9/11 truthers "are crazy"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-10-2012, 01:31 AM
RE: 9/11 truthers "are crazy"
(31-08-2011 03:23 PM)bemore Wrote:  Jet fuel doesnt burn hot enough to melt a steel structure that was built to withstand more than one plane hitting it.

They would assume that if the buildings structure failed, with one floor collapsing and "pancakeing" on top of the others.....as it free falls.....they can then work out its free fall speed.....however the way the building fell was much quicker than how it would fall under the circumstances.

What is dodgy is they were running a drill of the same thing happening.......some could say it was coincidence.......then when you look at 7/7 (uk bombings) they were running a drill of the same thing happening on that day.......twice is simply more than a coincidence to me.

Logically they should be easy explanations........but there isnt.

So you think the building has to melt to fail?! ROFL!!!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-10-2012, 05:54 AM
RE: 9/11 truthers "are crazy"
(22-10-2012 01:31 AM)Diablo Wrote:  So you think the building has to melt to fail?! ROFL!!!

Whats your expert explanation or are you just looking to mock my opinions???

For no matter how much I use these symbols, to describe symptoms of my existence.
You are your own emphasis.
So I say nothing.

-Bemore.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-10-2012, 05:58 AM
RE: 9/11 truthers "are crazy"
(31-08-2011 03:23 PM)bemore Wrote:  Jet fuel doesnt burn hot enough to melt a steel structure that was built to withstand more than one plane hitting it.

They would assume that if the buildings structure failed, with one floor collapsing and "pancakeing" on top of the others.....as it free falls.....they can then work out its free fall speed.....however the way the building fell was much quicker than how it would fall under the circumstances.

What is dodgy is they were running a drill of the same thing happening.......some could say it was coincidence.......then when you look at 7/7 (uk bombings) they were running a drill of the same thing happening on that day.......twice is simply more than a coincidence to me.

Logically they should be easy explanations........but there isnt.

The steel didn't (and didn't have to) melt. It only needs to soften to cause structural failure. And that is what happened.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-10-2012, 06:39 AM
RE: 9/11 truthers "are crazy"
(22-10-2012 05:58 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(31-08-2011 03:23 PM)bemore Wrote:  Jet fuel doesnt burn hot enough to melt a steel structure that was built to withstand more than one plane hitting it.

They would assume that if the buildings structure failed, with one floor collapsing and "pancakeing" on top of the others.....as it free falls.....they can then work out its free fall speed.....however the way the building fell was much quicker than how it would fall under the circumstances.

What is dodgy is they were running a drill of the same thing happening.......some could say it was coincidence.......then when you look at 7/7 (uk bombings) they were running a drill of the same thing happening on that day.......twice is simply more than a coincidence to me.

Logically they should be easy explanations........but there isnt.

The steel didn't (and didn't have to) melt. It only needs to soften to cause structural failure. And that is what happened.

Molten steel was reported in the remains of the site by numerous independent sources. Wether this was from any fire before collapse or from heat after the collapse I dont know. So you assertion that the steel didnt melt is wrong...I just dont know when it melted. I cant disagree with you about the steel structure just needing to weaken slightly to cause collapse though.

Ive skirted the subject of 9/11 for a while now caus I believe that if there is any "truth" then all of us will never know it either for or against.

For no matter how much I use these symbols, to describe symptoms of my existence.
You are your own emphasis.
So I say nothing.

-Bemore.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-10-2012, 06:42 AM
RE: 9/11 truthers "are crazy"
(22-10-2012 06:39 AM)bemore Wrote:  
(22-10-2012 05:58 AM)Chas Wrote:  The steel didn't (and didn't have to) melt. It only needs to soften to cause structural failure. And that is what happened.

Molten steel was reported in the remains of the site by numerous independent sources. Wether this was from any fire before collapse or from heat after the collapse I dont know. So you assertion that the steel didnt melt is wrong...I just dont know when it melted. I cant disagree with you about the steel structure just needing to weaken slightly to cause collapse though.

Ive skirted the subject of 9/11 for a while now caus I believe that if there is any "truth" then all of us will never know it either for or against.

Jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning; everything in the buildings was burning.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
22-10-2012, 06:49 AM (This post was last modified: 22-10-2012 07:02 AM by bemore.)
RE: 9/11 truthers "are crazy"
Interesting info here with regards to fires, tempratures etc etc

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis...index.html

Quote:DISCLAIMER
9-11 Research does not promote incivility, junk science, or 'no-jetliner' claims.

For no matter how much I use these symbols, to describe symptoms of my existence.
You are your own emphasis.
So I say nothing.

-Bemore.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-10-2012, 09:41 AM
RE: 9/11 truthers "are crazy"
(22-10-2012 06:49 AM)bemore Wrote:  Interesting info here with regards to fires, tempratures etc etc

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis...index.html

Quote:DISCLAIMER
9-11 Research does not promote incivility, junk science, or 'no-jetliner' claims.

"fire dies out over time"

Horse shit, obviously never seen a house fire...

Starts with a simply oil fat fire...
nek minute..

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-10-2012, 02:16 PM
RE: 9/11 truthers "are crazy"
(22-10-2012 09:41 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  "fire dies out over time"

Horse shit, obviously never seen a house fire...

Starts with a simply oil fat fire...
nek minute..

It doesnt actually say "fires die out over time" does it..... your saying that, not the article.

It says "fire becomes less severe after time"

Big difference.

For no matter how much I use these symbols, to describe symptoms of my existence.
You are your own emphasis.
So I say nothing.

-Bemore.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-10-2012, 02:55 PM
RE: 9/11 truthers "are crazy"
(22-10-2012 02:16 PM)bemore Wrote:  
(22-10-2012 09:41 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  "fire dies out over time"

Horse shit, obviously never seen a house fire...

Starts with a simply oil fat fire...
nek minute..

It doesnt actually say "fires die out over time" does it..... your saying that, not the article.

It says "fire becomes less severe after time"

Big difference.

They become more severe in the short term while there is fuel and oxygen.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-10-2012, 03:06 PM
RE: 9/11 truthers "are crazy"
(22-10-2012 02:55 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(22-10-2012 02:16 PM)bemore Wrote:  It doesnt actually say "fires die out over time" does it..... your saying that, not the article.

It says "fire becomes less severe after time"

Big difference.

They become more severe in the short term while there is fuel and oxygen.

Yes I cant disagree with this... they reach a maximum temperature but once everything that the fire can consume is gone then obviously the temperature begins to drop.

Thats what the article is getting at (my interpretation anyway)

For no matter how much I use these symbols, to describe symptoms of my existence.
You are your own emphasis.
So I say nothing.

-Bemore.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: