Bill Maher thinks you're a fucking loony

Austicman

spiral out wrote:

N I S T, it's an offical goverment document.

So you believe that official government document but everything else they tell you is a lie. Man O man!!

RolandTD20Kdrummer

jlew24asu wrote:

not to mention the steel columns that were completely destroyed by those huge fucking planes that hit the building? o yea, those.

see your right, trying to talk to roland is impossible in this case. he supports a conspiracy that NO planes even hit the building. missiles that were painted as planes or digtially enhanced for tv. or some fucked up wacky shit.

pullin you back in huh waves?

You ever see what happens when thin sheets of aluminum go up against inches thick steel?

I'll give you a hint...the steel wins big time.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Listen to the official story lovers have their righteous pow wow....lol

Sorry I missed it I had some constructive work to do elsewhere.

You guys won't answer my question on the melted steel (I still have to read the the mystical post #44...oh wait no I answered it in post #51) you guys are are taking blind guesses, while I keep talking about proven facts....and still no lightbulbs are going off or any real discussion is talking place except more useless opinion. You guys thrive off useless opinion for some reason.

And now somehow out of nowhere you all really want to hear my opinion all of the sudden like the world has stopped.. lol...that's pretty damn amusing indeed.

What you're saying is instead of trying to understand this one aspect, why don't you just go ahead and explain the whole thing now. Right. How ridiculous.

Facts...remember those little things?

they matter...

melted steel...question still stands.. no explanation thus far

anyone?

RolandTD20Kdrummer

MakingWaves wrote:

You will never get it. The steel doesn't have to melt, it just has to be weakened to a certain point to where it can't withstand the load.
Everyone is wasting their time arguing this with you. There are no facts out there that support a conspiracy. Just well versed questions that raise peoples suspicions but never provide an answer.

Yeah dude the steel was melted. So what melted it?

zoom...right over your head...

69charger

Mestophar wrote:

If the steal had simply weakened the building would have fallen sideways.

Wake up people, they were demolished!

Wrong. Gravity and inertia dictate that it falls toward the center of the Earth.

69charger

Mestophar wrote:

A very low tempurature fire?

Who said it was "very low temperature"?

69charger

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Yeah dude the steel was melted. So what melted it?

zoom...right over your head...

http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm

All sorts of plausible explanations. Where's yours?

Anyways...

So I'll ask you. How did the towers fall? Please explain in the kind of detail that is provided in the NIST report. That means you have to explain, with proof, how explosives were planted and how they managed to set off these charges in the exact location that the planes hit as this was the point of initiation of collapse.

I await your answer.

Lack of a complete answer will be taken as an admission that your position lacks merit.

catefrances

not particularly in the mood for laughter at the moment, but you guys are certainly making me smile.
i can't remember the last time two massive buildings were struck by fully fuel-laden airplanes, that were flown deliberately into them, can you all? seeings how this was a unique occurrence i would imagine the conclusions about what caused the collapse of both towers would be uncharted territory and quite ground breaking.
is it possible that the conditions created within both towers were enough to raise the temperature high enough to melt the steel and aid in the collapse? i say yes.
am i a fool who is easily led by what people tell me especially when it comes from the government? no i am not.
even so, i am inclined to be more believing of the scientific reasoning rather than the conspiracy theories.

somebodyelsessky2020

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

You ever see what happens when thin sheets of aluminum go up against inches thick steel?

I'll give you a hint...the steel wins big time.

you ever see what a piece of straw can go through in a tornado?

RolandTD20Kdrummer

69charger wrote:

http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm

All sorts of plausible explanations. Where's yours?

Anyways...

So I'll ask you. How did the towers fall? Please explain in the kind of detail that is provided in the NIST report. That means you have to explain, with proof, how explosives were planted and how they managed to set off these charges in the exact location that the planes hit as this was the point of initiation of collapse.

I await your answer.

Lack of a complete answer will be taken as an admission that your position lacks merit.

NIST..yeah those kool-aid drinking quacks denied the melted steel. Why don't you focus on one fact at a time. I get the feeling you have a million little projects that are all unfinished everywhere in your life because you can;t focus on one thing at a time.

So what melted the steel?. Your site surely explains it.

What do they say?

I already know, but let me know.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

somebodyelse'ssky wrote:

you ever see what a piece of straw can go through in a tornado?

Yeah I watched it on myth busters...not much in comparison to the materials in the WTC.

How bout we stick to steel and aluminum as in the real world scenario?

somebodyelsessky2020

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Yeah I watched it on myth busters...not much in comparison to the materials in the WTC.

How bout we stick to steel and aluminum as in the real world scenario?

here's a link to one of the largest building implosions ever.
http://www.controlled-demolition.com/default.asp?reqLocId=7&reqItemId=20030225133807

explosions are heard clearly when there is a controlled demolition. unless there are new QUIET EXPLOSIVES out there i don't know about or maybe they had chris angel on their side too and he blocked all our hearing that day. i was at the sands demolition in vegas and wasn't even as close to it as i was the trade center on that day. i heard the detonations very clearly in vegas. there were no detonations in new york that day. it was the sound of crumbling falling smashing but no detonation of explosives.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

catefrances wrote:

not particularly in the mood for laughter at the moment, but you guys are certainly making me smile.
i can't remember the last time two massive buildings were struck by fully fuel-laden airplanes, that were flown deliberately into them, can you all? seeings how this was a unique occurrence i would imagine the conclusions about what caused the collapse of both towers would be uncharted territory and quite ground breaking.
is it possible that the conditions created within both towers were enough to raise the temperature high enough to melt the steel and aid in the collapse? i say yes.
am i a fool who is easily led by what people tell me especially when it comes from the government? no i am not.
even so, i am inclined to be more believing of the scientific reasoning rather than the conspiracy theories.

