911 facts no theories

[eots]

I never have said and I don't believe that anyone competent has ever said that fire brought down three skyscrapers. There is a small matter of 2 airliners crashing into two of the largest (or tallest) man-made structures in the world and causing massive damage to the integrity of those buildings. You see when you add that fact to the mix, how do you hit those buildings just so perfectly so that you don't screw up the pre-planted explosives or without setting off the thermite too soon? Because if you set off the thermite at the time of collision the buildings would have fell right then. So please explain how they delayed the demolition.

SO now go ahead and add the planes and the damage they did to the buildings and the timing into the mix, and then tell me how it worked.

And Sorry I'm not looking for it again right now but I did read a report about these particles being found, but they were in the wrong combinations to actually be thermite. Because as we all should know, all the components of thermite are in most any office building.

bullshit

no, it isnt
but then you post bullshit so much its not surprising you dont know what is and what isnt

link ?

 

[LA RAM FAN]

SO you've heard controlled demolitions but you think the collapses on 9-11 were similar?

I would check in with an audiologist if I were you.

you and your fellow Bush dupes have been taken to school stupid moron.Even Tom Sullivan the lead team member of CDI-CONTROLLED DEMOLITION INCORPORATED,has said the destruction of the towers could have only happened from a controlled demolition.You 9/11 offical conspiracy theory apologists love making morons out of yourselves by blatatnly ignoring credible sourse such as Tom Sullivan obviously. "rolls on floor laughing."

The video is nearly 2 hours long, but the details start early. Physicists,engineers,fire and demolition experts, explain how some of the official versions contradict the laws of Physics
The Third WTC building WTC 7 is not mentioned much. 7 hours after the first two towers collapsed, this building 48 stories high collapsed in 6.8 seconds. an apple dropped from that height takes 6. It was reinforced, and there was insufficient damage to cause such a collapse.
The post 9/11 dust was reported to be safe. it was loaded with Mercury from flurescant lights, and Asbestos. Tests found It had a Ph (Alkalinity) of 12 .Ammonia 11.5 and Bleach 12.5 are a comparison.
Rescue workers were told this dust was SAFE. They were told NOT to wear masks as it would alarm the public. It was "essential" to get the money flowing through Wall St no matter what the cost to the people. Particularly the rescuers. Engineers drew from facts, instead of declaring a conclusion, and finding evidence to confirm i

Wrong, wrong wrong. But keep trying.

nice dodge agent. thanks for proving as always, you indeed DO lie all the time when you cant refute facts . your so predictable Gomer and prove as always you have no interest in the truth and that your a complete waste of time .

 

[DiveCon]

bullshit

no, it isnt
but then you post bullshit so much its not surprising you dont know what is and what isnt

link ?

holy shit

you are a fucking idiot
go watch the NatGeo special

 

[SFC Ollie]

you and your fellow Bush dupes have been taken to school stupid moron.Even Tom Sullivan the lead team member of CDI-CONTROLLED DEMOLITION INCORPORATED,has said the destruction of the towers could have only happened from a controlled demolition.You 9/11 offical conspiracy theory apologists love making morons out of yourselves by blatatnly ignoring credible sourse such as Tom Sullivan obviously. "rolls on floor laughing."

The video is nearly 2 hours long, but the details start early. Physicists,engineers,fire and demolition experts, explain how some of the official versions contradict the laws of Physics
The Third WTC building WTC 7 is not mentioned much. 7 hours after the first two towers collapsed, this building 48 stories high collapsed in 6.8 seconds. an apple dropped from that height takes 6. It was reinforced, and there was insufficient damage to cause such a collapse.
The post 9/11 dust was reported to be safe. it was loaded with Mercury from flurescant lights, and Asbestos. Tests found It had a Ph (Alkalinity) of 12 .Ammonia 11.5 and Bleach 12.5 are a comparison.
Rescue workers were told this dust was SAFE. They were told NOT to wear masks as it would alarm the public. It was "essential" to get the money flowing through Wall St no matter what the cost to the people. Particularly the rescuers. Engineers drew from facts, instead of declaring a conclusion, and finding evidence to confirm i

Wrong, wrong wrong. But keep trying.

nice dodge agent. thanks for proving as always, you indeed DO lie all the time when you cant refute facts . your so predictable Gomer and prove as always you have no interest in the truth and that your a complete waste of time .

