Another Year And The Ones Who Were Involved In 911

[n0spam4me]

Ok...so you are saying it's possible for the planes to do that? The plane seemed very small to do that much impact..not at all saying I'm right just seems a little odd.

DO ALL WHAT? ---fire did it The
IMPACT of the planes did not bring the
towers down-----however I do believe that
it is possible that the terrorists thought it
might ---<< I do not know if they were also
"chemistry compromised"

do you know what a tiny little nuclear bomb
can do?

do you know what a single bullet to the brain
can do? ----I saw a case of a 22 ---deep in
they substance of the brain-----on C-T scan the brain looked fine----just a tiny metal object right in the center----the kid was young and
healthy looking ---about 25 years old----tiny
metal pellet in the center of his brain-----he was "brain dead" (by Harvard criteria)----
His parents could not believe that tiny little
metal object could cause so much damage----do you know what caused the damage?---
not the penetration-----THE HEAT!!!!!

I work with steel all the time it's melting point is around 2,750 degrees Fahrenheit
JP 4 jet fuel only get's to 1500 degrees tops

only twoofers that say melting. steel weakens and bends at 570 degrees.
Heat

• In the investigation of the collapse of the World Trade Center towers in 2001, the failure of the structural steel has been attributed in part to the fires ignited by jet fuel that spread throughout several floors. While estimates vary, the jet fuel fires could have created temperatures as high as 2,700 degrees Fahrenheit. Research has shown that steel begins to weaken at approximately 570 degrees Fahrenheit, and that the critical temperature for failure is approximately 1,020 degrees Fahrenheit. This can vary widely with the load on top of that steel. The powerful impact of the airplanes as well as the intensity of the fire contributed to the collapse of the World Trade Center towers.

Read more : What Weakens Steel eHow
.

National Geographic should be seriously ashamed of this farce that they promoted...

Perhaps in your Bizarro World would a credible source like Nat Geo be ashamed of promoting facts while idiots like you strut around posting absolute BS.
Grow the fuck up, Princess (with all due respect).

Serious problem here is the fact that people have put all too much faith in their "institutions" Popular Mechanics lost a lot of subscriptions because they chose to publish blatant fraud. If there is somebody with any sort of degree or anything at all that allegedly elevates what they have to say, I advise caution, fact check EVERYTHING!

 

[SAYIT]

was 9/11 a controlled demolition?

no .no evidence of explosives or accelerants were found.
if you are actually doing a paper or report ,then remember speculation is not fact.
the crapspiracy theorists you are talking to on this thread can't tell the difference.
if you're bullshiting it's a totally weak performance.

please be so kind as to trot out the DOCUMENT that states explosives were looked for and by what means and what sampling technique & how many samples were tested.
I really wanna know. where is it?

Did you ever play Whac-a-Mole as a kid (or for you, lately)? It doesn't seem to matter how often or completely your silliness is refuted you simply pop-up in another hole. Skylar was the latest norm to patiently destroy your silliness point-by-point and you consistently covered you eyes and ears when exposed to the light. You have demonstrated an aversion (or an allergy) to the truth all while failing to post a shred of evidence for any of your foil-hated scenarios. If your purpose here is to embarrass yourself and/or the "Truther" Movement, you have done a magnificent job.

So rather than post the DOCUMENT, you choose to blame me for being allegedly obtuse in this matter. Thank You very much, My point here is either put up or shut-up if it is documented so as to remove all doubt in this matter, please do provide said DOCUMENT. but the fact is that I would give it 99.99% probability that it doesn't exist because no scientific testing for explosives was done. Note that the NIST has already gone on record stating that they didn't test for explosives because they knew it would be a waste of time...... go figure!?!?!?!

I'm not dancing to your tune, Princess. You persistently refuse to accept that which has already been documented in this and a number of other threads to which you are subscribed here and instead you close your eyes and ears and scream "no planes were hijacked on 9/11/2001." Many have lead you patiently and courteously to water but you always refuse to drink. There's just no fixing what ails you and I'm not interested in trying.

 

[SAYIT]

DO ALL WHAT? ---fire did it The
IMPACT of the planes did not bring the
towers down-----however I do believe that
it is possible that the terrorists thought it
might ---<< I do not know if they were also
"chemistry compromised"

do you know what a tiny little nuclear bomb
can do?

do you know what a single bullet to the brain
can do? ----I saw a case of a 22 ---deep in
they substance of the brain-----on C-T scan the brain looked fine----just a tiny metal object right in the center----the kid was young and
healthy looking ---about 25 years old----tiny
metal pellet in the center of his brain-----he was "brain dead" (by Harvard criteria)----
His parents could not believe that tiny little
metal object could cause so much damage----do you know what caused the damage?---
not the penetration-----THE HEAT!!!!!

I work with steel all the time it's melting point is around 2,750 degrees Fahrenheit
JP 4 jet fuel only get's to 1500 degrees tops

only twoofers that say melting. steel weakens and bends at 570 degrees.
Heat

• In the investigation of the collapse of the World Trade Center towers in 2001, the failure of the structural steel has been attributed in part to the fires ignited by jet fuel that spread throughout several floors. While estimates vary, the jet fuel fires could have created temperatures as high as 2,700 degrees Fahrenheit. Research has shown that steel begins to weaken at approximately 570 degrees Fahrenheit, and that the critical temperature for failure is approximately 1,020 degrees Fahrenheit. This can vary widely with the load on top of that steel. The powerful impact of the airplanes as well as the intensity of the fire contributed to the collapse of the World Trade Center towers.

Read more : What Weakens Steel eHow
.

National Geographic should be seriously ashamed of this farce that they promoted...

Perhaps in your Bizarro World would a credible source like Nat Geo be ashamed of promoting facts while idiots like you strut around posting absolute BS.
Grow the fuck up, Princess (with all due respect).

