9-11, 19 insanely motivated Saudis with pocket knives, nothing else

[P F Tinmore]

Actually it's "MELT" lead. Since you're such an "expert" name me one other building that was built like the WTC. Is it possible that the design was NOT what the builders hoped for?

There was a fire in one corner of the building. A cold fire at that. Just for the sake of argument, that fire did cause structural failure in that corner. Then the building would flop over to that side not fall straight down.

For the building to fall straight down all the beams would have to fail at the same time under different levels of heat. The chance of that happening is zero.

Shit, you really expect us to believe your blatant lies and ignorant conclusions? Not bloody likely! First off, the video and photographic evidence proves the fires were across multiple floors and fully involved, not isolated to one corner. Again, who are we to believe? A now known, proven liar or our own eyes?

Second, only the South tower had a larger fire in one corner. Pretending both fires in the towers were identical only shows your complete lack of honesty in the matter.

Third, a building, especially one the size of the towers, wouldn't be able to fall to the side before the structures below it failed. This is simple engineering, which is apparently far beyond the ability of some to grasp.

I didn't say the fires were identical. But the results were. Besides, an oxygen starved jet fuel fire cannot melt steel.

 

[SFC Ollie]

There was a fire in one corner of the building. A cold fire at that. Just for the sake of argument, that fire did cause structural failure in that corner. Then the building would flop over to that side not fall straight down.

For the building to fall straight down all the beams would have to fail at the same time under different levels of heat. The chance of that happening is zero.

Shit, you really expect us to believe your blatant lies and ignorant conclusions? Not bloody likely! First off, the video and photographic evidence proves the fires were across multiple floors and fully involved, not isolated to one corner. Again, who are we to believe? A now known, proven liar or our own eyes?

Second, only the South tower had a larger fire in one corner. Pretending both fires in the towers were identical only shows your complete lack of honesty in the matter.

Third, a building, especially one the size of the towers, wouldn't be able to fall to the side before the structures below it failed. This is simple engineering, which is apparently far beyond the ability of some to grasp.

I didn't say the fires were identical. But the results were. Besides, an oxygen starved jet fuel fire cannot melt steel.

That is correct, and there was no melted steel.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Shit, you really expect us to believe your blatant lies and ignorant conclusions? Not bloody likely! First off, the video and photographic evidence proves the fires were across multiple floors and fully involved, not isolated to one corner. Again, who are we to believe? A now known, proven liar or our own eyes?

Second, only the South tower had a larger fire in one corner. Pretending both fires in the towers were identical only shows your complete lack of honesty in the matter.

Third, a building, especially one the size of the towers, wouldn't be able to fall to the side before the structures below it failed. This is simple engineering, which is apparently far beyond the ability of some to grasp.

I didn't say the fires were identical. But the results were. Besides, an oxygen starved jet fuel fire cannot melt steel.

That is correct, and there was no melted steel.

And even if the beams got hot enough to become plastic (which I doubt) they would bend and twist. They would not be cut like in the pictures above.

 

[Gamolon]

When I saw the first tower collapse my first thought was that the building cannot collapse like that. No way.

But it did....

Yes it did, but not like they said. Impossible.

Why is it impossible? Care to explain why?

 

[Gamolon]

And even if the beams got hot enough to become plastic (which I doubt) they would bend and twist. They would not be cut like in the pictures above.

Those were torch cuts made during cleanup. That has been proven.

 

[Gamolon]

There was a fire in one corner of the building. A cold fire at that. Just for the sake of argument, that fire did cause structural failure in that corner. Then the building would flop over to that side not fall straight down.

For the building to fall straight down all the beams would have to fail at the same time under different levels of heat. The chance of that happening is zero.

Shit, you really expect us to believe your blatant lies and ignorant conclusions? Not bloody likely! First off, the video and photographic evidence proves the fires were across multiple floors and fully involved, not isolated to one corner. Again, who are we to believe? A now known, proven liar or our own eyes?

Second, only the South tower had a larger fire in one corner. Pretending both fires in the towers were identical only shows your complete lack of honesty in the matter.

Third, a building, especially one the size of the towers, wouldn't be able to fall to the side before the structures below it failed. This is simple engineering, which is apparently far beyond the ability of some to grasp.

I didn't say the fires were identical. But the results were. Besides, an oxygen starved jet fuel fire cannot melt steel.

Can you prove it was steel and not aluminum or something else?

 

[Gamolon]

When I saw the first tower collapse my first thought was that the building cannot collapse like that. No way.

