Fire brought down WTC 7

1356789

Comments

  • Posts: 13,066
    spyguy wrote:
    um its a blog. scientific proof at its finest right


    The actual information it points to however...

    blog...webpage...scribbled on a piece of papyrus...the general concensus on the questions raised does not change along the spectrum because of how they are written.

    hating the player over the game perhaps...
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • Posts: 19,646
    Smellyman wrote:


    I think there are waaaaayyyy too many unanswered questions.


    give me 38 of them.
    oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
  • Posts: 19,646
    BinFrog wrote:
    I'd love to see your 1000+ degree stove.


    yeah, his pots melt every time he cooks? thats a pain in the arse isnt it...

    i suggest he stops using plastic pots.
    oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
  • Posts: 280
    if you tell 20 people the sky is green and the grass is blue at least 2 of them will bleieve you and then turn around and convince 2 of their friends and so on...pretty soon our world is turned upside down...it's almost not worth arguing about...people will believe in what they want to...bigfoot, unicorns, wtc conspiracy, etc.....
    _____________________

    Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!
    - Benjamin Franklin

    If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die, I want to go where they went.
    -Will Rogers
    _____________________
  • Posts: 13,066
    BinFrog wrote:
    I'd love to see your 1000+ degree stove.

    It's rather incredible....

    It's a kerosene stove.... apparently kerosene liquefies steel for all the official story believers...

    simply amazing...

    They need to invent a stronger steel so I can use a frying pan again ...

    I may starve if this steel melting into liquid with a bit of fire thing keeps up.


    How does everyone else manage to not melt all their cookware?

    I wonder....
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • Posts: 613
    RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:
    It's rather incredible....

    It's a kerosene stove.... apparently kerosene liquefies steel for all the official story believers...

    simply amazing...

    They need to invent a stronger steel so I can use a frying pan again ...

    I may starve if this steel melting into liquid with a bit of fire thing keeps up.


    How does everyone else manage to not melt all their cookware?

    I wonder....

    polaris, its condescending shit like this that I'm talking about
  • Posts: 13,066
    dunkman wrote:
    yeah, his pots melt every time he cooks? thats a pain in the arse isnt it...

    i suggest he stops using plastic pots.


    Well you know the official story claims that open air kerosene fires liquified steel...

    And you don't even blink about it?

    hmm


    ok
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • Posts: 13,066
    spyguy wrote:
    polaris, its condescending shit like this that I'm talking about

    and it's simple things like this that manage to elude people that get me as well...
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • Posts: 19,646
    RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:
    It's a kerosene stove.... apparently kerosene liquefies steel for all the official story believers...


    well unless the building contained nothing else but air then what about the added fuel content? kerosene wasnt the only thing burning... computers, plastics, furniture, tons of paper, cardboard, gas pipes, etc etc etc
    oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
  • Posts: 19,646
    RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:
    Well you know the official story claims that open air kerosene fires liquified steel...


    i just read the official report

    "In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires."

    http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

    number 7
    oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
  • Posts: 13,066
    dunkman wrote:
    well unless the building contained nothing else but air then what about the added fuel content? kerosene wasnt the only thing burning... computers, plastics, furniture, tons of paper, cardboard, gas pips, etc etc etc

    Those combustibles are still not hot enough to liquefy steel in my understanding. First NIST flatly denied any existence of it, and they still haven't addressed it to my understanding.

    If they had a reasonable explanation for it, I would be more inclined to think they have done a proper investigation.
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • Posts: 613
    dunkman wrote:
    i just read the official report

    "In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires."

    http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

    number 7

    this is what I thought as well. thats for clarifying.
  • Posts: 2,330
    As I stated previously, there are unknowns and things unreported... but you and others fill in the missing pieces with your own answers and call it fact. There's zero proof of bombs, explosives, demolition or government involvement in taking the towers down. It's all a conspiracy of loosely pieced together unknowns, coincidences and things taken out of context.... but continue believing, it makes life more interesting because it only adds to chaos and disorder.
    CONservative governMENt

    Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
  • Posts: 13,066
    dunkman wrote:
    i just read the official report

    "In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires."

    http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

    number 7


    There are several firemen that reported seeing flowing liquid steel...."like lava" As well there is proof of it in that they found huge chunks of melted steel which is referred to as the WTC "meteorites"

    I'm not talking collapse...I just want to know how fire melts steel into pools of liquid at any point in the process.....and keeps it hot for so long (months) afterwards.

    If NIST tomorrow said...oh that's simple...here...it would be another story.

    I think they should personally.
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • Posts: 3,527
    FiveB247x wrote:
    As I previously stated, there are plenty of things that aren't easily explained or don't add up, but with tha said, these "truthers" fill in the unknowns with hearsay and half-truthes. If you breakdown the facts of the who, when, what, where, why and how of 9-11, the truthers have a loose string of unknown items that are given meaning and detail by their own admission... things like "pull it" which could relate to many, many things is adjusted to mean demolition because it fits their mold. They fill in the missing pieces with unknowns cause its the only thing they can use to somehow make their opinion have merit and legitimacy, but in reality, there's no such proof, just a loose string of unknowns. People love to talk about science and burning points of steel, etc.. but ignore that such things are possible because this isn't a generic example of merely lighting a fire under beam...there's tons of things that factor into the equation. My main point is these truthers see a puddle and call it an ocean... that's not realistic or logical. To make such accusations simply does not go hand in hand with the specific facts and details and aren't proven by any means other than their own opinions filling in missing pieces of what occured, which is why it's a conspiracy theory compared to specific fact or reality.