Serious problem here is the fact that people have put all too much faith in their "institutions" Popular Mechanics lost a lot of subscriptions because they chose to publish blatant fraud. If there is somebody with any sort of degree or anything at all that allegedly elevates what they have to say, I advise caution, fact check EVERYTHING!

You "forgot" to post a link to Pop Mech's loss of subscriptions and what "blatant fraud" they published. You also failed to post anything - other than your totally valueless opinion - in support of your complaint about Nat Geo. According to you any source, other than you, is a fraud.

 

[daws101]

was 9/11 a controlled demolition?

no .no evidence of explosives or accelerants were found.
if you are actually doing a paper or report ,then remember speculation is not fact.
the crapspiracy theorists you are talking to on this thread can't tell the difference.
if you're bullshiting it's a totally weak performance.

please be so kind as to trot out the DOCUMENT that states explosives were looked for and by what means and what sampling technique & how many samples were tested.
I really wanna know. where is it?

do your own homework there are hundreds of links to that info on this site alone.

 

[daws101]

I have observed that people who cannot do high school geometry-----have trouble with all sorts of simple stuff in "science" and seem to
just REJECT simple facts of the physical world. My guess is that you probably avoided the study of Physics 101 altogether. In my university there were
special classes for people who reject science---- but have to fulfull "requirements"--
PHYSICS FOR POETS

Food science is a very interesting field----some people who see themselves a CHEFS----cannot do the "ORGANIC CHEMISTRY"----
so they have special "organic chemistry for poets". I bet ALTON BROWN did the
real organic chemistry-----he would understand why the world trade center BURNED SO HOT--------but I am not so sure that "betty crocker" would

Ok...so you are saying it's possible for the planes to do that? The plane seemed very small to do that much impact..not at all saying I'm right just seems a little odd.

DO ALL WHAT? ---fire did it The
IMPACT of the planes did not bring the
towers down-----however I do believe that
it is possible that the terrorists thought it
might ---<< I do not know if they were also
"chemistry compromised"

do you know what a tiny little nuclear bomb
can do?

do you know what a single bullet to the brain
can do? ----I saw a case of a 22 ---deep in
they substance of the brain-----on C-T scan the brain looked fine----just a tiny metal object right in the center----the kid was young and
healthy looking ---about 25 years old----tiny
metal pellet in the center of his brain-----he was "brain dead" (by Harvard criteria)----
His parents could not believe that tiny little
metal object could cause so much damage----do you know what caused the damage?---
not the penetration-----THE HEAT!!!!!

I work with steel all the time it's melting point is around 2,750 degrees Fahrenheit
JP 4 jet fuel only get's to 1500 degrees tops

only twoofers that say melting. steel weakens and bends at 570 degrees.
Heat

• In the investigation of the collapse of the World Trade Center towers in 2001, the failure of the structural steel has been attributed in part to the fires ignited by jet fuel that spread throughout several floors. While estimates vary, the jet fuel fires could have created temperatures as high as 2,700 degrees Fahrenheit. Research has shown that steel begins to weaken at approximately 570 degrees Fahrenheit, and that the critical temperature for failure is approximately 1,020 degrees Fahrenheit. This can vary widely with the load on top of that steel. The powerful impact of the airplanes as well as the intensity of the fire contributed to the collapse of the World Trade Center towers.

Read more : What Weakens Steel eHow
.

National Geographic should be seriously ashamed of this farce that they promoted.
The first highly disingenuous bit about this is the fact that the piece of steel isn't connected to anything its simply a single beam that has load stacked on it and heated, however, in the case of the towers, there had been fire in parts of the tower, and no fire in other parts, the parts that had no fire would function as a heat-sink and the steel would conduct off the heat rather than raising the temperature of the single bit.
also there is a study that has been done either by UL or their British counterpart that subjected building steel to fire and did so for longer burn times than the towers experienced and the ONLY effect of this was some deformation of floor trusses but NO danger of collapse for the structure. The other feature of this that is not being properly addressed is the fact that the towers came down in a manner that required all of the physical connections in any given floor-level to fail all at the same time, because if they did not, the mass above the as yet undamaged part of the tower, would have to tip shifting its center of gravity and dumping mass quantities of rubble over one side of the tower and stopping the action before the total destruction of the tower.

funny this is the same twoofer bullshit I hear every time nat geo obliterates the twoofer myth of fire can't bend steel..
one more thing shit for brains your heat sink "theory" is a steaming pile.

 

[daws101]

was 9/11 a controlled demolition?

no .no evidence of explosives or accelerants were found.
if you are actually doing a paper or report ,then remember speculation is not fact.
the crapspiracy theorists you are talking to on this thread can't tell the difference.
if you're bullshiting it's a totally weak performance.

please be so kind as to trot out the DOCUMENT that states explosives were looked for and by what means and what sampling technique & how many samples were tested.
I really wanna know. where is it?

Did you ever play Whac-a-Mole as a kid (or for you, lately)? It doesn't seem to matter how often or completely your silliness is refuted you simply pop-up in another hole. Skylar was the latest norm to patiently destroy your silliness point-by-point and you consistently covered you eyes and ears when exposed to the light. You have demonstrated an aversion (or an allergy) to the truth all while failing to post a shred of evidence for any of your foil-hated scenarios. If your purpose here is to embarrass yourself and/or the "Truther" Movement, you have done a magnificent job.

So rather than post the DOCUMENT, you choose to blame me for being allegedly obtuse in this matter. Thank You very much, My point here is either put up or shut-up if it is documented so as to remove all doubt in this matter, please do provide said DOCUMENT. but the fact is that I would give it 99.99% probability that it doesn't exist because no scientific testing for explosives was done. Note that the NIST has already gone on record stating that they didn't test for explosives because they knew it would be a waste of time...... go figure!?!?!?!

