Explosions on 9/11

[Giants Fan 85]

Just to clarify ... I FIND IT OFFENSIVE ... and I'd guess a few other people that lost friends and or loved ones agree, that people who consider themselves patriots yet spew this conspiracy bullsh!at ...

It's not true man! I was there ok ... in real life. Big fire, both towers. Know people that don't exist anymore.

 

Mkay? I KNOW PEOPLE THAT DIED ... as do millions of other witnesses. I'd venture to guess if you took a poll of people that saw or felt 9/11 ... I find it a little bit offensive that some people think the plane my friends were on never existed.

 

Bring back my friends then. I'd love to be wrong ...

 

Until then ... STFU.

[jets24 6]

Just to clarify ... I FIND IT OFFENSIVE ... and I'd guess a few other people that lost friends and or loved ones agree, that people who consider themselves patriots yet spew this conspiracy bullsh!at ...

It's not true man! I was there ok ... in real life. Big fire, both towers. Know people that don't exist anymore.

 

Mkay? I KNOW PEOPLE THAT DIED ... as do millions of other witnesses. I'd venture to guess if you took a poll of people that saw or felt 9/11 ... I find it a little bit offensive that some people think the plane my friends were on never existed.

 

Bring back my friends then. I'd love to be wrong ...

 

Until then ... STFU.

 

Liar!

[GridIronAssassin#1 0]

Just to clarify ... I FIND IT OFFENSIVE ... and I'd guess a few other people that lost friends and or loved ones agree, that people who consider themselves patriots yet spew this conspiracy bullsh!at ...

It's not true man! I was there ok ... in real life. Big fire, both towers. Know people that don't exist anymore.

 

Mkay? I KNOW PEOPLE THAT DIED ... as do millions of other witnesses. I'd venture to guess if you took a poll of people that saw or felt 9/11 ... I find it a little bit offensive that some people think the plane my friends were on never existed.

 

Bring back my friends then. I'd love to be wrong ...

 

Until then ... STFU.

 

Sorry about your friend Jeff, my condolences. It sounds like you are still in great deal of pain from grieving and mourning over the loss of a good friend. It will unfortunately last your whole lifetime.

 

Most Individuals trying to seek out the truth on 9/11 are doing it with good intentions. The intent is not to be offensive to other people that lost friends and or loved ones but to find the truth. Some of us believe that the truth is ugly but may be necessary.

 

The reason the search for truth started is because of the family members of victims became concerned. In fact the only reason there was an investigation into the events of 9/11 is because of concerned family members of the victims. I'm not sure if you're familiar with the Jersey girls story. The Jersey girls were four wives that lost their husbands on 9/11. They wanted answers, all kinds of answers. They and other victims' family members formed a group to try to get an investigation into the events of 9/11. After being stonewalled for a long time by the administration, the Jersey girls finally got them to agree to an investigation. The investigation was called the 9/11 commission. Excited at first, the Jersey girls and other victim family members felt they would finally get some of the many questions they had about 9/11 answered. But, as the hearings unfolded, they became utterly dissapointed as almost none of the family members' questions were answered. The administration managed to get Phillip Zelakow to direct the 9/11 commission and he had obvious conflicts of interest. He was part of the security team in the Bush administration among other things. But only he and one other member got to see all the whitehouse documents. Some people on the 9/11 commission got to see more documents than others thus making it very imbalanced. No family members were ever on the commission. The bottom line on the 9/11 commission report is that the family members of the victims are very distraught over the outcome of the final report. If you haven't seen the video 9/11 Press For Truth I highly recommend it.

 

Would you compare your suffering to this women who lost her daughter? This woman believes we need a new investigation, and she isn't trying to be offensive towards you. Woman who lost daughter speaks out

 

There aren't many people that think the planes don't exist. That's a fringe element of conspiracy theorists. I think the planes existed.

[adam smitty 0]

This would make for a great season of 24

[jets24 6]

Sorry about your friend Jeff, my condolences. It sounds like you are still in great deal of pain from grieving and mourning over the loss of a good friend. It will unfortunately last your whole lifetime.

 

Most Individuals trying to seek out the truth on 9/11 are doing it with good intentions. The intent is not to be offensive to other people that lost friends and or loved ones but to find the truth. Some of us believe that the truth is ugly but may be necessary.

 

The reason the search for truth started is because of the family members of victims became concerned. In fact the only reason there was an investigation into the events of 9/11 is because of concerned family members of the victims. I'm not sure if you're familiar with the Jersey girls story. The Jersey girls were four wives that lost their husbands on 9/11. They wanted answers, all kinds of answers. They and other victims' family members formed a group to try to get an investigation into the events of 9/11. After being stonewalled for a long time by the administration, the Jersey girls finally got them to agree to an investigation. The investigation was called the 9/11 commission. Excited at first, the Jersey girls and other victim family members felt they would finally get some of the many questions they had about 9/11 answered. But, as the hearings unfolded, they became utterly dissapointed as almost none of the family members' questions were answered. The administration managed to get Phillip Zelakow to direct the 9/11 commission and he had obvious conflicts of interest. He was part of the security team in the Bush administration among other things. But only he and one other member got to see all the whitehouse documents. Some people on the 9/11 commission got to see more documents than others thus making it very imbalanced. No family members were ever on the commission. The bottom line on the 9/11 commission report is that the family members of the victims are very distraught over the outcome of the final report. If you haven't seen the video 9/11 Press For Truth I highly recommend it.