    the key here is "realistic and logical" ... your perceptions are different than others ...

    a prime example is the term "pull it" ... yes, it can mean a myriad of things but is it a stretch to assume under the context that it was a demolishing term? ... i don't think so - but if you don't want to believe that 9/11 was an inside job - you're gonna go with something else ...

    in any case - forget about steel columns, firefighter testimony, insurance polices ... this event spurned on the greatest sequence of war-profiteering i've known at a time when the country was led by admitted neoconservatives with ties to all these profiting industries ... the 9/11 report is nowhere close to being adequate in terms of detailing the event ... combine that with the fact we know this administration LIED to take the US to war with Iraq and what would seem unfathomable is at the very least a possibility ...

    too many coincidences and too many things that have to be categorized as "no way they would do that" for there not to be more revealed ..
  • Posts: 613
    RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:
    There are several firemen that reported seeing flowing liquid steel...."like lava" As well there is proof of it in that they found huge chunks of melted steel which is referred to as the WTC "meteorites"

    I'm not talking collapse...I just want to know how fire melts steel into pools of liquid at any point in the process.....and keeps it hot for so long (months) afterwards.

    If NIST tomorrow said...oh that's simple...here...it would be another story.

    I think they should personally.

    I'm not a huge fan of these websites but I found this to be an interesting read awhile back and was able to find it again. whats your take on it?

    http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html
  • Posts: 19,646
    RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:
    Those combustibles are still not hot enough to liquefy steel in my understanding. First NIST flatly denied any existence of it, and they still haven't addressed it to my understanding.

    your understanding... so your a steel specialist these days? i dont trust your expertise considering your kitchen utensils seem to melt at every cooking opportunity.
    RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:
    If they had a reasonable explanation for it, I would be more inclined to think they have done a proper investigation.

    define reasonable? what other explanation have you got... for every truth there is a debunk... for every alternate theory there is a debunk of that... its never ending.

    i bet Osama is fucked off with this... he organises his greatest ever terrorist assault and then the infidels he's just attacked think its their own government?!?!? what's a terrorist to do these days? :D
    oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
  • Posts: 2,330
    As I stated previously, I do believe there are plenty of unknowns and we do deserve to find out more... but with that said, it's a far leap to take that and spin it into the notion that the government carried it out. It's calling a puddle an ocean.

    Also, and as more of a side note, even if someone did believe the government pulled an inside job, do you honestly have that much confidence in our government to do it successfully and nothing spur from it thereafter (leaks, people speaking out afterwards)? Our government screws anything and everything up, but somehow they pull something like this off to a tee? I find that harder to believe than anything else.
    polaris wrote:
    the key here is "realistic and logical" ... your perceptions are different than others ...

    a prime example is the term "pull it" ... yes, it can mean a myriad of things but is it a stretch to assume under the context that it was a demolishing term? ... i don't think so - but if you don't want to believe that 9/11 was an inside job - you're gonna go with something else ...

    in any case - forget about steel columns, firefighter testimony, insurance polices ... this event spurned on the greatest sequence of war-profiteering i've known at a time when the country was led by admitted neoconservatives with ties to all these profiting industries ... the 9/11 report is nowhere close to being adequate in terms of detailing the event ... combine that with the fact we know this administration LIED to take the US to war with Iraq and what would seem unfathomable is at the very least a possibility ...

    too many coincidences and too many things that have to be categorized as "no way they would do that" for there not to be more revealed ..
    CONservative governMENt

    Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
  • Posts: 13,066
    spyguy wrote:
    I'm not a huge fan of these websites but I found this to be an interesting read awhile back and was able to find it again. whats your take on it?

    http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html

    It's presents a seemingly impressive scientific analysis of what they think happened.

    then they summarize with

    "To finish, none of these stories prove there was molten (as in liquid) steel at the WTC. There's no evidence temperatures were hot enough to produce that (whatever the energy source), and some of the stories claiming "molten steel" have built-in implausibilities. There was certainly glowing metal, but this only indicates temperatures within the range of a fire."

    And the answer to that is:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbkl81qwEMA

    nobody can look at those things and say steel didn't melt...
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • Posts: 568
    polaris wrote:
    the key here is "realistic and logical" ... your perceptions are different than others ...

    a prime example is the term "pull it" ... yes, it can mean a myriad of things but is it a stretch to assume under the context that it was a demolishing term? ... i don't think so - but if you don't want to believe that 9/11 was an inside job - you're gonna go with something else ...

    in any case - forget about steel columns, firefighter testimony, insurance polices ... this event spurned on the greatest sequence of war-profiteering i've known at a time when the country was led by admitted neoconservatives with ties to all these profiting industries ... the 9/11 report is nowhere close to being adequate in terms of detailing the event ... combine that with the fact we know this administration LIED to take the US to war with Iraq and what would seem unfathomable is at the very least a possibility ...

    too many coincidences and too many things that have to be categorized as "no way they would do that" for there not to be more revealed ..

    People have taken advantage of terrible situations throughout history, that is nothing new. Secondly, 9/11 was not the primary reason, if at all, used to sell the public we needed to go into Iraq. The Bush administration did not need 9/11 to sell the public that Saddam was a threat due to his WMDs.

Welcome!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.
Sign In
Register

Quick Links

Categories