World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[9/11ICONN]

was 9/11 a controlled demolition?

no .no evidence of explosives or accelerants were found.
if you are actually doing a paper or report ,then remember speculation is not fact.
the crapspiracy theorists you are talking to on this thread can't tell the difference.
if you're bullshiting it's a totally weak performance.

please be so kind as to trot out the DOCUMENT that states explosives were looked for and by what means and what sampling technique & how many samples were tested.
I really wanna know. where is it?

do your own homework there are hundreds of links to that info on this site alone.

My homework is just to talk to others about this. Get different views! I want different views I'm not sure on how much or what I believe is to be all true..

 

[n0spam4me]

Ok...so you are saying it's possible for the planes to do that? The plane seemed very small to do that much impact..not at all saying I'm right just seems a little odd.

DO ALL WHAT? ---fire did it The
IMPACT of the planes did not bring the
towers down-----however I do believe that
it is possible that the terrorists thought it
might ---<< I do not know if they were also
"chemistry compromised"

do you know what a tiny little nuclear bomb
can do?

do you know what a single bullet to the brain
can do? ----I saw a case of a 22 ---deep in
they substance of the brain-----on C-T scan the brain looked fine----just a tiny metal object right in the center----the kid was young and
healthy looking ---about 25 years old----tiny
metal pellet in the center of his brain-----he was "brain dead" (by Harvard criteria)----
His parents could not believe that tiny little
metal object could cause so much damage----do you know what caused the damage?---
not the penetration-----THE HEAT!!!!!

I work with steel all the time it's melting point is around 2,750 degrees Fahrenheit
JP 4 jet fuel only get's to 1500 degrees tops

only twoofers that say melting. steel weakens and bends at 570 degrees.
Heat

• In the investigation of the collapse of the World Trade Center towers in 2001, the failure of the structural steel has been attributed in part to the fires ignited by jet fuel that spread throughout several floors. While estimates vary, the jet fuel fires could have created temperatures as high as 2,700 degrees Fahrenheit. Research has shown that steel begins to weaken at approximately 570 degrees Fahrenheit, and that the critical temperature for failure is approximately 1,020 degrees Fahrenheit. This can vary widely with the load on top of that steel. The powerful impact of the airplanes as well as the intensity of the fire contributed to the collapse of the World Trade Center towers.

Read more : What Weakens Steel eHow
.

National Geographic should be seriously ashamed of this farce that they promoted.
The first highly disingenuous bit about this is the fact that the piece of steel isn't connected to anything its simply a single beam that has load stacked on it and heated, however, in the case of the towers, there had been fire in parts of the tower, and no fire in other parts, the parts that had no fire would function as a heat-sink and the steel would conduct off the heat rather than raising the temperature of the single bit.
also there is a study that has been done either by UL or their British counterpart that subjected building steel to fire and did so for longer burn times than the towers experienced and the ONLY effect of this was some deformation of floor trusses but NO danger of collapse for the structure. The other feature of this that is not being properly addressed is the fact that the towers came down in a manner that required all of the physical connections in any given floor-level to fail all at the same time, because if they did not, the mass above the as yet undamaged part of the tower, would have to tip shifting its center of gravity and dumping mass quantities of rubble over one side of the tower and stopping the action before the total destruction of the tower.

funny this is the same twoofer bullshit I hear every time nat geo obliterates the twoofer myth of fire can't bend steel..
one more thing shit for brains your heat sink "theory" is a steaming pile.

I didn't say that fire can not heat up steel to the point that it will bend easily, I'm saying that not only would the fires in the WTC towers have a difficult time at heating up the steel sufficiently to do the job ( note precedent office fires in skyscrapers that have burned for many hours more than the towers and were not a hazard to the structure of the skyscraper ) The fact is that the towers could not have been destroyed as was on 9/11/2001 without the application of some engineering to make it happen the way that it did.

A feature of the BIG LIE, is that prestigious institutions become subverted to the cause of supporting a corrupt dynasty rather than seeking/reporting the TRUTH, the sort of response of "how dare you question Nation Geographic" .... really people, when any institution or for that matter the President may be out-of-line, It is our sacred duty to speak up and push back.

The excuse that I have not provided sufficient foundation for my claims used to justify nobody producing any documentation of the search for explosives or evidence of explosives having been used, is really lame, doesn't anybody desire the bragging rights to have said, "SEE, ... I shut-down the truther geek completely" but you see, I've been on-line for all the years since 9/11/2001 asking lots of questions and in all that time, not once has anybody produced the DOCUMENT. kinda makes a statement .... no?

 

[SAYIT]

DO ALL WHAT? ---fire did it The
IMPACT of the planes did not bring the
towers down-----however I do believe that
it is possible that the terrorists thought it
might ---<< I do not know if they were also
"chemistry compromised"

do you know what a tiny little nuclear bomb
can do?

do you know what a single bullet to the brain
can do? ----I saw a case of a 22 ---deep in
they substance of the brain-----on C-T scan the brain looked fine----just a tiny metal object right in the center----the kid was young and
healthy looking ---about 25 years old----tiny
metal pellet in the center of his brain-----he was "brain dead" (by Harvard criteria)----
His parents could not believe that tiny little
metal object could cause so much damage----do you know what caused the damage?---
not the penetration-----THE HEAT!!!!!

I work with steel all the time it's melting point is around 2,750 degrees Fahrenheit
JP 4 jet fuel only get's to 1500 degrees tops

only twoofers that say melting. steel weakens and bends at 570 degrees.
Heat

• In the investigation of the collapse of the World Trade Center towers in 2001, the failure of the structural steel has been attributed in part to the fires ignited by jet fuel that spread throughout several floors. While estimates vary, the jet fuel fires could have created temperatures as high as 2,700 degrees Fahrenheit. Research has shown that steel begins to weaken at approximately 570 degrees Fahrenheit, and that the critical temperature for failure is approximately 1,020 degrees Fahrenheit. This can vary widely with the load on top of that steel. The powerful impact of the airplanes as well as the intensity of the fire contributed to the collapse of the World Trade Center towers.

