Oh Goodie! ... More on 911 (inside job) :)
- Thread starter GrowRebel
- Start date
- Status
what... huh?
Active Member
Am I to take it that you concede the last argument, and now wish to move on to this one?
GrowRebel
Well-Known Member
Thanks, but I have had a lot of great help from good people that get it. Trees, No, and others have submitted some great material. It pleases me that you were able to bring this Light to others, those that are not in denial will see the truth when it's presented.
There are Americans ... myself included ...that really do care about this country. She has been good to us and now she is being assaulted by war criminals. I feel I must defend this good lady, so I speak out and will continue to do so until these criminals are held accountable for their crimes.
Trees ... thanks so much for posting this
... one of the so called investigator of 911 so full of it ... no evidence of molten steel ... right. 
I found it interesting when the gentleman waiting for the email address the investigator claimed he would give, refused to do so after the meeting. Clear evidence they want to cover up what really happen that day.
Does that look like damage to you? This is what happens when small steel buildings catch on fire. By the way... was building 5 hit by a plane? No. Did building 5 catch fire? Yes. Did it collapse? No.
A bank. Wonder what made that gouge in it. I don't see a corner of wtc 1 on the ground there. Was the gouge an inside job thing too? Did they build something elaborate to make people believe that the building which just fell did damage to the ones around it?
What is the point of demolishing 7? They pulled 6. They let 5 burn. CREWS of firemen saw that building 7 was sagging, a sign of impending collapse, and were ordered to stop trying to put it out because so many had already died.
I have to know going in, if you are going to say that the firemen in the NIST report on record, are part of the plot which murdered their brethren. That will help me figure out where to start.
Molten metal pouring out of wtc 2
South face before
SW corner after
Fires visible on the opposite side of the building across several floors.
Evidence of everything that I claimed.
Any idea how much copper is on a given floor of wtc 1 or 2? Electrical wiring, phone lines, cat5... how about aluminum? Light enclosures, cubicle structures, computer cases, duct work... a lot of soft melty metals in a single floor...
jet fuel melts stuff. This didn't even slam into a building at 500+.
That is enough for now.
This is what I love about WH, he posts things that only make our argument stronger, for example the pic of the fires in WTC Building 7, those fires are pathetic I make bigger flames when I go camping, its impossible for those little fires to make the whole building collapse in an instant. There is no way you actually believe that they caused it to collapse, and If you truly do believe that, well you lose ALL credibility with me. Nothing in that building melted, maybe someplastic, but those fires aren't even 1% of the fires it would take to melt copper, I can't believbe you even said that the wires and stuff in the building would have ANYTHING to do with it, LMAO you have any idea how many miles of copper wire it takes to cause that much metal to pour out? You have no Clue WH, keep trying, but you only dig your hole deeper and deeper and everyone else is around the edge asking if you need a hand getting out, but you continue to dig. Fires do not cause steel skyscrapers to fall, period. You need demolition to do it, there is no other way short of full out military bombing or nuclear attack and I sure as fuck didn't see anythign like that. In fact the military was completely absent on the day the worst attack on US soil ever took place.
You have no power here troll, go back to your bridge!
mexiblunt
Well-Known Member
I've probably posted this before but sprword.com is a great free documentary site that has a bunch of 911 related docs. I count at least 20 of em, most are 1.5 to 2 hours long. I'm sure alot of pieces have been posted in this thread but there is alot there for anyone who wants to see it!
Thanks again grow!!!!!
Thanks again grow!!!!!
K
Keenly
Guest
if you still think "terrorists" blew up the wtc
maybe you should be first in line for your swine flu "vaccine"
maybe you should be first in line for your swine flu "vaccine"
mexiblunt
Well-Known Member
I think that is a given. They will be there!
GrowRebel
Well-Known Member
Thank you ... for the heads up on the 911 documentaries ...
Folks here is a direct link to the films in question ...
A Collection of 911 documentaries
what... huh?
Active Member
That is the other side of the building... the fire which burned for 7 hours across a dozen floors.
The joints on the web trusses were the weak link... as I demonstrated a million pages ago.
LOL... so before today, you would have called on me as a credible reference? Somehow I don't feel as though I have lost much.
Well first... it wasn't that much. I am curious how many miles of whatever you think it was it takes to pour that much out. I don't think you understand how big phone trunk lines are in a building that size. The plane itself, copper, misc aluminum, plastic and everything else in those offices made a lava like flow of shit. What is your theory? That a couple of the "precision" (snicker) thermite bombs went off 7 minutes early, and the rest went in perfect and immediate floor by floor order? Remember, demolished from the top down, unlike any other demo... that means floor by floor. Just those went off 7 minutes early.