 

Would you compare your suffering to this women who lost her daughter? This woman believes we need a new investigation, and she isn't trying to be offensive towards you. Woman who lost daughter speaks out

 

There aren't many people that think the planes don't exist. That's a fringe element of conspiracy theorists. I think the planes existed.

 

 

I know two of these "Jersey Girls" and they are the biggest frauds you have ever met. They don't give a crap about the truth. Why in God's name would these 4 women be any more important than the other 3,000 families out there? You think these women and a few others are the only ones who want the truth? Most of them got the truth. There family members were murdered by Al Queda. End of discussion you fear mongering SOB.

[GridIronAssassin#1 0]

I know two of these "Jersey Girls" and they are the biggest frauds you have ever met. They don't give a crap about the truth. Why in God's name would these 4 women be any more important than the other 3,000 families out there? You think these women and a few others are the only ones who want the truth? Most of them got the truth. There family members were murdered by Al Queda. End of discussion you fear mongering SOB.

 

You don't know any of the Jersey Girls. They are true American heroes which you choose to desecrate. Because you choose to stomp on true American heroes doesn't mean we all choose that path. They tried night and day to get an investigation and eventually they got one. Yes, they and many of the victims' families members want a new investigation because the 911 commission fell short of expectations. Who qualified you to speak for the other 3000 families out there? You probably would have quite a time even getting one name that supports the offiicial version of events that day. I've already stated the 4 Jersey girls and Donna Marsh Occonor who are on record for a new investigation. That's 5 names to your 0 names.

[GridIronAssassin#1 0]

 

A nice video montage put with RATM music.

[jets24 6]

You don't know any of the Jersey Girls. They are true American heroes which you choose to desecrate. Because you choose to stomp on true American heroes doesn't mean we all choose that path. They tried night and day to get an investigation and eventually they got one. Yes, they and many of the victims' families members want a new investigation because the 911 commission fell short of expectations. Who qualified you to speak for the other 3000 families out there? You probably would have quite a time even getting one name that supports the offiicial version of events that day. I've already stated the 4 Jersey girls and Donna Marsh Occonor who are on record for a new investigation. That's 5 names to your 0 names.

 

 

Fock you. I know two of them and they are selfish women. Two of the four are remarried already and two have gotten breast jobs with their millions. American Heroes? MY ASS!

 

Fock you. I know two of them and they are selfish women. Two of the four are remarried already and two have gotten breast jobs with their millions. American Heroes? MY ASS!

 

 

Since you are so gung ho for others...here's a name of someone that didn't support the investigation.

 

Debra Burlingame

[Cyber Gandalf 0]

Fock you. I know two of them and they are selfish women. Two of the four are remarried already and two have gotten breast jobs with their millions. American Heroes? MY ASS!

Since you are so gung ho for others...here's a name of someone that didn't support the investigation.

 

Debra Burlingame

 

 

She's in cahoots...in cahoots with the powers that be.

[GridIronAssassin#1 0]

Fock you. I know two of them and they are selfish women. Two of the four are remarried already and two have gotten breast jobs with their millions. American Heroes? MY ASS!

Since you are so gung ho for others...here's a name of someone that didn't support the investigation.

 

Debra Burlingame

 

You are spewing more hateful and untrue commentary on true American heroes. I choose not to condemn and ridicule these people like you since all they did was fight for their right for an investigation in which they might get some of their questions answered. I think it's very praiseworthy that they showed such dedication towards achieving a more detailed report of the accounts of 9/11. Since when has getting remarried after someone dies considered sefish or wrong? Many Christains treat it as the 6th of 7 holy sacraments. Every one of these four Jersey Girls is on record for wanting a new investigation into 9/11. You leave a name, Debra Burlingame, as a person that does not support this investigation. All I know about her is that due to her efforts she got Pataki to barr the International Freedom Center at the WTC site. I have found nothing to disprove your claim, nor have I found anything to prove your claim that she does not support a new investigation into the events of 9/11. If you'd care to show a source to your claim, I'd like to see it.

 

Victims' Families Members that support a new investigation into 9/11 and links to support my claim.

1.Kristen Breitweiser (Jersey Girl) lost husband 911 Press For Truth

2. Patty Casazza (Jersey Girl) lost husband 911 Press For Truth

3. Lorie Van Auken (Jersey Girl) lost husband 911 Press For Truth

4. Mindy Kleinberg (Jersey Girl) lost husband 911 Press For Truth

5. Monica Gabriel lost husband 911 Press For Truth

6.. Donna Marsh Occonor lost daughter Please listen to this 9 minute speech

 

 

Victims' Families Members DO NOT support a new investigation:

 

1. Debra Burlingame lost husband (pilot) ... Result Pending( link or source needed)

 

 

 

 

 

Right now the score is 6-0 or 6-1 if you can even proove that Debra Burlingame doesn't want an investigation into 9/11.