Do you get everything wrong or just 9/11?

A fire with a lot of smoke is a cold fire. You would be lucky to meld lead.

Where's your proof of this claim?

 

[Patriot911]

There was a fire in one corner of the building. A cold fire at that. Just for the sake of argument, that fire did cause structural failure in that corner. Then the building would flop over to that side not fall straight down.

For the building to fall straight down all the beams would have to fail at the same time under different levels of heat. The chance of that happening is zero.

Shit, you really expect us to believe your blatant lies and ignorant conclusions? Not bloody likely! First off, the video and photographic evidence proves the fires were across multiple floors and fully involved, not isolated to one corner. Again, who are we to believe? A now known, proven liar or our own eyes?

Second, only the South tower had a larger fire in one corner. Pretending both fires in the towers were identical only shows your complete lack of honesty in the matter.

Third, a building, especially one the size of the towers, wouldn't be able to fall to the side before the structures below it failed. This is simple engineering, which is apparently far beyond the ability of some to grasp.

I didn't say the fires were identical. But the results were.

Yet you claimed the fires were only in one corner. That was only true in ONE of the towers, not both.

Besides, an oxygen starved jet fuel fire cannot melt steel.

Still going with the retarded claim that an oxygen starved fire burns black thus the fire HAD to be oxygen starved? It all depends on WHAT is being burned! Take a tire and set it on fire. You're not going to get any kind of smoke from it except black no matter HOW much oxygen you're going to pump into it.

Here's an example from Caracas Venezuela:

This is obviously not an oxygen starved fire, yet the smoke is as black or blacker than what we saw in the towers.

Here's a good piece of advice for you. Don't rely on the soundbites from conspiracy sites as fact. The claims they make like oxygen starved fires and the like are nothing but bullshit that some think are true simply because someone wrote them down on a web site.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Shit, you really expect us to believe your blatant lies and ignorant conclusions? Not bloody likely! First off, the video and photographic evidence proves the fires were across multiple floors and fully involved, not isolated to one corner. Again, who are we to believe? A now known, proven liar or our own eyes?

Second, only the South tower had a larger fire in one corner. Pretending both fires in the towers were identical only shows your complete lack of honesty in the matter.

Third, a building, especially one the size of the towers, wouldn't be able to fall to the side before the structures below it failed. This is simple engineering, which is apparently far beyond the ability of some to grasp.

I didn't say the fires were identical. But the results were. Besides, an oxygen starved jet fuel fire cannot melt steel.

Can you prove it was steel and not aluminum or something else?

Aluminum cannot be cut with a cutting torch. Nor can other metals like stainless or copper.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Shit, you really expect us to believe your blatant lies and ignorant conclusions? Not bloody likely! First off, the video and photographic evidence proves the fires were across multiple floors and fully involved, not isolated to one corner. Again, who are we to believe? A now known, proven liar or our own eyes?

Second, only the South tower had a larger fire in one corner. Pretending both fires in the towers were identical only shows your complete lack of honesty in the matter.

Third, a building, especially one the size of the towers, wouldn't be able to fall to the side before the structures below it failed. This is simple engineering, which is apparently far beyond the ability of some to grasp.

I didn't say the fires were identical. But the results were.

Yet you claimed the fires were only in one corner. That was only true in ONE of the towers, not both.

Besides, an oxygen starved jet fuel fire cannot melt steel.

Still going with the retarded claim that an oxygen starved fire burns black thus the fire HAD to be oxygen starved? It all depends on WHAT is being burned! Take a tire and set it on fire. You're not going to get any kind of smoke from it except black no matter HOW much oxygen you're going to pump into it.

Here's an example from Caracas Venezuela:

This is obviously not an oxygen starved fire, yet the smoke is as black or blacker than what we saw in the towers.

Here's a good piece of advice for you. Don't rely on the soundbites from conspiracy sites as fact. The claims they make like oxygen starved fires and the like are nothing but bullshit that some think are true simply because someone wrote them down on a web site.

I didn't get any sound bites from web sites. I work with fire all the time. (I have even been on fire several times.)

Explain the function of the air pumps they used to put an cars to inject air into the exhaust manifold.

 

[Patriot911]

I didn't get any sound bites from web sites. I work with fire all the time. (I have even been on fire several times.)

Why am I not surprised? And yes, you do get your soundbites from conspiratard sites because you've been spouting off all the standard ones like the steel melted, it was only a jet fuel fire, the fire was oxygen starved, the fires were not isolated.... the list goes on and on. So either we are to believe you get your "facts" from conspiracy sites or you came to the same fake conclusions they did and just happen to have them all exactly the same.

