |
|
Here, I found it! At 3:45 in the video above it explains everything! "Considering that news agencies around the world were reporting that it was on fire and in danger of collapse, it shouldn't have been a surprise to anyone when World Trade Center 7 collapsed as a result of fire" So it collapsed because the "news agencies" were saying it would. Nice "debunking"! When "news agencies" get to work, laws of physics don't need to apply anymore...
|
|
|
|
interlagos
|
|
September 12, 2012, 12:23:33 AM |
|
I'm done arguing about this. It has been discussed way too many times. I'm surprised there are people that still believe in the explosions theory lol. It's been 11 years and there are still people this ignorant.
Quite the opposite actually - it's surprising that after 11 years there are still people buying into "official story". The voting on youtube "debunking" video that you posted supports the point.
|
|
|
|
tiberiandusk
|
|
September 12, 2012, 01:13:42 AM |
|
You guys think we aren't being skeptical enough. You need to realize there's a point where skepticism becomes batshiat insanity.
|
|
|
|
Severian
|
|
September 12, 2012, 01:22:30 AM |
|
You need to realize there's a point where skepticism becomes batshiat insanity. You'' need to explain to 1700+ architects and civil engineers how insane they are: http://www.ae911truth.org/Add hundreds of pilots and aviation employees to your list: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core.htmlThe fact of the matter is that no one likes to admit that they've been hoodwinked. Most people will fight might and main to deny they've been fooled. The victims of the various Ponzis on this board that still won't admit they got suckered will usually resort to name calling and calling people nuts in order to avoid the uncomfortable truth.
|
|
|
|
tiberiandusk
|
|
September 12, 2012, 01:25:08 AM |
|
You need to realize there's a point where skepticism becomes batshiat insanity. You'' need to explain to 1700+ architects and civil engineers how insane they are: http://www.ae911truth.org/Add hundreds of pilots and aviation employees to your list: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core.htmlThe fact of the matter is that no one likes to admit that they've been hoodwinked. Most people will fight might and main to deny they've been fooled. The victims of the various Ponzis on this board that still won't admit they got suckered will usually resort to name calling and calling people nuts in order to avoid the uncomfortable truth. There are a lot of people in the world. It doesn't take long to find a long list of crazies. Look at Fox New's ratings.
|
|
|
|
Severian
|
|
September 12, 2012, 01:34:50 AM |
|
It doesn't take long to find a long list of crazies. Almost the entire country believed George W. Bush without question for a couple of years. That's not rational. Believe what you like. I'd like to think people on this board are smarter than dismissing the considered opinions of professionals with the word "crazy", but after watching the Scamfest, perhaps not.
|
|
|
|
tiberiandusk
|
|
September 12, 2012, 02:40:15 AM |
|
OK, if not crazy then just misguided. They already know in their hearts it's a conspiracy so when they work the data it ends up agreeing with what they already knew to be "true". Yes there are government cover-ups and fabrications but it is impossible to do something on this scale without someone talking. Someone involved will have an ego and will write a book or give an interview. It's like the moon landing conspiracy. If it really was faked why haven't they faked it again or faked landing on Mars? On 9/11 almost 3,000 people died. Someone would have a conscience and come forward. I'm not saying the government didn't use 9/11 for their own benefit (PATRIOT ACT, Iraq, etc...) but to say that this was an orchestrated event and no one noticed the preparations is silly. Hell, they may have known it was coming and let it happen but the controlled demolition story is beyond ridiculous. How do you drill holes and plant charges in one of the busiest office complexes in the world while it is operating and have nobody notice anything? Have you seen our government working? They couldn't pull off 9/11 even with the blessing of the American people.
|
|
|
|
|