[jets24 6]

You are spewing more hateful and untrue commentary on true American heroes. I choose not to condemn and ridicule these people like you since all they did was fight for their right for an investigation in which they might get some of their questions answered. I think it's very praiseworthy that they showed such dedication towards achieving a more detailed report of the accounts of 9/11. Since when has getting remarried after someone dies considered sefish or wrong? Many Christains treat it as the 6th of 7 holy sacraments. Every one of these four Jersey Girls is on record for wanting a new investigation into 9/11. You leave a name, Debra Burlingame, as a person that does not support this investigation. All I know about her is that due to her efforts she got Pataki to barr the International Freedom Center at the WTC site. I have found nothing to disprove your claim, nor have I found anything to prove your claim that she does not support a new investigation into the events of 9/11. If you'd care to show a source to your claim, I'd like to see it.

 

Victims' Families Members that support a new investigation into 9/11 and links to support my claim.

1.Kristen Breitweiser (Jersey Girl) lost husband 911 Press For Truth

2. Patty Casazza (Jersey Girl) lost husband 911 Press For Truth

3. Lorie Van Auken (Jersey Girl) lost husband 911 Press For Truth

4. Mindy Kleinberg (Jersey Girl) lost husband 911 Press For Truth

5. Monica Gabriel lost husband 911 Press For Truth

6.. Donna Marsh Occonor lost daughter Please listen to this 9 minute speech

Victims' Families Members DO NOT support a new investigation:

 

1. Debra Burlingame lost husband (pilot) ... Result Pending( link or source needed)

Right now the score is 6-0 or 6-1 if you can even proove that Debra Burlingame doesn't want an investigation into 9/11.

 

 

Actually, the score is 6 to 2,967. How in God's name are these women American Heroes? Because they took their millions from the government and insurance companies? You really are a joke. But I am very proud of you that this last post didn't mention the words...steel....melting...buckle....heat....etc. You are coming along nicely. While you are wasting everybody's time, please address my other threads about the conspiracy theory.

[Cyber Gandalf 0]

Actually, the score is 6 to 2,967. How in God's name are these women American Heroes? Because they took their millions from the government and insurance companies? You really are a joke. But I am very proud of you that this last post didn't mention the words...steel....melting...buckle....heat....etc. You are coming along nicely. While you are wasting everybody's time, please address my other threads about the conspiracy theory.

 

They're heroes all right...heroes because they crave the truth. Something you don't want...pal.

[GridIronAssassin#1 0]

 

 

it clearly shows fire in the tower you claimed was no longer on fire. Tinge of Orange? You are seriously deranged if all you see is a tinge. Sorry the flames are not spurting out of the building like in cartoons.

 

 

 

Shonuff, this picture of large flames is NOT a cartoon. I am debunking your notion that large fires with flames are only in cartoons.

 

Big Fire, not a cartoon as Shonuff claims

 

 

 

Your claim that the South tower is a massive fire is simply insane. Large flames aren't just in cartoons and I'd expect to see them here if this building was going to completely collapse because of them. I did say the fire in the south tower looked as though it was burning out. It's still there but it's burning out. Where is the proof a large fire? Here is the photograph you posted as evidence of a massive fire==>>>Small fire at South Tower right before collapse

 

No way could those fires take down those buildings. No Way. And despite what you think Shonuff, all the evidence supports that fire couldn't have done it. But you refuse to look at the facts.

[OakHeadFootball 1]

"all the evidence supports that fire couldn't have done it"

 

Flat out false, we have been through this, repeatedly.

[Sho Nuff 720]

You are spewing more hateful and untrue commentary on true American heroes. I choose not to condemn and ridicule these people like you since all they did was fight for their right for an investigation in which they might get some of their questions answered. I think it's very praiseworthy that they showed such dedication towards achieving a more detailed report of the accounts of 9/11. Since when has getting remarried after someone dies considered sefish or wrong? Many Christains treat it as the 6th of 7 holy sacraments. Every one of these four Jersey Girls is on record for wanting a new investigation into 9/11. You leave a name, Debra Burlingame, as a person that does not support this investigation. All I know about her is that due to her efforts she got Pataki to barr the International Freedom Center at the WTC site. I have found nothing to disprove your claim, nor have I found anything to prove your claim that she does not support a new investigation into the events of 9/11. If you'd care to show a source to your claim, I'd like to see it.

 

Victims' Families Members that support a new investigation into 9/11 and links to support my claim.

1.Kristen Breitweiser (Jersey Girl) lost husband 911 Press For Truth

2. Patty Casazza (Jersey Girl) lost husband 911 Press For Truth

3. Lorie Van Auken (Jersey Girl) lost husband 911 Press For Truth

4. Mindy Kleinberg (Jersey Girl) lost husband 911 Press For Truth

5. Monica Gabriel lost husband 911 Press For Truth

6.. Donna Marsh Occonor lost daughter Please listen to this 9 minute speech

Victims' Families Members DO NOT support a new investigation:

 

1. Debra Burlingame lost husband (pilot) ... Result Pending( link or source needed)

Right now the score is 6-0 or 6-1 if you can even proove that Debra Burlingame doesn't want an investigation into 9/11.