Explain the function of the air pumps they used to put an cars to inject air into the exhaust manifold.

To more completely burn the fuel. Get that. Which part of everything depends on the fuel you're burning do you not get? Temperatures in standard office fires routinely reach 1400F, which is MORE than hot enough for steel to lose more than half its strength. Pretending the rules for an engine (black smoke = lacking oxygen) are the same for every fire regardless of fuel source is just ignorant.

 

[Gamolon]

For the building to fall straight down all the beams would have to fail at the same time under different levels of heat. The chance of that happening is zero.

The ENTIRE WTC7 building fell straight down at the same time?

That's just simply not true as the videos show.

You really need to come with the correct facts before spouting garbage like this.

 

[Gamolon]

I didn't say the fires were identical. But the results were. Besides, an oxygen starved jet fuel fire cannot melt steel.

Can you prove it was steel and not aluminum or something else?

Aluminum cannot be cut with a cutting torch. Nor can other metals like stainless or copper.

So you weren't talking about the "rivers of melted steel"? My mistake. You were speaking of these columns with melted steel?

\

As has been explained to you, that beam shows a torch cut. That cut looks exactly like the cut made here. See the second photo with the red oval circling the cut? Notice the "grooves" created by the torch? Same grooves appear on the cut column.

 

[JRK]

There was a fire in one corner of the building. A cold fire at that. Just for the sake of argument, that fire did cause structural failure in that corner. Then the building would flop over to that side not fall straight down.

For the building to fall straight down all the beams would have to fail at the same time under different levels of heat. The chance of that happening is zero.

Shit, you really expect us to believe your blatant lies and ignorant conclusions? Not bloody likely! First off, the video and photographic evidence proves the fires were across multiple floors and fully involved, not isolated to one corner. Again, who are we to believe? A now known, proven liar or our own eyes?

Second, only the South tower had a larger fire in one corner. Pretending both fires in the towers were identical only shows your complete lack of honesty in the matter.

Third, a building, especially one the size of the towers, wouldn't be able to fall to the side before the structures below it failed. This is simple engineering, which is apparently far beyond the ability of some to grasp.

I didn't say the fires were identical. But the results were. Besides, an oxygen starved jet fuel fire cannot melt steel.

Melt steel?
Jet fuel?

 

[candycorn]

Shit, you really expect us to believe your blatant lies and ignorant conclusions? Not bloody likely! First off, the video and photographic evidence proves the fires were across multiple floors and fully involved, not isolated to one corner. Again, who are we to believe? A now known, proven liar or our own eyes?

Second, only the South tower had a larger fire in one corner. Pretending both fires in the towers were identical only shows your complete lack of honesty in the matter.

Third, a building, especially one the size of the towers, wouldn't be able to fall to the side before the structures below it failed. This is simple engineering, which is apparently far beyond the ability of some to grasp.

I didn't say the fires were identical. But the results were. Besides, an oxygen starved jet fuel fire cannot melt steel.

Melt steel?
Jet fuel?

Did it amaze you also that all of those people were jumping out of buildings that were not burning?

Some people would actually be smarter post lobotomy than they currently are.

 

[Triton]

PF Tinmore, controlled demolition is the only feasible explanation for WTC 7's total symmetrical free fall collapse into its own foundation, pulverizing steel and concrete into areosolized particulates and leaving behind molten steel despite not being hit by a plane and only having sporadic fires on 7-8 floors with a gash on the south side.






One of them even used your typo to "debunk" you.





These guys can't explain in their own words how WTC 7 collapsed.

Just keep asking them, they won't tell you.

Its just too difficult to make up an explanation that is so blatantly opposed to the law of physics.







Unless your SFC Ollie of course and your explanation is "a building fell on top of it"

 

[Patriot911]

PF Tinmore, controlled demolition is the only feasible explanation for WTC 7's total symmetrical free fall collapse into its own foundation, pulverizing steel and concrete into areosolized particulates and leaving behind molten steel despite not being hit by a plane and only having sporadic fires on 7-8 floors with a gash on the south side.

One of them even used your typo to "debunk" you.



These guys can't explain in their own words how WTC 7 collapsed.

Just keep asking them, they won't tell you.

Its just too difficult to make up an explanation that is so blatantly opposed to the law of physics.

Unless your SFC Ollie of course and your explanation is "a building fell on top of it"

I don't know why a piece of shit liar like Triton would continue with the same tired old lies even when he has been told time and time again he is wrong. Oh well. The truth is always there and incontrovertible. Now watch Triton dance like the little bitch that he is when confronted by the truth.

