ae911truth.org

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Bushleaguer28 wrote:

So by your thinking if you heat and weaken steel and then continue to put the same if not a greater amount of heat on that same piece of steel it will magically become immune to the heat and be able to re-strengthen itself . . . . interesting

Huh...where did I say that? The fires were mostly out. The lady (Edna Cintron) was standing in the impact zone waving. She wasn't burning.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

jlew24asu wrote:

from the fire, damage, and weight of the structure above it.

The buildings can't fall through themselves. That's not how buildings collapse.

They follow the path of least resistance, not the most.

jlew24asu

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

The buildings can't fall through themselves. That's not how buildings collapse.

They follow the path of least resistance, not the most.

gravity. those buildings can fall anyway they want. how do you seem to know. a building of this size and weight has never fallen before. but you seem to know exactly how it is suppose to fall

Bushleaguer28

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

The buildings can't fall through themselves. That's not how buildings collapse.

They follow the path of least resistance, not the most.

as the metal below the building weakens, that path becomes increasingly weak

Bushleaguer28

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Huh...where did I say that? The fires were mostly out. The lady (Edna Cintron) was standing in the impact zone waving. She wasn't burning.

i said there was no way that steel would have had time or conditions to re-strengthen itself and you responded with "why not?" i was giving you a response - not exactly sure what the hell your talking about here. And your saying the fires were mostly out when the building fell? are you serious?

RolandTD20Kdrummer

jlew24asu wrote:

gravity. those buildings can fall anyway they want. how do you seem to know. a building of this size and weight has never fallen before. but you seem to know exactly how it is suppose to fall

Buildings don't just do whatever they want. This is why they are designed a certain way. The latest data provided by a growing group of architects and engineers would seem to support this. Actually the website at the title of this thread.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Bushleaguer28 wrote:

i said there was no way that steel would have had time or conditions to re-strengthen itself and you responded with "why not?" i was giving you a response - not exactly sure what the hell your talking about here. And your saying the fires were mostly out when the building fell? are you serious?

Well the impact zone sure was (Edna waving). One would expect flames to be shooting out of there if you looking for an intense raging fire instead of a smoldering one.

Bushleaguer28

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Well the impact zone sure was (Edna waving). One would expect flames to be shooting out of there if you looking for an intense raging fire instead of a smoldering one.

one would expect that but just because they werent doesnt mean that isnt what happened. Personally the extremely thinck clouds of jet black smoke are enough proof to me that there was a significant fire inside that building.

jlew24asu

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Buildings don't just do whatever they want. This is why they are designed a certain way. The latest data provided by a growing group of architects and engineers would seem to support this. Actually the website at the title of this thread.

buildings of this size will do whatever it wants. mostly come straight DOWN when the support structure fail. its to high and heavy.

facepollution

Jooooosh wrote:

Care to explain how believing the media is less biased than the 9/11 conspiracy mongers accuse them of being equates to the media not being politically biased?

You said:

Jooooosh wrote:

There's a reason these conspiracy theories are ignored by virtually everyone in the mainstream media -- and no, it's not because Bush has them in his pocket -- it's because, as much as I'd hate to admit it, the rest of the country isn't that stupid.

Political bias on the part of the media, in my opinion, is what prevents all the questions about 9/11 being asked. Is that so difficult to understand?

If you can't even entertain the evidence people are throwing at you, I don't know why you would partake in these kind of discussions.

Ultimately my theory goes like this: people like you can not even for a second believe that the US government would willingly harm their own people for the sake of reaching their own goals. Thus of course the idea of any conspiracy theory is completely ridiculous to you. There are MANY, MANY, MANY bizarre and unexplainable things that happened that day, which in accepting the official story, you are completely closing your mind to.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Bushleaguer28 wrote:

one would expect that but just because they werent doesnt mean that isnt what happened. Personally the extremely thinck clouds of jet black smoke are enough proof to me that there was a significant fire inside that building.

Edna might disagree. I don't recall seeing her clothes burning and her hair on fire...

Bushleaguer28

facepollution wrote:

You said:

Political bias on the part of the media, in my opinion, is what prevents all the questions about 9/11 being asked. Is that so difficult to understand?

If you can't even entertain the evidence people are throwing at you, I don't know why you would partake in these kind of discussions.

Ultimately my theory goes like this: people like you can not even for a second believe that the US government would willingly harm their own people for the sake of reaching their own goals. Thus of course the idea of any conspiracy theory is completely ridiculous to you. There are MANY, MANY, MANY bizarre and unexplainable things that happened that day, which in accepting the official story, you are completely closing your mind to.