It's pure physics and common sense that jet fuel cannot melt steel. It's not even a question. Something melted the steel...nothing on the record even approaches it. In fact they deny it. Actually FEMA tried to rationalize it, then NIST tucked tail, and jumped ship and now has no recollection of ever discussing it. It's a I have no idea what you are talking about kinda secret now.

Everyone knows jet fuel cannot cant melt steel, yet melted pools of steel at the base of the buildings and vaporized steel pellets were both found throughout the dust which was broadcast all over the place.

So the impossibilities really do seem to be mounting up on that day.

So many unanswered questions.

The collapse data in the computer simulation had to be cranked beyond reality to get the collapses to occur. So much it is laughable, yet people still gobbled it up.

Employees resigned their positions (or were fired) during the investigation because they knew it was ridiculous what they were proposing.

Look at all the people that gobbled up the popular mechanics (joke) article like candy...and those who still hold up the official NIST/FEMA story like scripture....even though it's grossly inadequate, and explains very little to none of the hard questions.

Namely, what I am asking.

The official story is severely lacking.

There needs to be a new investigation, with all the withheld evidence released.

No one can answer what melted the steel. They can try to make up some excuse, but NIST knows...that's why they deny it vehemently.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

somebodyelse'ssky wrote:

here's a link to one of the largest building implosions ever.
http://www.controlled-demolition.com/default.asp?reqLocId=7&reqItemId=20030225133807

explosions are heard clearly when there is a controlled demolition. unless there are new QUIET EXPLOSIVES out there i don't know about or maybe they had chris angel on their side too and he blocked all our hearing that day. i was at the sands demolition in vegas and wasn't even as close to it as i was the trade center on that day. i heard the detonations very clearly in vegas. there were no detonations in new york that day. it was the sound of crumbling falling smashing but no detonation of explosives.

I'm not really interested in another building, and who did what or didn't do etc...

I want to discuss what melted the steel at WTC on 9/11

somebodyelsessky2020

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

I'm not really interested in another building, and who did what or didn't do etc...

I want to discuss what melted the steel at WTC on 9/11

luke skywalker and darth vader were having a light saber battle right before the planes hit..they may have sliced through some of the steel ! the fires burned for 2 months or so afterwards in hot molten underground pockets.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

somebodyelse'ssky wrote:

luke skywalker and darth vader were having a light saber battle right before the planes hit..they may have sliced through some of the steel ! the fires burned for 2 months or so afterwards in hot molten underground pockets.

That sounds about right...but I think it was chewbaca firing his laser gun that got things really moving...

Bu2

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

That sounds about right...but I think it was chewbaca firing his laser gun that got things really moving...

No, it was Princess Leia's hair.

soulsinging

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

You guys won't answer my question on the melted steel (I still have to read the the mystical post #44...oh wait no I answered it in post #51)

oh wait, yes i did. and oh wait, no you didnt. becos i pointed out there was a lot more than just jet fuel burning in there. and your only response was that jet fuel couldn't do it. i said, even assuming your jet fuel contention is true, what response do you have to the fact that there were dozens of other burning materials in there? do you know for a fact every single material that was burning in there, the temperature at which it burned, and whether or not it would be sufficient? i responded to your jet fuel nonsense, again and again. now perhaps you'd like to respond to my point?

or can you not?

Bu2

soulsinging wrote:

oh wait, yes i did. and oh wait, no you didnt. becos i pointed out there was a lot more than just jet fuel burning in there. and your only response was that jet fuel couldn't do it. i said, even assuming your jet fuel contention is true, what response do you have to the fact that there were dozens of other burning materials in there? do you know for a fact every single material that was burning in there, the temperature at which it burned, and whether or not it would be sufficient? i responded to your jet fuel nonsense, again and again. now perhaps you'd like to respond to my point?

or can you not?

and I have to say that soulsinging has a great point, here. In an office, you have various chemicals sitting around at every printer station, mail room, etc. The toner and print cartridges alone....the bins full of recycling paper, the fibers in the chairs, sofas, carpets....all of these flammable items are common in office fires, and most are unhealthy even without the addition of burning jet fuel.

Just my 2 cents. Carry on.

Austicman

Bu2 wrote:

and I have to say that soulsinging has a great point, here. In an office, you have various chemicals sitting around at every printer station, mail room, etc. The toner and print cartridges alone....the bins full of recycling paper, the fibers in the chairs, sofas, carpets....all of these flammable items are common in office fires, and most are unhealthy even without the addition of burning jet fuel.

Just my 2 cents. Carry on.

Not to mention they seemed to be caught in the ignition point of jet fuel and not how hot a fire started by jet fuel and with all these combustables as well would get to incredibly hot temperatures. If I light a small wood fire and let it burn it will only generate so much heat. But the more and more wood I add the hotter and hotter it gets and the further I have to stand back from it. Mmmmmmmm I know crazy isn't it!!