Triton has been pretending for quite some time that nobody has responded to his request for how WTC 7 collapsed. I've told him time and time again that I answered his question, but that he was too dishonest and too lazy to reference it. And being dishonest and lazy, Triton is STILL accusing me of never having explained it.

Well, now you can see what a motherfucking liar he really is.

Proof posted on 4/29/2011

If I can offer my explanation for WTC 7's collapse in my own words, which the evidence supports, than you should be able to do the same if its so obvious and simple, Patriot911.

It is neither obvious, nor simple. Which, of course, is why you're nothing but an ignorant fucktard and I am an educated individual. You see a collapse and your little peabrain goes "It HAS to be a controlled demolition! There is no other explanation!" Have you read the NIST report? Obviously not. Are you capable of understanding it? Highly doubtful.

The WTC 7 had a unique construction due to it being built over the Con Ed Substation. That put a majority of the weight of the structure on a relatively small number of main supports. One of these supports failed which caused a vertical progression up the building. This is evidenced by the collapse of the Penthouse before the collapse of the rest of the building. The collapse started to progress horizontally through the building until there wasn't enough support left to keep the building up, which caused the global collapse of the building. There it is in a nutshell. Now what are you going to do about it?

So what do you have to say now, Triton?

 

[SFC Ollie]

PF Tinmore, controlled demolition is the only feasible explanation for WTC 7's total symmetrical free fall collapse into its own foundation, pulverizing steel and concrete into areosolized particulates and leaving behind molten steel despite not being hit by a plane and only having sporadic fires on 7-8 floors with a gash on the south side.


There was no total symmetrical free fall collapse of 7 WTC. Anyone who has seen the videos can tell you that.

There were also much more than "sporadic fires" and the gash was said to be a quarter of the building scooped out.


One of them even used your typo to "debunk" you.





These guys can't explain in their own words how WTC 7 collapsed.

Just keep asking them, they won't tell you.

Its just too difficult to make up an explanation that is so blatantly opposed to the law of physics.







Unless your SFC Ollie of course and your explanation is "a building fell on top of it"

Um, in fact, a 110 story building did fall on it.

 

[Triton]

Yea, SFC Ollie, sure looks like a 110 story fell right on top of it, maybe if the twin towers didn't have such a perfectly symmetrical total collapse you could make that argument.

"The WTC 7 had a unique construction due to it being built over the Con Ed Substation. That put a majority of the weight of the structure on a relatively small number of main supports. One of these supports failed which caused a vertical progression up the building. This is evidenced by the collapse of the Penthouse before the collapse of the rest of the building. The collapse started to progress horizontally through the building until there wasn't enough support left to keep the building up, which caused the global collapse of the building. There it is in a nutshell. Now what are you going to do about it?"



Thanks Patriot911, was that too difficult for you?




Your explanation however is quite flawed,

- The failure of one of the supports is not sufficient to cause the symmetrical total, no resistance, type of collapse.

-You fail to explain what initiated the failure of all of the supports, you do not account for the rate of fall in your explanation, the floors and other supports would provide resistance and prevent the symmetrical free fall collapse that WTC 7 experienced.

-You fail to account for what caused the pulverization into aerosolized particulates of the steel and concrete.

-You fail to account for the molten steel that you claim does not exist.

-You fail to account for the nano-thermite found in the dust.



The progressive collapse theory for WTC 7's collapse has been thoroughly debunked.The Murrah Federal building's collapse has also been shown to not be a suitable comparison as well.

 

[candycorn]

PF Tinmore, controlled demolition is the only feasible explanation for WTC 7's total symmetrical free fall collapse into its own foundation, pulverizing steel and concrete into areosolized particulates and leaving behind molten steel despite not being hit by a plane and only having sporadic fires on 7-8 floors with a gash on the south side.


There was no total symmetrical free fall collapse of 7 WTC. Anyone who has seen the videos can tell you that.

There were also much more than "sporadic fires" and the gash was said to be a quarter of the building scooped out.


One of them even used your typo to "debunk" you.





These guys can't explain in their own words how WTC 7 collapsed.

Just keep asking them, they won't tell you.

Its just too difficult to make up an explanation that is so blatantly opposed to the law of physics.







Unless your SFC Ollie of course and your explanation is "a building fell on top of it"

Um, in fact, a 110 story building did fall on it.

You don't have to say much when you recite facts. Nicely put.