Damn I'm so not going to miss your stupidity. Goodbye dick weed.

 

[Wayne1954]

I never have said and I don't believe that anyone competent has ever said that fire brought down three skyscrapers. There is a small matter of 2 airliners crashing into two of the largest (or tallest) man-made structures in the world and causing massive damage to the integrity of those buildings. You see when you add that fact to the mix, how do you hit those buildings just so perfectly so that you don't screw up the pre-planted explosives or without setting off the thermite too soon? Because if you set off the thermite at the time of collision the buildings would have fell right then. So please explain how they delayed the demolition.

SO now go ahead and add the planes and the damage they did to the buildings and the timing into the mix, and then tell me how it worked.

1) Great! So we agree that the buildings were not brought down by fire.

It appears that the point of disagreement is over whether the impact of the planes caused enough damage to cause the top part of the building to become disconnected from the rest of the building and fall down through the rest of the undamaged supporting structure all the way down into the basement. You need to agree to the use of the word "disconnected" because otherwise the top could only only topple off to one side.

You seem to think this is a realistic response of a structure to an impact.

2) I will simply note that the buildings were impacted by planes, swayed by the force of impact (less than design forces for high winds) and returned to full upright position until they suddenly, and without apparent change in structural integrity, collapsed catastrophically all the way down into the basement.

3) You need to explain exactly what you mean by the folllowing: "... and the timing into the mix,"

4) Finally, in response to "... then tell me how it worked." At this time neither I nor anybody that I have heard, knows exactly

 

[SFC Ollie]

I never have said and I don't believe that anyone competent has ever said that fire brought down three skyscrapers. There is a small matter of 2 airliners crashing into two of the largest (or tallest) man-made structures in the world and causing massive damage to the integrity of those buildings. You see when you add that fact to the mix, how do you hit those buildings just so perfectly so that you don't screw up the pre-planted explosives or without setting off the thermite too soon? Because if you set off the thermite at the time of collision the buildings would have fell right then. So please explain how they delayed the demolition.

SO now go ahead and add the planes and the damage they did to the buildings and the timing into the mix, and then tell me how it worked.

1) Great! So we agree that the buildings were not brought down by fire.

It appears that the point of disagreement is over whether the impact of the planes caused enough damage to cause the top part of the building to become disconnected from the rest of the building and fall down through the rest of the undamaged supporting structure all the way down into the basement. You need to agree to the use of the word "disconnected" because otherwise the top could only only topple off to one side.

You seem to think this is a realistic response of a structure to an impact.

2) I will simply note that the buildings were impacted by planes, swayed by the force of impact (less than design forces for high winds) and returned to full upright position until they suddenly, and without apparent change in structural integrity, collapsed catastrophically all the way down into the basement.

3) You need to explain exactly what you mean by the folllowing: "... and the timing into the mix,"

4) Finally, in response to "... then tell me how it worked." At this time neither I nor anybody that I have heard, knows exactly

Nice twist. I suppose we have to spell out every little sentence, since you want to be like the typical truther and twist everything even though you have to understand exactly what was meant.

Fire by itself did not bring down the towers. The impact and damage done by the planes impacts did not bring down the towers. A combination of the two did bring down the towers.

Timing. If explosives and/or thermite had been planted in the buildings, chances are that the explosions of the planes impacts would have set the charges off. That they did not fall immediately means that the charges (that did not exist) must have been set off later. Must have been some engineering feat to be able to set them off after the planes destroyed any timers or wiring connection all those charges (which did not exist) to each other.

