|
9/11 RIP to the Fallen & F*CK the US GOV (pg. 45)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| culorut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Zentac_75
The claim that fire has never before destroyed a steel-framed building seems to hold up well, as it's hard to find a recent example of it. The reason is that modern building fires are always fought, they have sprinkler systems, and their steel is well insulated. Turn the clock back a few decades to World War II, when there was massive worldwide incendiary bombing of major cities, there were no sprinkler systems, and fire fighters had no hope of responding, there were many hundreds of steel framed buildings that were destroyed by fire. Not by bombs; by fire. The Edo Museum in Tokyo has preserved gnarled masses of giant girders twisted into knots by fire. London's Imperial War Museum has thousands of photographs of the same, and even a large collection of contemporary art depicting warped steel girders. Dresden's City Historical Museum also shows examples of steel girders from buildings that collapsed from fire, during that city's most infamous of all large-scale incendiary attacks. These museum collections all predate any alleged September 11 conspiracy.
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4085 |
Those buildings that did give way (due to mostly dated construction techniques, no sprinklers, no firefighters putting out the fires, etc) as you mentioned did so but did not blow up and collapse at practically the rate of free fall into their own footprints after just a few short hours.
A partial collapse of a building is not anything new or near equal to a complete symmetrical collapse of a building at the rate of free fall.
Apples to oranges.
WTC building 7 had no army dropping bombs from the sky on it, it did have much better construction, it also had firefighters trying to put out the office fires for most of the day but yet imploded exactly like what you see in a controlled demolition.
Controlled demolition is needed in order to bring buildings down in this fashion and controlled demolition only.
I read through the complete link you partially quoted and the author directly referenced (incorrectly I might add) that WTC building 7 sustained major damage from debris which is a complete falsehood.
NIST themselves had to go back on the same exact point as later evidence of WTC building 7 was released through the FOIA and suggested completely otherwise.
In other words this skeptical write up is now rendered absolutely invalid. Basing a view on false information (the official story) and comparing it to something that is nothing alike is completely useless. |
|
|
| hardcore trancer |
| quote: | Originally posted by geroin
you didn't see it? it's right here man!!
 |
Sorry but that picture means since it just shows a piece of a scarp metal. This is the type of proofs that I'm looking for:
you know the fusaluge? the tail? did they just vanish?
I guess that is too much to ask... |
|
|
| geroin |
| quote: | Originally posted by hardcore trancer
|
i was being sarcastic... |
|
|
| love_child |
| quote: | Originally posted by geroin
i was being sarcastic... |
:haha: I was just about to say... |
|
|
| Spam |
| quote: | Originally posted by geroin
Galileo was never executed but some people were like Hypatia or Copernicus for example.
Ok then based on your example you just proved to me that an independent study should have been done to verify the "facts" that are being fed to us then. |
No, I just proved to you that independent study should have to be peer reviewed before it is accepted as fact. There isn't a single shred of evidence that's been released by the "truther" side of this argument that has been peer-reviewed. When you can find some, we'd be most interested in checking it out. |
|
|
| exraver |
South tower hit at 9.03 AM, AFTER north tower at 8.45 AM:
So far, so good?
OK, let's move on:
But whoever was controlling the plane did not manage a direct hit; rather the plane hit the tower toward a corner and at a shallow angle, and comparatively little of the jet fuel entered the building, most being consumed in the fireball.
Since the plane and its fuel initially shared a common trajectory, after impact the metallic components of the plane followed much the same path as the jet fuel. This path was through one corner of the South Tower. The steel beams bearing most of the load were located in the center of the tower, and thus most of the metal from the plane would not have hit the central steel beams, which would thus have remained largely undamaged by the impact.
Thus neither the plane impact nor the fire damaged the South Tower sufficiently to account for its collapse, so the South Tower collapsed from some other cause.
The fire in the South Tower was thus less intense than that in the North Tower. But the South Tower collapsed first, at 9:59 a.m., 56 minutes after impact, whereas the North Tower collapsed at 10:29 a.m., 1 hour and 44 minutes after impact. Had the fires been the cause of the collapse then the North Tower, with its more intense fire, would have collapsed first. Or, put another way, had the fires been the cause of the collapse then the South Tower, hit after the North Tower, and subjected to a less intense fire, would have collapsed after (not before) the North Tower collapsed. |
|
|
| hardcore trancer |
| quote: | Originally posted by geroin
i was being sarcastic... |
Dude I know.:tongue2 |
|
|
| culorut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spam
No, I just proved to you that independent study should have to be peer reviewed before it is accepted as fact. There isn't a single shred of evidence that's been released by the "truther" side of this argument that has been peer-reviewed. When you can find some, we'd be most interested in checking it out. |
The official story has the government seal of approval, has been peer reviewed by the whole world 10 times over and it means absolutely all.