Bizarre and unexplainable things will occurr when one encounters something that has never happened before. Buildings of those size and mmagnitude have never before been hit by planes and therefore collapsed, so how exactly is everyone supposed to know what SHOULD have happened?

RolandTD20Kdrummer

jlew24asu wrote:

buildings of this size will do whatever it wants. mostly come straight DOWN when the support structure fail. its to high and heavy.

That's what we are told, but in a passive collapse there would be piles of stacked floors at the bottom would be left behind, and the collapse would slow down as the top section encounters resistance through the rest of the building (if that was in fact possible). The buildings were also pulverized into dust all the way down.

That's actually a big problem to explain happening, and many people are starting to finally understand why.

Bushleaguer28

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Edna might disagree. I don't recall seeing her clothes burning and her hair on fire...

comments like this seem to me to be incredibly disrespectful to all those who did die in the incident. Your making it out to seem as if there was no danger whatsoever. By your accounts then - what did cause the smoke if there was no fire?

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Bushleaguer28 wrote:

comments like this seem to me to be incredibly disrespectful to all those who did die in the incident. Your making it out to seem as if there was no danger whatsoever. By your accounts then - what did cause the smoke if there was no fire?

Well you keep skipping past that fact so I highlighted it. Oh there was fire, just not a raging intense fire...that's all.

jlew24asu

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Well you keep skipping past that fact so I highlighted it. Oh there was fire, just not a raging intense fire...that's all.

wow. a fire but not a raging intense fire?? where do you draw the line. rhetorical question. dont bother answering.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

jlew24asu wrote:

wow. a fire but not a raging intense fire?? where do you draw the line. rhetorical question. dont bother answering.

It was cool enough to stand for a long period of time and survive right at the impact point. So how hot and intense was this particular fire then?

Good question.

jlew24asu

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

It was cool enough to stand for a long period of time and survive right at the impact point.

what the hell does this mean? man I swear you are worse then que bauim. cool enough to stand for a long period? wouldnt a really hot fire burn longer then a "cool" one. man I swear I am becoming dumber with this conversation.

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

So how hot and intense was this particular fire then?

maybe its just me, but I think when a 767 FULL of jet fuel ( I know you dont believe that actually happened but lets play along k? ) smashes into one of the tallest skyscrapers in the world, a raging hot intense fire will ensue. but seriously, it might be just me.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

jlew24asu wrote:

what the hell does this mean? man I swear you are worse then que bauim. cool enough to stand for a long period? wouldnt a really hot fire burn longer then a "cool" one. man I swear I am becoming dumber with this conversation.

maybe its just me, but I think when a 767 FULL of jet fuel ( I know you dont believe that actually happened but lets play along k? ) smashes into one of the tallest skyscrapers in the world, a raging hot intense fire will ensue. but seriously, it might be just me.

All the jet fuel burned off within minutes, and what ensued afterwards was apparently not a raging fire (due to the lack of flames and all the excess black smoke present).

Flames would have been shooting out of the opening where Edna standing otherwise. That was not the case.

facepollution

Bushleaguer28 wrote:

Bizarre and unexplainable things will occurr when one encounters something that has never happened before. Buildings of those size and mmagnitude have never before been hit by planes and therefore collapsed, so how exactly is everyone supposed to know what SHOULD have happened?

It's not just the two towers though is it? The third building to fall, had no real reason to fall, let alone for it to fall exactly in the same way a controlled demolition would fall, i.e. into its own footprint.

Even simpler question. The official story goes, that the plane that hit the Pentagon vaporized on impact, melting all that steel until it no longer existed, yet they managed to identify all the passengers on board via dna - how so?

Or, how on earth did they find one of the hijacker's passports in the ground zero rubble, yet the fires created at the point of impact managed to melt steel? So essentially these fires could melt steel, but not a paper passport.

Or, the fact that some of the hijackers have been found to be ALIVE, yet the government hasn't addressed this issue.

Or the fact that Bush would not swear under oath during the 'official' investigation, and no transcripts were allowed from any meetings.


And to anyone that does believe the official story: what makes the official story any more plausible than the various conspiracy theories out there anyway? The evidence is equally as compelling, if not more so, in some areas of investigation. The thing that ultimately convinces you, is the fact that it has an official seal of approval. The seal of approval from a government that has been proven to lie time and time again, be it through false data during the elections, or the false reasons for going to war in Iraq.