 

[DiveCon]

I never have said and I don't believe that anyone competent has ever said that fire brought down three skyscrapers. There is a small matter of 2 airliners crashing into two of the largest (or tallest) man-made structures in the world and causing massive damage to the integrity of those buildings. You see when you add that fact to the mix, how do you hit those buildings just so perfectly so that you don't screw up the pre-planted explosives or without setting off the thermite too soon? Because if you set off the thermite at the time of collision the buildings would have fell right then. So please explain how they delayed the demolition.

SO now go ahead and add the planes and the damage they did to the buildings and the timing into the mix, and then tell me how it worked.

1) Great! So we agree that the buildings were not brought down by fire.

It appears that the point of disagreement is over whether the impact of the planes caused enough damage to cause the top part of the building to become disconnected from the rest of the building and fall down through the rest of the undamaged supporting structure all the way down into the basement. You need to agree to the use of the word "disconnected" because otherwise the top could only only topple off to one side.

You seem to think this is a realistic response of a structure to an impact.

2) I will simply note that the buildings were impacted by planes, swayed by the force of impact (less than design forces for high winds) and returned to full upright position until they suddenly, and without apparent change in structural integrity, collapsed catastrophically all the way down into the basement.

3) You need to explain exactly what you mean by the folllowing: "... and the timing into the mix,"

4) Finally, in response to "... then tell me how it worked." At this time neither I nor anybody that I have heard, knows exactly

Nice twist. I suppose we have to spell out every little sentence, since you want to be like the typical truther and twist everything even though you have to understand exactly what was meant.

Fire by itself did not bring down the towers. The impact and damage done by the planes impacts did not bring down the towers. A combination of the two did bring down the towers.

Timing. If explosives and/or thermite had been planted in the buildings, chances are that the explosions of the planes impacts would have set the charges off. That they did not fall immediately means that the charges (that did not exist) must have been set off later. Must have been some engineering feat to be able to set them off after the planes destroyed any timers or wiring connection all those charges (which did not exist) to each other.

too much common sense and logic for most troofers to deal with

 

[SFC Ollie]

1) Great! So we agree that the buildings were not brought down by fire.

It appears that the point of disagreement is over whether the impact of the planes caused enough damage to cause the top part of the building to become disconnected from the rest of the building and fall down through the rest of the undamaged supporting structure all the way down into the basement. You need to agree to the use of the word "disconnected" because otherwise the top could only only topple off to one side.

You seem to think this is a realistic response of a structure to an impact.

2) I will simply note that the buildings were impacted by planes, swayed by the force of impact (less than design forces for high winds) and returned to full upright position until they suddenly, and without apparent change in structural integrity, collapsed catastrophically all the way down into the basement.

3) You need to explain exactly what you mean by the folllowing: "... and the timing into the mix,"

4) Finally, in response to "... then tell me how it worked." At this time neither I nor anybody that I have heard, knows exactly

Nice twist. I suppose we have to spell out every little sentence, since you want to be like the typical truther and twist everything even though you have to understand exactly what was meant.

Fire by itself did not bring down the towers. The impact and damage done by the planes impacts did not bring down the towers. A combination of the two did bring down the towers.

Timing. If explosives and/or thermite had been planted in the buildings, chances are that the explosions of the planes impacts would have set the charges off. That they did not fall immediately means that the charges (that did not exist) must have been set off later. Must have been some engineering feat to be able to set them off after the planes destroyed any timers or wiring connection all those charges (which did not exist) to each other.

too much common sense and logic for most troofers to deal with

I know, but they dismiss common sense.

 

[Wayne1954]

Great! Then we agree it wasn't the impact damage. Because the three skyscrapers remained standing after impact.