Read more : What Weakens Steel eHow
.

National Geographic should be seriously ashamed of this farce that they promoted.
The first highly disingenuous bit about this is the fact that the piece of steel isn't connected to anything its simply a single beam that has load stacked on it and heated, however, in the case of the towers, there had been fire in parts of the tower, and no fire in other parts, the parts that had no fire would function as a heat-sink and the steel would conduct off the heat rather than raising the temperature of the single bit.
also there is a study that has been done either by UL or their British counterpart that subjected building steel to fire and did so for longer burn times than the towers experienced and the ONLY effect of this was some deformation of floor trusses but NO danger of collapse for the structure. The other feature of this that is not being properly addressed is the fact that the towers came down in a manner that required all of the physical connections in any given floor-level to fail all at the same time, because if they did not, the mass above the as yet undamaged part of the tower, would have to tip shifting its center of gravity and dumping mass quantities of rubble over one side of the tower and stopping the action before the total destruction of the tower.

funny this is the same twoofer bullshit I hear every time nat geo obliterates the twoofer myth of fire can't bend steel..
one more thing shit for brains your heat sink "theory" is a steaming pile.

I didn't say that fire can not heat up steel to the point that it will bend easily, I'm saying that not only would the fires in the WTC towers have a difficult time at heating up the steel sufficiently to do the job ( note precedent office fires in skyscrapers that have burned for many hours more than the towers and were not a hazard to the structure of the skyscraper ) The fact is that the towers could not have been destroyed as was on 9/11/2001 without the application of some engineering to make it happen the way that it did.

A feature of the BIG LIE, is that prestigious institutions become subverted to the cause of supporting a corrupt dynasty rather than seeking/reporting the TRUTH, the sort of response of "how dare you question Nation Geographic" .... really people, when any institution or for that matter the President may be out-of-line, It is our sacred duty to speak up and push back.

The excuse that I have not provided sufficient foundation for my claims used to justify nobody producing any documentation of the search for explosives or evidence of explosives having been used, is really lame, doesn't anybody desire the bragging rights to have said, "SEE, ... I shut-down the truther geek completely" but you see, I've been on-line for all the years since 9/11/2001 asking lots of questions and in all that time, not once has anybody produced the DOCUMENT. kinda makes a statement .... no?

No.
Anyone who after 13 years is still claiming "no planes were hijacked on 9/11/2001" is simply a fool to be ridiculed.

 

[n0spam4me]

I work with steel all the time it's melting point is around 2,750 degrees Fahrenheit
JP 4 jet fuel only get's to 1500 degrees tops

only twoofers that say melting. steel weakens and bends at 570 degrees.
Heat

• In the investigation of the collapse of the World Trade Center towers in 2001, the failure of the structural steel has been attributed in part to the fires ignited by jet fuel that spread throughout several floors. While estimates vary, the jet fuel fires could have created temperatures as high as 2,700 degrees Fahrenheit. Research has shown that steel begins to weaken at approximately 570 degrees Fahrenheit, and that the critical temperature for failure is approximately 1,020 degrees Fahrenheit. This can vary widely with the load on top of that steel. The powerful impact of the airplanes as well as the intensity of the fire contributed to the collapse of the World Trade Center towers.

Read more : What Weakens Steel eHow
.

National Geographic should be seriously ashamed of this farce that they promoted.
The first highly disingenuous bit about this is the fact that the piece of steel isn't connected to anything its simply a single beam that has load stacked on it and heated, however, in the case of the towers, there had been fire in parts of the tower, and no fire in other parts, the parts that had no fire would function as a heat-sink and the steel would conduct off the heat rather than raising the temperature of the single bit.
also there is a study that has been done either by UL or their British counterpart that subjected building steel to fire and did so for longer burn times than the towers experienced and the ONLY effect of this was some deformation of floor trusses but NO danger of collapse for the structure. The other feature of this that is not being properly addressed is the fact that the towers came down in a manner that required all of the physical connections in any given floor-level to fail all at the same time, because if they did not, the mass above the as yet undamaged part of the tower, would have to tip shifting its center of gravity and dumping mass quantities of rubble over one side of the tower and stopping the action before the total destruction of the tower.

funny this is the same twoofer bullshit I hear every time nat geo obliterates the twoofer myth of fire can't bend steel..
one more thing shit for brains your heat sink "theory" is a steaming pile.

I didn't say that fire can not heat up steel to the point that it will bend easily, I'm saying that not only would the fires in the WTC towers have a difficult time at heating up the steel sufficiently to do the job ( note precedent office fires in skyscrapers that have burned for many hours more than the towers and were not a hazard to the structure of the skyscraper ) The fact is that the towers could not have been destroyed as was on 9/11/2001 without the application of some engineering to make it happen the way that it did.

A feature of the BIG LIE, is that prestigious institutions become subverted to the cause of supporting a corrupt dynasty rather than seeking/reporting the TRUTH, the sort of response of "how dare you question Nation Geographic" .... really people, when any institution or for that matter the President may be out-of-line, It is our sacred duty to speak up and push back.

The excuse that I have not provided sufficient foundation for my claims used to justify nobody producing any documentation of the search for explosives or evidence of explosives having been used, is really lame, doesn't anybody desire the bragging rights to have said, "SEE, ... I shut-down the truther geek completely" but you see, I've been on-line for all the years since 9/11/2001 asking lots of questions and in all that time, not once has anybody produced the DOCUMENT. kinda makes a statement .... no?

No.
Anyone who after 13 years is still claiming "no planes were hijacked on 9/11/2001" is simply a fool to be ridiculed.

You sir have bought the BIG LIE
wake up and smell the burnt Reichstag!

Where are the Documentary photographs? I'm not talking about a collection of snap-shots here there are methods of DOCUMENTING a disaster that obviously have not been done in the case of 9/11/2001 ..... WHY?