 

Keeping score? Classy.

 

And please quit referring to anything you post as a search for truth. It is most certainly a search for someone to believe as you do...because no matter how many facts are shown to you, that refute your garbage...you do not accept them.

 

Shonuff, this picture of large flames is NOT a cartoon. I am debunking your notion that large fires with flames are only in cartoons.

 

Big Fire, not a cartoon as Shonuff claims

Your claim that the South tower is a massive fire is simply insane. Large flames aren't just in cartoons and I'd expect to see them here if this building was going to completely collapse because of them. I did say the fire in the south tower looked as though it was burning out. It's still there but it's burning out. Where is the proof a large fire? Here is the photograph you posted as evidence of a massive fire==>>>Small fire at South Tower right before collapse

 

No way could those fires take down those buildings. No Way. And despite what you think Shonuff, all the evidence supports that fire couldn't have done it. But you refuse to look at the facts.

 

So....because other buildings burned that way...they all should right?

 

Who is claiming fire was the only thing to take down those buildings? Im not...and neither is the official explanation.

 

And as of this point...all the evidence supports that the combination of the planes impact, plus the resulting fire damage brought down those buildings.

 

Refuse to look at the facts? You have yet to bring one single fact to support your opinion. The facts all support what I just said...as usual, you simply refuse to accept any factual evidence that does not fall into line with your focked up opinion.

[GridIronAssassin#1 0]

"all the evidence supports that fire couldn't have done it"

 

Flat out false, we have been through this, repeatedly.

 

Oakhead Football, you cut and run from post #106. I responded to your post #93 with post #106. Then you resigned. If you want to pick up where you left off, feel free. Bring on your best stuff, and be specific, because the more we microanalyze it, your research falls short. It always does and will . You can't give up in a debate, then hop back in pretending you didn't miss a beat. You need to respond to post #106 if you really believe you have something. I'll keep debating each and every point with you.

[Sho Nuff 720]

Oakhead Football, you cut and run from post #106. I responded to your post #93 with post #106. Then you resigned. If you want to pick up where you left off, feel free. Bring on your best stuff, and be specific, because the more we microanalyze it, your research falls short. It always does and will . You can't give up in a debate, then hop back in pretending you didn't miss a beat. You need to respond to post #106 if you really believe you have something. I'll keep debating each and every point with you.

 

Cut and run? Please...he has destroyed you every time he has responded.

 

His research kills your theories each and every time. Because you have absolutely no evidence to support your opinion.

 

The problem with this debate is it is so one sided. You bring up a bogus theory, Oak and several others kill it...you live in denial until its time to start another thread where you bring nothing to the table.

[jets24 6]

Oakhead Football, you cut and run from post #106. I responded to your post #93 with post #106. Then you resigned. If you want to pick up where you left off, feel free. Bring on your best stuff, and be specific, because the more we microanalyze it, your research falls short. It always does and will . You can't give up in a debate, then hop back in pretending you didn't miss a beat. You need to respond to post #106 if you really believe you have something. I'll keep debating each and every point with you.

 

 

Until GridIron addresses my simple questions about conspiracy theories in other threads, you should ignore him.

[GridIronAssassin#1 0]

Keeping score? Classy.

 

And please quit referring to anything you post as a search for truth. It is most certainly a search for someone to believe as you do...because no matter how many facts are shown to you, that refute your garbage...you do not accept them.

So....because other buildings burned that way...they all should right?

 

Who is claiming fire was the only thing to take down those buildings? Im not...and neither is the official explanation.

 

And as of this point...all the evidence supports that the combination of the planes impact, plus the resulting fire damage brought down those buildings.

 

Refuse to look at the facts? You have yet to bring one single fact to support your opinion. The facts all support what I just said...as usual, you simply refuse to accept any factual evidence that does not fall into line with your focked up opinion.

 

I"m arguing that the 2nd event, the fire, could've in no way caused those buildings to completely explode like we see in the pictures and videos. Those buildings did not collapse, they exploded. If you think you can detect a pile driver on the top of the building that is somehow detroying the other 3 fourths of the building, tell me where it is. I'm using your photographs that you used as evidence for a massive fire which is no where to be seen. Please look at photographs 2, 3, and 4 and tell me that doesn't look like a building exploding. Again, this is using photos , you cherrypicked to support your side of the argument. Oh, and if you decide to stick with the fire argument , which I expect, because that's what you were told to think, tell me how fast you think those buildings would've dropped if it was controlled demolition. Do you think controlled demolition would've been faster or slower than the fire? Exploding building

[jets24 6]

I"m arguing that the 2nd event, the fire, could've in no way caused those buildings to completely explode like we see in the pictures and videos. Those buildings did not collapse, they exploded. If you think you can detect a pile driver on the top of the building that is somehow detroying the other 3 fourths of the building, tell me where it is. I'm using your photographs that you used as evidence for a massive fire which is no where to be seen. Please look at photographs 2, 3, and 4 and tell me that doesn't look like a building exploding. Again, this is using photos , you cherrypicked to support your side of the argument. Oh, and if you decide to stick with the fire argument , which I expect, because that's what you were told to think, tell me how fast you think those buildings would've dropped if it was controlled demolition. Do you think controlled demolition would've been faster or slower than the fire? Exploding building

 

 

HOLY CRAP! YOU ARE FOCKING DENSE!