Then you are saying it was fire. It was the fire that weaked the building causing it to be disconnected from the rest of the building structure and fall down through the rest of the undamaged supporting structure ... all the way down into the basement. Again, you need to agree to the use of the word "disconnected" because otherwise the top could only only topple off to one side.

The only thing that was going on, according to you ... and NIST ... was that fire proceeding through the structure from place to place and weakening the building then it collapsed.

Just trying to get to the "TWOOTH" as you see it.

So far your story doesn't fit the observations.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Great! Then we agree it wasn't the impact damage. Because the three skyscrapers remained standing after impact.

Then you are saying it was fire. It was the fire that weaked the building causing it to be disconnected from the rest of the building structure and fall down through the rest of the undamaged supporting structure ... all the way down into the basement. Again, you need to agree to the use of the word "disconnected" because otherwise the top could only only topple off to one side.

The only thing that was going on, according to you ... and NIST ... was that fire proceeding through the structure from place to place and weakening the building then it collapsed.

Just trying to get to the "TWOOTH" as you see it.

So far your story doesn't fit the observations.

Didn't I mention airliners, and damage to the integrity of the building in combination with fire? I thought for sure i mentioned that, and I think NIST probably did also. Don't twist what I say. We've all seen the videos and heard the stories. We've also seen the bent beams. What we haven't seen is cut beams or any other physical evidence of a controlled demo.

 

[Hollybaere]

um, when planes FULL of JET FUEL hit a building, you will see exactly that

that is not proof of explosives

Um, and the jet fuel gets mostly burnt up in the initial explosion.

I have already posted pictures of people standing in the impact holes. NONE of them were on fire.

So......your point is??

 

[DiveCon]

um, when planes FULL of JET FUEL hit a building, you will see exactly that

that is not proof of explosives

Um, and the jet fuel gets mostly burnt up in the initial explosion.

I have already posted pictures of people standing in the impact holes. NONE of them were on fire.

So......your point is??

the point is, you troofers are fucking MORONS
get it yet?

 

[eots]

no, it isnt
but then you post bullshit so much its not surprising you dont know what is and what isnt

link ?

holy shit

you are a fucking idiot
go watch the NatGeo special

So the answer is... no I have no such link

 

[elvis]

link ?

holy shit

you are a fucking idiot
go watch the NatGeo special

So the answer is... no I have no such link

I'm not sure you CAN link that.

 

[eots]

holy shit

you are a fucking idiot
go watch the NatGeo special

So the answer is... no I have no such link

I'm not sure you CAN link that.

link to what Elvis ? complete sentences would be helpful.

 

[DiveCon]

So the answer is... no I have no such link

I'm not sure you CAN link that.

link to what Elvis ? complete sentences would be helpful.

how do you link to something you watched on TV?
well, you look for everything you can find on youtube, i dont

 

[elvis]

So the answer is... no I have no such link

I'm not sure you CAN link that.

link to what Elvis ? complete sentences would be helpful.

The National Geographic special Dive was referring to is not available on youtube as far as I know.

 

[SFC Ollie]

www [dot] hopeoutloud.org/images/AdvancedPhysics.png

Hmmm ... Actually they said that they did not look for explosives, because there was no evidence that they were there ... so why waste time looking for something they "knew" wasn't there.

So the pictures on this panel are from the Stephen Jones (et al) Paper on the red-gray chips from the WTC dust. If we look at the last figure we see the results from a Differential Scanning Calorimeter (DSC) test. A differential scanning calorimeter is a device in which you put a small sample of material. You then put a known amount of heat energy into it. If the temperature increase is greater that the heat you put in, the material is reacting and giving off heat. If you look at the red trace, this is for the best nano-thermite that has been described in the literature. It was from Tillison in 2001. From this graph, you can see that the red-line is relatively flat until about 540 degrees C when it becomes exothermic and gives off a lot of extra energy. By the time 600 degrees C is reached, all of the material is completely reacted. If you were to do the same test with the tiny red-gray chips you would see that the material becomes exothermic at a lower level and there is a much narrower temperature range starting at 440 degrees C. This much narrower and more energetic band suggest that there is an even finer mixing, at the atomic level, of the iron, oxygen and aluminum. These shorter distances between the atoms increases the reaction speed and with this much energy, the material could be considered to be explosive. If this were to be so energetic as to explode, the elemental iron from the reaction that I just described, would be exploded out into the air and then it would cool in the atmosphere creating lots of tiny iron spheres.