I am also curious if you have any idea what temperature a bank of industrial uninterruptible power supplies will burn at? Wanna hazard a guess as to how many banks of them existed in those buildings? Yes. I'm the loon. You do not account for reactable material in scale...
Your delusions of grandeur seem to make you happy, so I will not make you acknowledge the several arguments I have won... I will simply acknowledge your two.
Fires cause huge ass steel beams to weaken and collapse under oppressive weight. This is why you continue to argue the "type of structure" strawman of the bridge example. Because you don't like accepting that fires deformed steel beams with concrete on them. Period.
20 minutes.
I really just don't think you have any idea what was on fire in that building, and cannot say what temperature it was... nor can you explain the tanker fire which reduced the tanker to a four inch slag and destroyed the bridge in 20 minutes. You know the temperatures involved. How did the steel frame of the truck melt?
I guess you forgot about the pentagon.
Now you are reduced to calling me a troll? Awesome... and it is funny that you mention power, as you seem powerless to answer a single question... which goes back how many pages now?
TreesOfLife
Well-Known Member
The whole Fire brought it down is a crock. Watch these and the fire theory is debunked.That is the other side of the building... the fire which burned for 7 hours across a dozen floors.
The joints on the web trusses were the weak link... as I demonstrated a million pages ago.
LOL... so before today, you would have called on me as a credible reference? Somehow I don't feel as though I have lost much.
Well first... it wasn't that much. I am curious how many miles of whatever you think it was it takes to pour that much out. I don't think you understand how big phone trunk lines are in a building that size. The plane itself, copper, misc aluminum, plastic and everything else in those offices made a lava like flow of shit. What is your theory? That a couple of the "precision" (snicker) thermite bombs went off 7 minutes early, and the rest went in perfect and immediate floor by floor order? Remember, demolished from the top down, unlike any other demo... that means floor by floor. Just those went off 7 minutes early.
I am also curious if you have any idea what temperature a bank of industrial uninterruptible power supplies will burn at? Wanna hazard a guess as to how many banks of them existed in those buildings? Yes. I'm the loon. You do not account for reactable material in scale...
Your delusions of grandeur seem to make you happy, so I will not make you acknowledge the several arguments I have won... I will simply acknowledge your two.
Fires cause huge ass steel beams to weaken and collapse under oppressive weight. This is why you continue to argue the "type of structure" strawman of the bridge example. Because you don't like accepting that fires deformed steel beams with concrete on them. Period.
20 minutes.
I really just don't think you have any idea what was on fire in that building, and cannot say what temperature it was... nor can you explain the tanker fire which reduced the tanker to a four inch slag and destroyed the bridge in 20 minutes. You know the temperatures involved. How did the steel frame of the truck melt?
I guess you forgot about the pentagon.
Now you are reduced to calling me a troll? Awesome... and it is funny that you mention power, as you seem powerless to answer a single question... which goes back how many pages now?
[youtube]j2_srNT8-Ow[/youtube]
[youtube]bbff_Ol-izY[/youtube]
what... huh?
Active Member
So again, are you conceding your first argument? @ TOL
This is not a rolling gang bang where you just continue to pile on bullshit on top of bullshit. I address each issue one at a time, then move on. If I am not discussing our specific argument then it is likely I am not talking to you.
This is not a rolling gang bang where you just continue to pile on bullshit on top of bullshit. I address each issue one at a time, then move on. If I am not discussing our specific argument then it is likely I am not talking to you.
fried at 420
Well-Known Member
listen to [9/11(was an inside joke)]
by star fucking hipsters
by star fucking hipsters
yep a measly 7 hours, we have multitudes of proof of buildings built less well burning for far longer and encompassing nearly 100% of the building in fire, so much that it makes the so called 12 stories ( 2 really) fire there look like a s'mores roast. I mean just look at your own fucking picture WH, are you totally blind? are you telling me that that little fire you have there caused a building to turn to dust? Your so full of shit Im surprised people can stand the stench you must give off. And the small facade damage on the corner would not affect the integrity of the building one bit, only a fool believes that steel buildings just fall into their own footprint from minor damage like that. They are designed to withstand a whole lot more than that.
Your little truck fire and bridge straw man argument of yours proves nothing, absolutely nothing. The differnces are staggering between a contained High Octane fuel fire that is concentrated vs. a low octane burst of fuel on a steel structure THOUSANDS of times larger than that tiny bridge section. not to mention it is covered in asbestos, the second best insulator known to mankind.