Most people do not need a collective to make their own decisions but that's exactly what they would like everyone to believe. Especially when most of the publications and media outlets are written, controlled and owned by the same lying criminals that told everyone there was WMD's in Iraq. |
|
|
| Comrade Stalin |
| quote: | Originally posted by exraver
As I was saying 12 pages before, I don't give a about who did this.
Could be CIA, FBI, some bearded dude from a cave in Afghanistan using his VISA, hippies, aliens, KGB etc.
All I'm saying is, this is too good to be true, and there's some many shady moments, it stinks as a big pile of crap.
Look, 9 years passed, millions more of muslims are killed as a result of 9/11, and so-called arab terrorists, who were so efficient on 9/11, the best they can come up with right now is shoe bomber or underwear bomber?
Give me a break man, 19 people stealing 4 planes and bomb in underwear? |
Inference after inference after inference. "It's fishy, I know something ELSE happened! I don't know who, or how, or anything else other than my hunches on why." Great, that explains soooo much! You're saying NOTHING. It seems to me as if you're purposefully keeping your personal shade of 9/11 conspiracy theory, intentionally vague, so no one can pin you down on what is really, a huge pile of pseudo-intellectual . Care to expound on your theory, or do you just want to keep it so vague as to be utterly useless? I'm asking you and your friends specific questions. And I have yet to get ONE straight answer. You, culorut, geroin, gummybear, hardcore trancer have nothing but inferences, inadmissible in a court of law, and incapable of answering your to your critic's scrutiny. After all this, all I have is...
"All I'm saying is, this is too good to be true, and there's some many shady moments, it stinks as a big pile of crap."
Bull, you're saying far more than that, you just don't want to admit. Face it, you think the US government did it. Admit it. Then we can examine this utterly ridiculous accusation. You don't make accusations without naming a culprit, otherwise, you have nothing to say. |
|
|
| Comrade Stalin |
| quote: | Originally posted by culorut
The official story has the government seal of approval, has been peer reviewed by the whole world 10 times over and it means absolutely all.
Most people do not need a collective to make their own decisions but that's exactly what they would like everyone to believe. Especially when most of the publications and media outlets are written, controlled and owned by the same lying criminals that told everyone there was WMD's in Iraq. |
So scientific verification means nothing to you? Because peer-reviewed journals are how scientific truth is verified. Seeing as no 9/11 truth conspiracy has ever been verified by peer-reviewed research published in any respectable publication, I would say, your opinion "means absolutely all". How's that? Pathetic your movement needs to start its own fake journal just to get published. :stongue: |
|
|
| Comrade Stalin |
| quote: | Originally posted by exraver
South tower hit at 9.03 AM, AFTER north tower at 8.45 AM:
So far, so good?
OK, let's move on:
But whoever was controlling the plane did not manage a direct hit; rather the plane hit the tower toward a corner and at a shallow angle, and comparatively little of the jet fuel entered the building, most being consumed in the fireball.
Since the plane and its fuel initially shared a common trajectory, after impact the metallic components of the plane followed much the same path as the jet fuel. This path was through one corner of the South Tower. The steel beams bearing most of the load were located in the center of the tower, and thus most of the metal from the plane would not have hit the central steel beams, which would thus have remained largely undamaged by the impact.
Thus neither the plane impact nor the fire damaged the South Tower sufficiently to account for its collapse, so the South Tower collapsed from some other cause.
The fire in the South Tower was thus less intense than that in the North Tower. But the South Tower collapsed first, at 9:59 a.m., 56 minutes after impact, whereas the North Tower collapsed at 10:29 a.m., 1 hour and 44 minutes after impact. Had the fires been the cause of the collapse then the North Tower, with its more intense fire, would have collapsed first. Or, put another way, had the fires been the cause of the collapse then the South Tower, hit after the North Tower, and subjected to a less intense fire, would have collapsed after (not before) the North Tower collapsed. |
And you're implying what? Demolition charges? Not that I believe .01% of what you just posted... |
|
|
| culorut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Comrade Stalin
So scientific verification means nothing to you? Because peer-reviewed journals are how scientific truth is verified. Seeing as no 9/11 truth conspiracy has ever had a research paper published in any respectable peer-reviewed publication, I would say, your opinion "means absolutely all". How's that? |
Scientific verification pegged or passed as the official story by the (lying) government and proven completely wrong by the world over means all.
Get it right for once. |
|
|
|
|