[GridIronAssassin#1 0]

Until GridIron addresses my simple questions about conspiracy theories in other threads, you should ignore him.

 

You failed to find even one Victim's family member that was against a new investigation. You said you would. You didn't. Instead of running all over the map, why don't you try to stick to what you promised to?

 

 

Hey Jets24, instead of using adhominem attacks, why don't you illustrate your point by disproving the post. You need to raise your level of debate, seriously.

[jets24 6]

You failed to find even one Victim's family member that was against a new investigation. You said you would. You didn't. Instead of running all over the map, why don't you try to stick to what you promised to?

Hey Jets24, instead of using adhominem attacks, why don't you illustrate your point by disproving the post. You need to raise your level of debate, seriously.

 

Said the guy who refuses to answer any of my questions..

 

 

Also, link to me saying I would find victims names against a new investigation? Better yet...I promised? When was that?

 

Of course, more lies from you. You realize you are known as a complete liar on this bored, right? Up there with Giants Fan and Big Pete.

[GridIronAssassin#1 0]

HOLY CRAP! YOU ARE FOCKING DENSE!

 

The reason you respond so weakly, is because you know the building is exploding. You could never find any part of a building or whole building that would look anything like that due to fire. You can't show anything with these pictures that suggest fire failure. However, the building is exploding outwards from top down. That's just honest observation , I'm not following your spoonfed script.

[jets24 6]

The reason you respond so weakly, is because you know the building is exploding. You could never find any part of a building or whole building that would look anything like that due to fire. You can't show anything with these pictures that suggest fire failure. However, the building is exploding outwards from top down. That's just honest observation , I'm not following your spoonfed script.

 

 

So, you just avoid the post above yours? Still waiting for you to show me where I said I would give you more names and also promise that I would.

[GridIronAssassin#1 0]

Said the guy who refuses to answer any of my questions..

Also, link to me saying I would find victims names against a new investigation? Better yet...I promised? When was that?

 

Of course, more lies from you. You realize you are known as a complete liar on this bored, right? Up there with Giants Fan and Big Pete.

 

Oh really? I guess I better change my tune then. I mean gee whiz, jets24, I guess I better agree with you so I can be popular on the bored.

 

Are you popular here?

[jets24 6]

Oh really? I guess I better change my tune then. I mean gee whiz, jets24, I guess I better agree with you so I can be popular on the bored.

 

Are you popular here?

 

 

So, no link to me saying that huh? Or promising it, huh? More lies from the King of Liars. Well done.

You see how ridiculous you are right? Nobody believes you because you simply lie. Period. It's not about being poplular. Most people hate me here. I'm just saying you should back up what you say and you obviously got caught in a few lies today. Time for you to find a new alias.

[Sho Nuff 720]

I"m arguing that the 2nd event, the fire, could've in no way caused those buildings to completely explode like we see in the pictures and videos. Those buildings did not collapse, they exploded. If you think you can detect a pile driver on the top of the building that is somehow detroying the other 3 fourths of the building, tell me where it is. I'm using your photographs that you used as evidence for a massive fire which is no where to be seen. Please look at photographs 2, 3, and 4 and tell me that doesn't look like a building exploding. Again, this is using photos , you cherrypicked to support your side of the argument. Oh, and if you decide to stick with the fire argument , which I expect, because that's what you were told to think, tell me how fast you think those buildings would've dropped if it was controlled demolition. Do you think controlled demolition would've been faster or slower than the fire? Exploding building

 

Completely explode?

 

I don't see any buildings completely explode in any of those pictures.

 

Stop using your opinion as if it is fact...it is what gets you killed every time in these debates.

 

Actually, my photos were used to show you that the fire was still going just before the tower collapsed...

 

Looks to me like a building that was collapsing and as it did windows (any that were left) and debris were being forced out as it came down...something very common. Watch even a controlled demolition and you see such a thing after the charges have already went off.

 

I cherrypicked? You asked for photos that show fire...I chose photos that addressed that.

 

My argument is that it was a combination of fire and the impact damage from the planes...you know, like rational people do.

 

As for the speed? Are you trying another failed theory that has been refuted on this board before? Do you like regurgitating things that have been debated before?

 

The reason you respond so weakly, is because you know the building is exploding. You could never find any part of a building or whole building that would look anything like that due to fire. You can't show anything with these pictures that suggest fire failure. However, the building is exploding outwards from top down. That's just honest observation , I'm not following your spoonfed script.

 

You keep making BS claims...it will not make it true.

 

Where is one shred of evidence that supports a controlled explosive demolition of either of those towers?

Not questioning the official story...not what someone thinks they might have heard....but actual evidence.

 

I will save you the trouble. You have absolutely nothing.

 

Why do you wish to hold people to other standards that you are not willing to go by as far as providing facts?

[GridIronAssassin#1 0]

Completely explode?