You think a trunk cable is made of a solid piece of metal? its more insulation than metal there buddy, your going to need miles of it to create a big enough mass of melted metal to come pouring out of a building like that. Cat V cable is 8 strands of 22 Gauge wire, thats a tiny amount bro, don't even try to make it part of your theory, it will be shot so full of holes so fast you'll wish you never brought it up. A bank of UPS's burn at the same temp as a battery would, which by the way is much less than the temp needed to cause the disintegration of steel. Because thats what were really talking about here, even if the fires had gotten hot enough to cause the steel to bend, we would see that bending, the building just disintegrates before your eyes. By all standards it defies so many laws of physics, gravity and common sense it makes one gasp. I can't tell you the exact temps, but I can tell you by the color of the smoke that they aren't anywhere close to the temps needed to casue steel to lose all structural properties instantaneously across 100 floors, floors hundreds of feet away from any damage at all, floors that were in absolutely pristine shape, in fact 90% of the building was undamaged, yet you believe a small section caused the whole of 3 buildings to instantaneously collapse straight down at nearly free fall speed and it was all caused by a plane crash and some fires?
How come the Empire State building did not collapse when a B52 bomber plowed into it? It caught fire you know? I mean if you can use your truck and bridge straw man, then I will use the fact that the empire state building was hit by a plane and caught fire and did not fAll.
As far as your questions. I answered them all, but not to your side of the argument so you just keep saying I didn't answer them. Just like you don't answer any of my questions the way I would like, but I don't make up fairy tales like you do about them.
the military intervened in the pentagon event? Im pretty sure they did nothing until after the event happened, perhaps you can enlighten us with information not even the highest echelons of government was aware, please tell us how the Military was helping to stop these attacks?
jfgordon1
Well-Known Member
The building had some importance. Were they trying to destroy something? I have no idea... That's why we are "truthers". We want answers.
The thing i love about wtc 7 is how building 1 and 2 fell... skipped wtc 6. then wtc 7 fell.
what... huh?
Active Member
Poorly designed in this case, obviously. Again I ask... how hot does a bank of 50-200 UPS's burn?
You cant answer the questions. How did the trucks steel frame get reduced to nothing in a "normal" fire with no other combustible material? Those 6 beams holding that bridge up are the same size (different configuration) as the wtc, and designed specifically not to fail in those conditions.
All I have to demonstrate is that the adjoining struts joints failed under intense heat. Gravity handles the rest. Bolts had to stretch.
How about you not threaten to defeat my arguments and actually do so. I run cable almost every day in corporate environments. Let's take your 22 Gauge cat5. How many computers do you think exist on a single floor of the wtc? How many lines of the smallest wire? Let's be conservative... Lets say 300. How much copper is in a three foot section of a bundle of 300 cat5 cables? An ounce? A lb? 10? How many feet beyond 3 would be required to map the floor? The single floor?
How about electricity? That is GAW 6-8.
Ehhhhhhhnngh. Sorry. Try again... this time without a straw man. I never suggested disintegration.
Straw man. We have already established that the buildings fell differently than you expected. You do not get to presume how it should have fallen. How was this steel structure supposed to fall due to fire alone?
[youtube]ZaK5YVVaRCo[/youtube]
Oh snap.
Concrete reinforced steel structure... architecture building at university in Deft Netherlands. Partially collapsed due to catastrophic fire (has a cement core). Wonder what would have happened if a jet slammed into it?
So explain this partial collapse.
Show me thermite evidence. Look at all that dust... wow.
"Normal fires do not cause steel structures to collapse."
Debunked.
Different design. No plane hit that architectural building and it partially collapsed. How is that possible?
Fairy tales? Such as?
I have asked you at least 20 times, how many people minimum would be required to pull off your conspiracy. You have argued that you can't possibly give an answer, and I have demonstrated that you can. I didn't ask how many, I asked how many minimum.
You said they were nowhere to be found. Some were found dead as the pentagon is a military target. You believe that the pentagon is either too stupid to be aware that they were part of the conspiracy, and those told to stand down are too stupid to figure out why, and keep going on record saying that no such order was given... so that THEY can be complicit in killing military officers.
They were in on it, or victims of it... either way... they were seen. Have you ever been to the pentagon?
what... huh?
Active Member
Buckling before collapse
Pretty accurate fucking hit, to have used thermite to destroy the columns on the floor just below first, before taking the rest of the building... with perfectly timed thermite devices moving from the top down.
Call it a strawman... I want your theory.
Pretty accurate fucking hit, to have used thermite to destroy the columns on the floor just below first, before taking the rest of the building... with perfectly timed thermite devices moving from the top down.
Call it a strawman... I want your theory.