So other than saying "Wayne ... it ain't so" what physical evidence do you have of the official story whereby fire cause the complete destruction of the three skyscrapers?

I never have said and I don't believe that anyone competent has ever said that fire brought down three skyscrapers. There is a small matter of 2 airliners crashing into two of the largest (or tallest) man-made structures in the world and causing massive damage to the integrity of those buildings. You see when you add that fact to the mix, how do you hit those buildings just so perfectly so that you don't screw up the pre-planted explosives or without setting off the thermite too soon? Because if you set off the thermite at the time of collision the buildings would have fell right then. So please explain how they delayed the demolition.

SO now go ahead and add the planes and the damage they did to the buildings and the timing into the mix, and then tell me how it worked.

And Sorry I'm not looking for it again right now but I did read a report about these particles being found, but they were in the wrong combinations to actually be thermite. Because as we all should know, all the components of thermite are in most any office building.

bullshit

What, you don't know that thermite is basically aluminum and rust?

 

[Wayne1954]

[What, you don't know that thermite is basically aluminum and rust?

Mr. SFC Ollie:

Scientist and Physicists know quite a bit about the characteristics of thermite. Your simple "aluminum and rust" (in mixed power form) is used to weld steel rails together. Here is what Wikipedia says about the "aluminum and rust" reaction ... and it not just some "little-bit-of-rust-on-this-pipe-here-and-an-alumimun-beer-can-over-there" proximity that creates this highly exothermic reaction.

"From Wikipedia:

Thermite is a pyrotechnic composition of a metal powder and a metal oxide, which produces an exothermic oxidation-reduction reaction known as a thermite reaction. If aluminum is the reducing agent it is called an aluminothermic reaction. Most varieties are not explosive, but can create short bursts of extremely high temperatures focused on a very small area for a short period of time.

Thermites can be a diverse class of compositions. The fuels are often aluminium, magnesium, calcium, titanium, zinc, silicon, and boron. The oxidizers can be boron(III) oxide, silicon(IV) oxide, chromium(III) oxide, manganese(IV) oxide, iron(III) oxide, iron(II,III) oxide, copper(II) oxide, and lead(II,III,IV) oxide.

The most common thermite is aluminium-iron(III) oxide.

Reaction

The aluminium reduces the oxide of another metal, most commonly iron oxide, because aluminium is highly reactive:

Fe2O3 + 2Al → 2Fe + Al2O3 + heat

The products are aluminium oxide, free elemental iron,[2] and a large amount of heat. The reactants are commonly powdered and mixed with a binder to keep the material solid and prevent separation."

So are you dismissive of the ability of Thermite to weaken and cut steel beams?

 

[Wayne1954]

Mr. SFC Ollie:

One of my buddies is US Army (Retired) and was a Seargent in an Engineers Corp based not too far outside of New York City. On Sept 11th, he figured he would be activated to go help with the clean-up of WTC area because his unit had some of the biggest equipment available in this part of the country. But they weren't activated ... and he said he was puzzled.

We looked at pictures in a big coffee-table sized book "'Aftermath: World Trade Center Archive,'
by Joel Meyerowitz" and what struck him was the complete absence of uniformed military types during the clean-up. Then he said a very interesting thing: "You know, we use thermite to take down stuff ... so my guys would have known what they were looking at ... this is really f---ed-up."

So "Alumiinum and Rust" can be pretty powerful.