 

I don't see any buildings completely explode in any of those pictures.

 

Stop using your opinion as if it is fact...it is what gets you killed every time in these debates.

 

Actually, my photos were used to show you that the fire was still going just before the tower collapsed...

 

Looks to me like a building that was collapsing and as it did windows (any that were left) and debris were being forced out as it came down...something very common. Watch even a controlled demolition and you see such a thing after the charges have already went off.

 

I cherrypicked? You asked for photos that show fire...I chose photos that addressed that.

 

My argument is that it was a combination of fire and the impact damage from the planes...you know, like rational people do.

 

As for the speed? Are you trying another failed theory that has been refuted on this board before? Do you like regurgitating things that have been debated before?

You keep making BS claims...it will not make it true.

 

Where is one shred of evidence that supports a controlled explosive demolition of either of those towers?

Not questioning the official story...not what someone thinks they might have heard....but actual evidence.

 

I will save you the trouble. You have absolutely nothing.

 

Why do you wish to hold people to other standards that you are not willing to go by as far as providing facts?

 

My question to you was if you think the building was destroyed by fire, would demolition be faster or slower?

 

You think the building was destroyed by fire, about an hour after jet impact. I'm just curious as to whether you think, hypothetically for you, if controlled demolition were to be used on the towers, would they drop faster or slower than this?

 

This is a unique question, it has never been visited before.

I think it's controlled demolition, so I can't answer that question. I can only say that from my perspective a building would collapse slower if it was due to fire.

[Sho Nuff 720]

My question to you was if you think the building was destroyed by fire, would demolition be faster or slower?

 

You think the building was destroyed by fire, about an hour after jet impact. I'm just curious as to whether you think, hypothetically for you, if controlled demolition were to be used on the towers, would they drop faster or slower than this?

 

This is a unique question, it has never been visited before.

I think it's controlled demolition, so I can't answer that question. I can only say that from my perspective a building would collapse slower if it was due to fire.

 

Actually, I think the building was destroyed by collapsing after the impact of a passenger jet damaged the buildings and the resulting fires further weakened them to the point of failure.

 

As to which I think would fall faster or slower...it does not matter what I think as far as which was fall when. And as I said, this is a theory you have thrown out there before and was refuted in the past (despite your denial and now bringing it up again).

 

Has not been visited before?

Now I think you have just completely lost it...as yes, it has been discussed before in one of the ridiculous amount of threads like this.

[GridIronAssassin#1 0]

Actually, I think the building was destroyed by collapsing after the impact of a passenger jet damaged the buildings and the resulting fires further weakened them to the point of failure. (Right, you have that line down well.)

As to which I think would fall faster or slower...it does not matter what I think as far as which was fall when.( It does matter. If you think the buildings were brought down by jet impact and fire and they fell at approximately 50% slower than freefall speed, how fast would a demolition bring the building down? Faster or slower than this?) And as I said, this is a theory you have thrown out there before and was refuted in the past (despite your denial and now bringing it up again). I know the rate of fall was brought up before, but never in this context. I'm just curious what people think if this is a fire demolition, then would a controlled demolition be faster or slower in your opinion? )

 

 

[OakHeadFootball 1]

Oakhead Football, you cut and run from post #106. I responded to your post #93 with post #106. Then you resigned. If you want to pick up where you left off, feel free. Bring on your best stuff, and be specific, because the more we microanalyze it, your research falls short. It always does and will . You can't give up in a debate, then hop back in pretending you didn't miss a beat. You need to respond to post #106 if you really believe you have something. I'll keep debating each and every point with you.

 

You can take any non response from me as a sign that I am not going to go round and round with someone who cannot accept simple logic. You have a a theory that involves nothing but conjecture. Your theory has bees shown to be erroneous in several ways. I cannot spare the time for someone who thinks that a forensic team doesn't know what a simple blasting cap looks like nor can one reason with someone who thinks all physical evidence of a demolition with explosives would just vanish in thin air nor the many other points that have been shown to you as to why explosives were not used nor needed. Sorry, the burden of proof lies with you, the official story has provided ample evidence, despite you claiming it has not, to back up their theories.

[Sho Nuff 720]

 

(Right, you have that line down well.)

( It does matter. If you think the buildings were brought down by jet impact and fire and they fell at approximately 50% slower than freefall speed, how fast would a demolition bring the building down? Faster or slower than this?) I know the rate of fall was brought up before, but never in this context. I'm just curious what people think if this is a fire demolition, then would a controlled demolition be faster or slower in your opinion? )

 

 

Why do you insist on posting inside quotes...so that your quote cannot be replied to without a bunch of cutting and pasting? Perhaps that is why Oak quit responding to you...because it is a pain in the ass to pull your quotes out of the crap....on to the latest BS...

 

Yes, I have that line down well...then why do you insist on misquoting me and claiming I think the towers were brought down by fire (and always fail to mention the damage from the crashing of a 757?

 

50% you have any proof for that number? Do you have any evidence that a building brought down by the crash of a jet liner and the resulting fire as compared to that of a controlled demolition? Anything? I won't hold my breath.