TreesOfLife
Well-Known Member
http://www.ae911truth.org/
As your own eyes witness — WTC Building #7 (a 47-story high-rise not hit by an airplane) exhibits all the characteristics of a classic controlled demolition with explosives: (and some non-standard characteristics)
1. Rapid onset of “collapse”
2. Sounds of explosions at ground floor - a full second prior to collapse
3. Symmetrical “collapse” – through the path of greatest resistance – at free-fall acceleration
4. Imploded, collapsing completely, and landed mostly in its own footprint
5. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds
6. Several tons of molten metal reported by numerous highly-qualified witnesses
7. Chemical signature of Thermite (high tech incendiary) found in solidified molten metal, and dust samples by physics professor Steven Jones, PhD.
8. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples
9. Expert corroboration from the top European Controlled Demolition professional
10. Fore-knowledge of “collapse” by media, NYPD, FDNY
And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.
1. Slow onset with large visible deformations
2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires)
3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”.
As seen in this revealing photo, the Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all the characteristics of destruction by explosives: (and some non-standard characteristics)
1. Destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance at nearly free-fall acceleration
2. Improbable symmetry of debris distribution
3. Extremely rapid onset of destruction
4. Over 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes
5. Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally 600 ft at 60 mph
6. Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking
7. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds
8. 1200-foot-dia. debris field: no "pancaked" floors found
9. Isolated explosive ejections 20 – 40 stories below demolition front
10. Total building destruction: dismemberment of steel frame
11. Several tons of molten metal found under all 3 high-rises
12. Evidence of thermite incendiaries found by FEMA in steel samples
13. Evidence of explosives found in dust samples
14. No precedent for steel-framed high-rise collapse due to fire
And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.
1. Slow onset with large visible deformations
2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)
3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”
what... huh?
Active Member
What do you not understand about what I have said? I mean... you quoted me... so it wasn't like you missed it. I said this is not just a roving youtube gangbang... it is a debate.
Are you afraid of going one argument at a time? Do you find safety in numbers?
DO YOU CONCEDE YOUR FIRST ARGUMENT?
If so, what, specifically, would you like to move to next? Because half of those 18 things I have destroyed in the last 3 pages since you came in. You have to actually address rebuttals, if you wish to have an argument. You can't just keep claiming your belief which has just been rebutted, as "fact", obscuring it in a flurry of OTHER bullshit.
Man up, and follow the rules of debate, or there is no point in wasting time with you. Any time I debunk something, you just move to something else you think is more winnable.
I have said I will address ANY FUCKING QUESTION, in order. I will absolutely admit when I am wrong, and have done so each time I have been since I came to this board, on any subject.
Why can you people not stay focused?
Your original claim was...
This was your original post. Your original argument was that 7 was the only building which sustained structural damage... and then asked me to support my claim that a really big building on fire fell on it... and I did.. and you have not contested anything that I have said. You just keep trying to make new points about single arguments I am having with other people.
Are you ready to concede this first argument before we move on?
Are you afraid of going one argument at a time? Do you find safety in numbers?
DO YOU CONCEDE YOUR FIRST ARGUMENT?
If so, what, specifically, would you like to move to next? Because half of those 18 things I have destroyed in the last 3 pages since you came in. You have to actually address rebuttals, if you wish to have an argument. You can't just keep claiming your belief which has just been rebutted, as "fact", obscuring it in a flurry of OTHER bullshit.
Man up, and follow the rules of debate, or there is no point in wasting time with you. Any time I debunk something, you just move to something else you think is more winnable.
I have said I will address ANY FUCKING QUESTION, in order. I will absolutely admit when I am wrong, and have done so each time I have been since I came to this board, on any subject.
Why can you people not stay focused?
Your original claim was...
This was your original post. Your original argument was that 7 was the only building which sustained structural damage... and then asked me to support my claim that a really big building on fire fell on it... and I did.. and you have not contested anything that I have said. You just keep trying to make new points about single arguments I am having with other people.
Are you ready to concede this first argument before we move on?
hom36rown
Well-Known Member
They have already given you the answer, the building collapsed due to fire.The building had some importance. Were they trying to destroy something? I have no idea... That's why we are "truthers". We want answers.
The thing i love about wtc 7 is how building 1 and 2 fell... skipped wtc 6. then wtc 7 fell.
You guys are all hell bent on believing it was part of some nefarious plot, and throw all logic out the window. You aren't even sure why "they" would do such a thing, yet you are sure they did it for some reason. Surely if they were trying to hide something they could have done it without blowing up the building. I mean these are the same people who planted explosives in a secure building, but they can't hide something without completely demolishing the building?
- Status