The problem here is that the AMERICAN public has been duped into believing what is fundamentally a "B movie" with a really bad script/story, but it serves an agenda for the public to accept the story. Yes, 9/11/2001 was a terrorist attack, however are you very certain as to who the terrorists really are?

 

[SAYIT]

only twoofers that say melting. steel weakens and bends at 570 degrees.
Heat

• In the investigation of the collapse of the World Trade Center towers in 2001, the failure of the structural steel has been attributed in part to the fires ignited by jet fuel that spread throughout several floors. While estimates vary, the jet fuel fires could have created temperatures as high as 2,700 degrees Fahrenheit. Research has shown that steel begins to weaken at approximately 570 degrees Fahrenheit, and that the critical temperature for failure is approximately 1,020 degrees Fahrenheit. This can vary widely with the load on top of that steel. The powerful impact of the airplanes as well as the intensity of the fire contributed to the collapse of the World Trade Center towers.

Read more : What Weakens Steel eHow
.

National Geographic should be seriously ashamed of this farce that they promoted.
The first highly disingenuous bit about this is the fact that the piece of steel isn't connected to anything its simply a single beam that has load stacked on it and heated, however, in the case of the towers, there had been fire in parts of the tower, and no fire in other parts, the parts that had no fire would function as a heat-sink and the steel would conduct off the heat rather than raising the temperature of the single bit.
also there is a study that has been done either by UL or their British counterpart that subjected building steel to fire and did so for longer burn times than the towers experienced and the ONLY effect of this was some deformation of floor trusses but NO danger of collapse for the structure. The other feature of this that is not being properly addressed is the fact that the towers came down in a manner that required all of the physical connections in any given floor-level to fail all at the same time, because if they did not, the mass above the as yet undamaged part of the tower, would have to tip shifting its center of gravity and dumping mass quantities of rubble over one side of the tower and stopping the action before the total destruction of the tower.

funny this is the same twoofer bullshit I hear every time nat geo obliterates the twoofer myth of fire can't bend steel..
one more thing shit for brains your heat sink "theory" is a steaming pile.

I didn't say that fire can not heat up steel to the point that it will bend easily, I'm saying that not only would the fires in the WTC towers have a difficult time at heating up the steel sufficiently to do the job ( note precedent office fires in skyscrapers that have burned for many hours more than the towers and were not a hazard to the structure of the skyscraper ) The fact is that the towers could not have been destroyed as was on 9/11/2001 without the application of some engineering to make it happen the way that it did.

A feature of the BIG LIE, is that prestigious institutions become subverted to the cause of supporting a corrupt dynasty rather than seeking/reporting the TRUTH, the sort of response of "how dare you question Nation Geographic" .... really people, when any institution or for that matter the President may be out-of-line, It is our sacred duty to speak up and push back.

The excuse that I have not provided sufficient foundation for my claims used to justify nobody producing any documentation of the search for explosives or evidence of explosives having been used, is really lame, doesn't anybody desire the bragging rights to have said, "SEE, ... I shut-down the truther geek completely" but you see, I've been on-line for all the years since 9/11/2001 asking lots of questions and in all that time, not once has anybody produced the DOCUMENT. kinda makes a statement .... no?

No.
Anyone who after 13 years is still claiming "no planes were hijacked on 9/11/2001" is simply a fool to be ridiculed.

You sir have bought the BIG LIE
wake up and smell the burnt Reichstag!

And you son, are a raging idiot. Get a real life.

 

[9/11ICONN]

I work with steel all the time it's melting point is around 2,750 degrees Fahrenheit
JP 4 jet fuel only get's to 1500 degrees tops

only twoofers that say melting. steel weakens and bends at 570 degrees.
Heat

• In the investigation of the collapse of the World Trade Center towers in 2001, the failure of the structural steel has been attributed in part to the fires ignited by jet fuel that spread throughout several floors. While estimates vary, the jet fuel fires could have created temperatures as high as 2,700 degrees Fahrenheit. Research has shown that steel begins to weaken at approximately 570 degrees Fahrenheit, and that the critical temperature for failure is approximately 1,020 degrees Fahrenheit. This can vary widely with the load on top of that steel. The powerful impact of the airplanes as well as the intensity of the fire contributed to the collapse of the World Trade Center towers.

Read more : What Weakens Steel eHow
.

National Geographic should be seriously ashamed of this farce that they promoted.
The first highly disingenuous bit about this is the fact that the piece of steel isn't connected to anything its simply a single beam that has load stacked on it and heated, however, in the case of the towers, there had been fire in parts of the tower, and no fire in other parts, the parts that had no fire would function as a heat-sink and the steel would conduct off the heat rather than raising the temperature of the single bit.
also there is a study that has been done either by UL or their British counterpart that subjected building steel to fire and did so for longer burn times than the towers experienced and the ONLY effect of this was some deformation of floor trusses but NO danger of collapse for the structure. The other feature of this that is not being properly addressed is the fact that the towers came down in a manner that required all of the physical connections in any given floor-level to fail all at the same time, because if they did not, the mass above the as yet undamaged part of the tower, would have to tip shifting its center of gravity and dumping mass quantities of rubble over one side of the tower and stopping the action before the total destruction of the tower.

funny this is the same twoofer bullshit I hear every time nat geo obliterates the twoofer myth of fire can't bend steel..
one more thing shit for brains your heat sink "theory" is a steaming pile.

I didn't say that fire can not heat up steel to the point that it will bend easily, I'm saying that not only would the fires in the WTC towers have a difficult time at heating up the steel sufficiently to do the job ( note precedent office fires in skyscrapers that have burned for many hours more than the towers and were not a hazard to the structure of the skyscraper ) The fact is that the towers could not have been destroyed as was on 9/11/2001 without the application of some engineering to make it happen the way that it did.