 

In this context? Exactly this context actually, the point is you don't believe the buildings were brought down from the crash and fire....so you bring up this crap about how fast the buildings fell and so on...its the same context...just a different time.

 

 

You are a broken record of crap...no facts, no evidence to support your opinion...yet you keep claiming everyone else is wrong.

 

You can take any non response from me as a sign that I am not going to go round and round with someone who cannot accept simple logic. You have a a theory that involves nothing but conjecture. Your theory has bees shown to be erroneous in several ways. I cannot spare the time for someone who thinks that a forensic team doesn't know what a simple blasting cap looks like nor can one reason with someone who thinks all physical evidence of a demolition with explosives would just vanish in thin air nor the many other points that have been shown to you as to why explosives were not used nor needed. Sorry, the burden of proof lies with you, the official story has provided ample evidence, despite you claiming it has not, to back up their theories.

 

 

Bingo...I guess I just have a sickness as I feel the need to keep responding to him. But again, very well said.

[GridIronAssassin#1 0]

Summary of what we have in thread so far:

 

21.5 million dollars of public money used to pay NIST to write a report as to why the buildings fell.

 

NIST gets a represenative sample of the steel on the WTC site by selecting several choice pieces.

 

NIST tests the steel samples.

 

Results of steel samples are not indicative of a high temperature fire that exceeds 500C.

 

Link to show results==>>> The evidence Shonuff doesn't want anyone to notice.

 

NIST writes a disclaimer in their report stating that the amount of samples they have is too small to be a representative sample.

 

The following are not in this thread but are true:

 

NIST does other tests on insulation which actually disproves thier notion that the fire insulation was "widely dispersed".

 

NIST does computer simulations having to change input factors in almost all cases to nonrealistic "MOST SEVERE" cases instead of realistic base case inputs in order to show that they can get a building to collapse by fire.

 

The NIST report is a sham.

[Sho Nuff 720]

Summary of what we have in thread so far:

 

21.5 million dollars of public money used to pay NIST to write a report as to why the buildings fell.

 

NIST gets a represenative sample of the steel on the WTC site by selecting several choice pieces.

 

NIST tests the steel samples.

 

Results of steel samples are not indicative of a high temperature fire that exceeds 500C.

 

Link to show results==>>> The evidence Shonuff doesn't want anyone to notice.

 

NIST writes a disclaimer in their report stating that the amount of samples they have is too small to be a representative sample.

 

The following are not in this thread but are true:

 

NIST does other tests on insulation which actually disproves thier notion that the fire insulation was "widely dispersed".

 

NIST does computer simulations having to change input factors in almost all cases to nonrealistic "MOST SEVERE" cases instead of realistic base case inputs in order to show that they can get a building to collapse by fire.

 

The NIST report is a sham.

 

Evidence I don't want people to notice? Not really. That evidence does not disprove any of their story. Nor does it prove evidence of your theories. Which is what I have asked for...facts/evidence supporting your theory of how the towers came down.

 

The NIST report is not a sham...that you do not put faith in it is one thing...but hardly makes it a sham or something that is not factual. You simply have nothing to disprove their findings or claims...which is what we have really learned in this thread...and in every other.

 

You simply cannot provide a shred of credible evidence to actually disprove any portion of any official story of what went on...nor can you provide any evidence to support any other conclusion.

 

yet you keep up the spin and denial...and come up with new theories as always...

[jets24 6]

Evidence I don't want people to notice? Not really. That evidence does not disprove any of their story. Nor does it prove evidence of your theories. Which is what I have asked for...facts/evidence supporting your theory of how the towers came down.

 

The NIST report is not a sham...that you do not put faith in it is one thing...but hardly makes it a sham or something that is not factual. You simply have nothing to disprove their findings or claims...which is what we have really learned in this thread...and in every other.

 

You simply cannot provide a shred of credible evidence to actually disprove any portion of any official story of what went on...nor can you provide any evidence to support any other conclusion.

 

yet you keep up the spin and denial...and come up with new theories as always...

 

 

Why do you keep attempting to reason with this lying jackass?

[parrot 789]

However, the building is exploding outwards from top down.

And when was the last time you saw a controlled demolition that destroyed a building from the top down? If you need help the correct answer is "never". That is not how controlled demolition works.

 

Congratulations, you're just admitted your theory has no merit.

[ladder29 0]

Shonuff, this picture of large flames is NOT a cartoon. I am debunking your notion that large fires with flames are only in cartoons.

 

Big Fire, not a cartoon as Shonuff claims

Your claim that the South tower is a massive fire is simply insane. Large flames aren't just in cartoons and I'd expect to see them here if this building was going to completely collapse because of them. I did say the fire in the south tower looked as though it was burning out. It's still there but it's burning out. Where is the proof a large fire? Here is the photograph you posted as evidence of a massive fire==>>>Small fire at South Tower right before collapse

 

No way could those fires take down those buildings. No Way. And despite what you think Shonuff, all the evidence supports that fire couldn't have done it. But you refuse to look at the facts.

 

The pictures you show for the WTC are from far away as compared to the Madrid fire pictures. The WTC pics look small but are probably at least 2 stories-just can't tell from such a great distance. Just because you don't see fire doesn't mean it isn't burning. You can believe whatever you want-just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them wrong. Or us right for that matter. But we are.

 

Read this about steel construction of the WTC.

[GridIronAssassin#1 0]

Evidence I don't want people to notice? Not really. That evidence does not disprove any of their story. Nor does it prove evidence of your theories. Which is what I have asked for...facts/evidence supporting your theory of how the towers came down.

 

The NIST report is not a sham...that you do not put faith in it is one thing...but hardly makes it a sham or something that is not factual. You simply have nothing to disprove their findings or claims...which is what we have really learned in this thread...and in every other.

 

You simply cannot provide a shred of credible evidence to actually disprove any portion of any official story of what went on...nor can you provide any evidence to support any other conclusion.

 

yet you keep up the spin and denial...and come up with new theories as always...

 

 

I provided the facts and evidence of low temperature fires and you simply say "That evidence does not disprove any of their story." It totally disproves their story, because their story is based upon having high temperature fires that make the core columns buckle and creep. Just because you say it doesn't disprove it, really is pointless. You need to answer with specifics as to why the evidence I provided does not disprove their story. Try debating with evidence that disproves what I say instead of phrases like "That evidence does not disprove any of their story."

 

The pictures you show for the WTC are from far away as compared to the Madrid fire pictures. The WTC pics look small but are probably at least 2 stories-just can't tell from such a great distance. Just because you don't see fire doesn't mean it isn't burning. You can believe whatever you want-just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them wrong. Or us right for that matter. But we are.

 

Read this about steel construction of the WTC.

 

I read the report you posted. If you look at the last sentence under the section labeled "Steel Framing", you'll see this. "Unfortunately unprotected steel warps, melts, sags and collapses when heated to normal fire temperatures about 1100 to 1200 degrees F." There is no evidence that the steel ever attained those temperatures and that is what I"ve been saying in this thread all along. Also, just because the pictures were shown from a further distance at the WTC than at the Madrid fire, that is not evidence of a large burning inferno at the WTC. Look at the Madrid building after the fire and you'll see it was gutted out. That means the fire spread across the whole building. You see nothing like that at the start of the South Tower Collapse. To say that "The WTC pics look small but are probably at least 2 stories- just can't tell from a grest distance." doesn't prove there was a raging inferno. I mean even if you had your 2 story fire, how would that take down the building?

 

 

 

And when was the last time you saw a controlled demolition that destroyed a building from the top down? If you need help the correct answer is "never". That is not how controlled demolition works.

 

Congratulations, you're just admitted your theory has no merit.

 

 

You ascertain, by an observation that I sited, that my theory has no merit. NoOne ever said this was a STANDARD controll demolition. I think it looks like a controlled demolition using explosives because of the features it exhibits during the collapse. You think it's a fire demolition by these features. You think it imitates a scenerio closer to a fire demolition, where as I think it looks more like controlled demolition with explosives.

[Sho Nuff 720]

I provided the facts and evidence of low temperature fires and you simply say "That evidence does not disprove any of their story." It totally disproves their story, because their story is based upon having high temperature fires that make the core columns buckle and creep. Just because you say it doesn't disprove it, really is pointless. You need to answer with specifics as to why the evidence I provided does not disprove their story. Try debating with evidence that disproves what I say instead of phrases like "That evidence does not disprove any of their story."

 

You provided information on some of the temperatures. Again, do you have all the temperatures in the building showing that nowhere was it hot enough to have any sort of weakening or failure? Nope...because you don't have such information which would be necessary to actually disprove any story.

 

No...its not just because I say it. The lack of having evidence to disprove something is what make sit true.

 

Evidence that disproves what you say? I have debated with it...you dismiss it like you always do.

 

Where is one shred of evidence supporting your claims that the planes and fire did not in fact bring down the building...like evidence that something else actually brought it down. What you always fail to do is actually bring something to the table that supports your claims.

 

All you have provided is that temps taken at some places were not high enough to melt steal.

 

I say it again, because it is true, that alone is not enough to disprove the NIST report/story. You saying it is, does not make it so....especially considering the mounds of evidence that completely proves you to be full of shiat!.

 

 

I read the report you posted. If you look at the last sentence under the section labeled "Steel Framing", you'll see this. "Unfortunately unprotected steel warps, melts, sags and collapses when heated to normal fire temperatures about 1100 to 1200 degrees F." There is no evidence that the steel ever attained those temperatures and that is what I"ve been saying in this thread all along.

 

And there is also no evidence saying that there were not places where temperatures reached that temp either. Which is what I have been saying that you still don't understand.

[parrot 789]

You ascertain, by an observation that I sited, that my theory has no merit. NoOne ever said this was a STANDARD controll demolition. I think it looks like a controlled demolition using explosives because of the features it exhibits during the collapse. You think it's a fire demolition by these features. You think it imitates a scenerio closer to a fire demolition, where as I think it looks more like controlled demolition with explosives.

So your theory is that it looks like a controlled demolition, only a completely different kind of controlled demolition than the ones we are used to seeing?

 

Okay, yeah, that makes sense.