A feature of the BIG LIE, is that prestigious institutions become subverted to the cause of supporting a corrupt dynasty rather than seeking/reporting the TRUTH, the sort of response of "how dare you question Nation Geographic" .... really people, when any institution or for that matter the President may be out-of-line, It is our sacred duty to speak up and push back.

The excuse that I have not provided sufficient foundation for my claims used to justify nobody producing any documentation of the search for explosives or evidence of explosives having been used, is really lame, doesn't anybody desire the bragging rights to have said, "SEE, ... I shut-down the truther geek completely" but you see, I've been on-line for all the years since 9/11/2001 asking lots of questions and in all that time, not once has anybody produced the DOCUMENT. kinda makes a statement .... no?

No.
Anyone who after 13 years is still claiming "no planes were hijacked on 9/11/2001" is simply a fool to be ridiculed.

So I'm not understanding your "side" you simply think that WTC 1&2 collapsed because of the planes? Ok what about 7?

 

[SAYIT]

only twoofers that say melting. steel weakens and bends at 570 degrees.
Heat

• In the investigation of the collapse of the World Trade Center towers in 2001, the failure of the structural steel has been attributed in part to the fires ignited by jet fuel that spread throughout several floors. While estimates vary, the jet fuel fires could have created temperatures as high as 2,700 degrees Fahrenheit. Research has shown that steel begins to weaken at approximately 570 degrees Fahrenheit, and that the critical temperature for failure is approximately 1,020 degrees Fahrenheit. This can vary widely with the load on top of that steel. The powerful impact of the airplanes as well as the intensity of the fire contributed to the collapse of the World Trade Center towers.

Read more : What Weakens Steel eHow
.

National Geographic should be seriously ashamed of this farce that they promoted.
The first highly disingenuous bit about this is the fact that the piece of steel isn't connected to anything its simply a single beam that has load stacked on it and heated, however, in the case of the towers, there had been fire in parts of the tower, and no fire in other parts, the parts that had no fire would function as a heat-sink and the steel would conduct off the heat rather than raising the temperature of the single bit.
also there is a study that has been done either by UL or their British counterpart that subjected building steel to fire and did so for longer burn times than the towers experienced and the ONLY effect of this was some deformation of floor trusses but NO danger of collapse for the structure. The other feature of this that is not being properly addressed is the fact that the towers came down in a manner that required all of the physical connections in any given floor-level to fail all at the same time, because if they did not, the mass above the as yet undamaged part of the tower, would have to tip shifting its center of gravity and dumping mass quantities of rubble over one side of the tower and stopping the action before the total destruction of the tower.

funny this is the same twoofer bullshit I hear every time nat geo obliterates the twoofer myth of fire can't bend steel..
one more thing shit for brains your heat sink "theory" is a steaming pile.

I didn't say that fire can not heat up steel to the point that it will bend easily, I'm saying that not only would the fires in the WTC towers have a difficult time at heating up the steel sufficiently to do the job ( note precedent office fires in skyscrapers that have burned for many hours more than the towers and were not a hazard to the structure of the skyscraper ) The fact is that the towers could not have been destroyed as was on 9/11/2001 without the application of some engineering to make it happen the way that it did.

A feature of the BIG LIE, is that prestigious institutions become subverted to the cause of supporting a corrupt dynasty rather than seeking/reporting the TRUTH, the sort of response of "how dare you question Nation Geographic" .... really people, when any institution or for that matter the President may be out-of-line, It is our sacred duty to speak up and push back.

The excuse that I have not provided sufficient foundation for my claims used to justify nobody producing any documentation of the search for explosives or evidence of explosives having been used, is really lame, doesn't anybody desire the bragging rights to have said, "SEE, ... I shut-down the truther geek completely" but you see, I've been on-line for all the years since 9/11/2001 asking lots of questions and in all that time, not once has anybody produced the DOCUMENT. kinda makes a statement .... no?

No.
Anyone who after 13 years is still claiming "no planes were hijacked on 9/11/2001" is simply a fool to be ridiculed.

So I'm not understanding your "side" you simply think that WTC 1&2 collapsed because of the planes? Ok what about 7?

Really? Are you just feinting ignorance or is it real?
Read this thread - not that message boards are the best source of facts - from the beginning and then come back with your "side."
Just a reminder: anyone who 13 years after the 9/11 attack on America is still claiming "no planes were hijacked on 9/11/2001" is simply a fool to be ridiculed.
Do you want to go down that rabbit hole?

 

[n0spam4me]

National Geographic should be seriously ashamed of this farce that they promoted.
The first highly disingenuous bit about this is the fact that the piece of steel isn't connected to anything its simply a single beam that has load stacked on it and heated, however, in the case of the towers, there had been fire in parts of the tower, and no fire in other parts, the parts that had no fire would function as a heat-sink and the steel would conduct off the heat rather than raising the temperature of the single bit.
also there is a study that has been done either by UL or their British counterpart that subjected building steel to fire and did so for longer burn times than the towers experienced and the ONLY effect of this was some deformation of floor trusses but NO danger of collapse for the structure. The other feature of this that is not being properly addressed is the fact that the towers came down in a manner that required all of the physical connections in any given floor-level to fail all at the same time, because if they did not, the mass above the as yet undamaged part of the tower, would have to tip shifting its center of gravity and dumping mass quantities of rubble over one side of the tower and stopping the action before the total destruction of the tower.

funny this is the same twoofer bullshit I hear every time nat geo obliterates the twoofer myth of fire can't bend steel..
one more thing shit for brains your heat sink "theory" is a steaming pile.

I didn't say that fire can not heat up steel to the point that it will bend easily, I'm saying that not only would the fires in the WTC towers have a difficult time at heating up the steel sufficiently to do the job ( note precedent office fires in skyscrapers that have burned for many hours more than the towers and were not a hazard to the structure of the skyscraper ) The fact is that the towers could not have been destroyed as was on 9/11/2001 without the application of some engineering to make it happen the way that it did.

A feature of the BIG LIE, is that prestigious institutions become subverted to the cause of supporting a corrupt dynasty rather than seeking/reporting the TRUTH, the sort of response of "how dare you question Nation Geographic" .... really people, when any institution or for that matter the President may be out-of-line, It is our sacred duty to speak up and push back.

The excuse that I have not provided sufficient foundation for my claims used to justify nobody producing any documentation of the search for explosives or evidence of explosives having been used, is really lame, doesn't anybody desire the bragging rights to have said, "SEE, ... I shut-down the truther geek completely" but you see, I've been on-line for all the years since 9/11/2001 asking lots of questions and in all that time, not once has anybody produced the DOCUMENT. kinda makes a statement .... no?

No.
Anyone who after 13 years is still claiming "no planes were hijacked on 9/11/2001" is simply a fool to be ridiculed.

So I'm not understanding your "side" you simply think that WTC 1&2 collapsed because of the planes? Ok what about 7?

Really? Are you just feinting ignorance or is it real?
Read this thread - not that message boards are the best source of facts - from the beginning and then come back with your "side."
Just a reminder: anyone who 13 years after the 9/11 attack on America is still claiming "no planes were hijacked on 9/11/2001" is simply a fool to be ridiculed.
Do you want to go down that rabbit hole?

The "rabbit hole" really isn't, the cold hard facts of the scene are that what was presented to the AMERICAN public was 4 airliner hijackings that didn't happen.
we have been lied to, and its the BIG LIE, check out the psychology of manipulating the masses....

When I ask about the accounting for the aircraft wreckage, I'm show pix of 5 gallon buckets containing scrap metal that is alleged to have been from one of the flights but what is really DOCUMENTED about all this?

Why is it even a question as to exactly what was left after the twin towers "collapsed" where are the documentary photographs? none were taken? why? Photography doesn't take a great deal of time & effort these days, somebody with a camera could have simply walked ground zero soon after the North Tower "collapsed" and shoot lots of pix, but was that done, and if not why not? the valuable evidence in the rubble pile, that is the condition of the rubble pile, the distribution of mass the sorts of things to be seen such as possibly steel beams that show signs of having been cut before the torch-work clean up operation got underway. The fact is that ground zero was very tightly controlled until a significant quantity of rubble had been removed and disposed of and then the press was allowed in, whats up with that?
secrecy is the refuge of tyrants!

 

[SAYIT]

DO ALL WHAT? ---fire did it The
IMPACT of the planes did not bring the
towers down-----however I do believe that
it is possible that the terrorists thought it
might ---<< I do not know if they were also
"chemistry compromised"

do you know what a tiny little nuclear bomb
can do?

do you know what a single bullet to the brain
can do? ----I saw a case of a 22 ---deep in
they substance of the brain-----on C-T scan the brain looked fine----just a tiny metal object right in the center----the kid was young and
healthy looking ---about 25 years old----tiny
metal pellet in the center of his brain-----he was "brain dead" (by Harvard criteria)----
His parents could not believe that tiny little
metal object could cause so much damage----do you know what caused the damage?---
not the penetration-----THE HEAT!!!!!

I work with steel all the time it's melting point is around 2,750 degrees Fahrenheit
JP 4 jet fuel only get's to 1500 degrees tops

only twoofers that say melting. steel weakens and bends at 570 degrees.
Heat

• In the investigation of the collapse of the World Trade Center towers in 2001, the failure of the structural steel has been attributed in part to the fires ignited by jet fuel that spread throughout several floors. While estimates vary, the jet fuel fires could have created temperatures as high as 2,700 degrees Fahrenheit. Research has shown that steel begins to weaken at approximately 570 degrees Fahrenheit, and that the critical temperature for failure is approximately 1,020 degrees Fahrenheit. This can vary widely with the load on top of that steel. The powerful impact of the airplanes as well as the intensity of the fire contributed to the collapse of the World Trade Center towers.

Read more : What Weakens Steel eHow
.

National Geographic should be seriously ashamed of this farce that they promoted.
The first highly disingenuous bit about this is the fact that the piece of steel isn't connected to anything its simply a single beam that has load stacked on it and heated, however, in the case of the towers, there had been fire in parts of the tower, and no fire in other parts, the parts that had no fire would function as a heat-sink and the steel would conduct off the heat rather than raising the temperature of the single bit.
also there is a study that has been done either by UL or their British counterpart that subjected building steel to fire and did so for longer burn times than the towers experienced and the ONLY effect of this was some deformation of floor trusses but NO danger of collapse for the structure. The other feature of this that is not being properly addressed is the fact that the towers came down in a manner that required all of the physical connections in any given floor-level to fail all at the same time, because if they did not, the mass above the as yet undamaged part of the tower, would have to tip shifting its center of gravity and dumping mass quantities of rubble over one side of the tower and stopping the action before the total destruction of the tower.

funny this is the same twoofer bullshit I hear every time nat geo obliterates the twoofer myth of fire can't bend steel..
one more thing shit for brains your heat sink "theory" is a steaming pile.

I didn't say that fire can not heat up steel to the point that it will bend easily, I'm saying that not only would the fires in the WTC towers have a difficult time at heating up the steel sufficiently to do the job...

But it did and not only did millions of Americans see the towers collapse, our oldest and largest national engineering society - the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI/ASCE) - determined that the aircraft impacts caused "extensive structural damage, including localized collapse" and that the resulting fires "further weakened the steel-framed structures, eventually leading to total collapse."
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) - an organization of prestigious engineers - conducted a more detailed investigation which included consulting outside engineering entities and was completed in September 2005. The NIST investigators did not find anything substandard in the design of the WTC towers, noting that the severity of the attacks and the magnitude of the destruction was beyond anything experienced in U.S. cities in the past. They also emphasized the role of the fires and found that sagging floors pulled inward on the perimeter columns: "This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers."

Collapse of the World Trade Center - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[n0spam4me]

You are aware of course that the NIST report includes the line
"Total collapse was inevitable after collapse initiation"

Now tell me, even if you don't have a degree in statistics & probability, you know that there are a multitude of possible out-comes from an event such as an airliner crashing into a skyscraper, one of those out-comes being the complete and total destruction of said skyscraper, however, for all the other alternatives, there are scenarios that do not include the total destruction of said tower, and I ask, what probabilities do you see here in the odds of not only the South tower, but both towers being completely and totally destroyed?

We are talking THE BIG LIE here, that is a force of black magic that has subverted even our most prestigious institutions. Do you have a vested interest in the status quo, or do you desire the TRUTH?

 

[SAYIT]

funny this is the same twoofer bullshit I hear every time nat geo obliterates the twoofer myth of fire can't bend steel..
one more thing shit for brains your heat sink "theory" is a steaming pile.

I didn't say that fire can not heat up steel to the point that it will bend easily, I'm saying that not only would the fires in the WTC towers have a difficult time at heating up the steel sufficiently to do the job ( note precedent office fires in skyscrapers that have burned for many hours more than the towers and were not a hazard to the structure of the skyscraper ) The fact is that the towers could not have been destroyed as was on 9/11/2001 without the application of some engineering to make it happen the way that it did.

A feature of the BIG LIE, is that prestigious institutions become subverted to the cause of supporting a corrupt dynasty rather than seeking/reporting the TRUTH, the sort of response of "how dare you question Nation Geographic" .... really people, when any institution or for that matter the President may be out-of-line, It is our sacred duty to speak up and push back.

The excuse that I have not provided sufficient foundation for my claims used to justify nobody producing any documentation of the search for explosives or evidence of explosives having been used, is really lame, doesn't anybody desire the bragging rights to have said, "SEE, ... I shut-down the truther geek completely" but you see, I've been on-line for all the years since 9/11/2001 asking lots of questions and in all that time, not once has anybody produced the DOCUMENT. kinda makes a statement .... no?

No.
Anyone who after 13 years is still claiming "no planes were hijacked on 9/11/2001" is simply a fool to be ridiculed.

So I'm not understanding your "side" you simply think that WTC 1&2 collapsed because of the planes? Ok what about 7?

Really? Are you just feinting ignorance or is it real?
Read this thread - not that message boards are the best source of facts - from the beginning and then come back with your "side."
Just a reminder: anyone who 13 years after the 9/11 attack on America is still claiming "no planes were hijacked on 9/11/2001" is simply a fool to be ridiculed.
Do you want to go down that rabbit hole?

The "rabbit hole" really isn't, the cold hard facts of the scene are that what was presented to the AMERICAN public was 4 airliner hijackings that didn't happen.
we have been lied to, and its the BIG LIE, check out the psychology of manipulating the masses....

But this isn't a matter of "manipulating the masses" but rather of the manipulation of a miniscule segment of our society that cannot deal with reality. T-shirt and DVD hawkers have made a fortune from "Loose Change" fools like you who just can't escape the web woven by spiders like Stephen and Alex Jones, Richard Gage and David Griffin. Check out the testimony of one who did escape and the 9/11 CT Movement's vicious, paranoid reaction:

The 9 11 conspiracy theorist who changed his mind - Telegraph

 

[SAYIT]

You are aware of course that the NIST report includes the line
"Total collapse was inevitable after collapse initiation"

Now tell me, even if you don't have a degree in statistics & probability, you know that there are a multitude of possible out-comes from an event such as an airliner crashing into a skyscraper, one of those out-comes being the complete and total destruction of said skyscraper, however, for all the other alternatives, there are scenarios that do not include the total destruction of said tower, and I ask, what probabilities do you see here in the odds of not only the South tower, but both towers being completely and totally destroyed?

We are talking THE BIG LIE here, that is a force of black magic that has subverted even our most prestigious institutions. Do you have a vested interest in the status quo, or do you desire the TRUTH?

No Princess, and the reason is as obvious as it is impossible for one such as you to discern. The PROFESSIONALS at The Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI/ASCE) have something to protect if they are to maintain their reputations ... their integrity. I realize you have no concept of the word's significance or of its value to many people but without it none of those who found that WTC 1 & 2 collapsed due to the severe localized impact damage and the ensuing chaotic fires would have viable careers. As it is, they do and you are left to piss into the wind. Such is life.

 

[Capstone]

...without it none of those who found that WTC 1 & 2 collapsed due to the severe localized impact damage and the ensuing chaotic fires would have viable careers. As it is, they do and you are left to piss into the wind. Such is life.

Integrity isn't the province of those more concerned about their reputations or the viability of their careers than with getting at the truth; it's the province of men like Copernicus, Bruno, and Galileo, whose livelihoods were adversely effected (to say the least) in the interest of discovery. Only a major deficiency in the integrity department would lead someone to believe otherwise.

 

[SAYIT]

was 9/11 a controlled demolition?

no .no evidence of explosives or accelerants were found.
if you are actually doing a paper or report ,then remember speculation is not fact.
the crapspiracy theorists you are talking to on this thread can't tell the difference.
if you're bullshiting it's a totally weak performance.

please be so kind as to trot out the DOCUMENT that states explosives were looked for and by what means and what sampling technique & how many samples were tested.
I really wanna know. where is it?

do your own homework there are hundreds of links to that info on this site alone.

My homework is just to talk to others about this. Get different views! I want different views I'm not sure on how much or what I believe is to be all true..

If that were true you would simply read any or all of the many threads here in the CONSPIRACY THEORY section of USMB to find what people have said and - at least for the non-CTs - how they came to their conclusions. Instead you have injected yourself into the fray with a preconceived CT bias and as you already stated "I'm aware we will probably never find the answer we want." Since you speak only for yourself here, what you obviously meant was never find the answer YOU want. Perhaps you'd be better served by finding the truth.