It's all you are worth.
It's pointless trying to reason with the unreasonable. It's nearly seven years since 9/11, but here you are, digging up old threads. Why have you so little in your life that isn't old news, like it should be?
News clips from 9-11-2001 **You can't debunk this**
- Thread starter Ganymede
- Start date
It's all you are worth.
It's pointless trying to reason with the unreasonable. It's nearly seven years since 9/11, but here you are, digging up old threads. Why have you so little in your life that isn't old news, like it should be?
Thank God the Laws of physics do not change, and the 9/11 crime scenes are available to see in picture and sound.
I can see that you are one of those people that denies that the Government has committed this crime, so you are one of 2 things:
1. Either you are a total ignorant and doesn't know about physics and like to live in cocoland.
2. Or you are one of those who played a part in the preparation of the biggest crime in humanity, and you are trying to hide and distort any evidence.
9/11 is never old story, because our boys until this day are still being killed day and night in Iraq, Afganistan and our liberty is being taken away bit by bit, in the name of 9/11.
I studied physics at University.
You are clearly a nutcase, now, please desist with the conspiracy theory rot, put your tinfoil hat back on, and go hide under your bed.
You studied physics and you don't know the melting point of steel and why Steel has melted in the WTC
Go back to University...Or maybe...don't go back to University...You are a total failure, but let me babysit you:
I would like you to go and learn about the following:
1. What is free fall speed.
2. What is the minimum temperature for steel to melt.
3. Can plane fuel ( Kerosene ) cause steel to melt.
4. Can fire cause a steel building to collapse and disintegrate to the ground.
5. Did a steel building ever in history collapsed due to fire. ( Look at Windsor building fire - Spain )
6. Why Building 7 collapsed to the ground, while it wasn't hit by a plane.
7. What is control demolition.
8. How buildings collapse in an uncontrolled fashion.
9. How buildings collapse in a controlled fashion.
10. When a plane crash, how much debris ( Engines, landing gears, wheels, seats, luggages, plane parts... ) can be found in the crash site.
11. Why there was no plane debris at the pentagone.
12. Why until now the Government doesn't want to show us the plane that hit the pentagone, approaching and crashing into the pentagone.
These are documentaries that can help you - Also available to watch free on Youtube and Google video:
911 Mysteries Part 1: Control Demolition
911 Ripple Effect
Painful Deceptions
I think this should be enough for you to get you started. Then you will know
Good Luke
Last edited:
Dude, we've been all over this stuff here before, and debunked loons like you arlready.
Do read it, and leave us alone.
Do read it, and leave us alone.
Well can you put some meat in your replies and stop avoiding to answer my questions.
Many American do not know the reality of what happened on 9/11, and it's our duty to inform them:
Again for a crash course on 9/11, learn about the following:
1. What is free fall speed. what is gravity.
2. What is the minimum temperature for steel to melt.
3. Can plane fuel ( Kerosene ) cause steel to melt.
4. Can fire cause a steel building to collapse and disintegrate to the ground.
5. Did a steel building ever in history collapsed due to fire. ( Look at Windsor building fire - Spain )
6. Why Building 7 collapsed to the ground, while it wasn't hit by a plane.
7. What is control demolition.
8. How buildings collapse in an uncontrolled fashion.
9. How buildings collapse in a controlled fashion.
10. When a plane crash, how much debris ( Engines, landing gears, wheels, seats, luggages, plane parts... ) can be found in the crash site.
11. Why there was no plane debris at the pentagone.
12. Why until now the Government doesn't want to show us the plane that hit the pentagone, approaching and crashing into the pentagone.
These are documentaries that can help you - Also available to watch free on Youtube and Google video:
911 Mysteries Part 1: Control Demolition
911 Ripple Effect
Painful Deceptions
I think this should be enough for you to get you started. Then you will know
Good Luke
Those are the bullshit questions that distract us (intentionally?) from the real questions of why the Bush administration ignored warnings of impending terrorist attacks, ignored ongoing investigations into the hijackers, refused to allow one of their computers to be searched, failed to protect us, and failed to fully cooperate with the investigation afterward.
James, it's all been debunked, and no, I'm not going to waste time and effort doing it again. Feel free to waste your life, but I've spent enough time entertaining loons already.
Read the other threads about this here. Read this thread all the way through for starters.
Read the other threads about this here. Read this thread all the way through for starters.
1. What is free fall speed.
The buildings fell at a speed consistent with acceleration due to gravity, while the building underwent catastrophic structural failure.
2. What is the minimum temperature for steel to melt.
Steel weakens at a much lower temperature than it melts.
3. Can plane fuel ( Kerosene ) cause steel to melt.
In a raging fire that consumed a variety of materials with ready access to oxygen, there is clearly enough heat to lose integrity.
4. Can fire cause a steel building to collapse and disintegrate to the ground.
In most cases, if the insulation on the steel is intact, no. But the towers were a unique case, the crash removed insulation from the steel which might have protected it from the heat of the fire.
5. Did a steel building ever in history collapsed due to fire. ( Look at Windsor building fire - Spain )
Irrelevent, since the conditions on 9.11 were unique.
6. Why Building 7 collapsed to the ground, while it wasn't hit by a plane.
I don't know exactly, but that isn't really sinister.
7. What is control demolition.
It is what didn't happen on 9.11. I have seen controlled demolition, and there were no shock waves or flashes from detonations.
8. How buildings collapse in an uncontrolled fashion.
Straight down mostly.
9. How buildings collapse in a controlled fashion.
Straight down mostly, but neater.
10. When a plane crash, how much debris ( Engines, landing gears, wheels, seats, luggages, plane parts... ) can be found in the crash site.
11. Why there was no plane debris at the pentagone.
It's "Pentagon", and there was debris. The Pentagon is also a unique structure, it was recently heavily reinforced which absorbed instead of disintigrated under the tremendous forces involved.
12. Why until now the Government doesn't want to show us the plane that hit the pentagone, approaching and crashing into the pentagone.
They did release something. Again it doesn't prove anything.
The buildings fell at a speed consistent with acceleration due to gravity, while the building underwent catastrophic structural failure.
2. What is the minimum temperature for steel to melt.
Steel weakens at a much lower temperature than it melts.
3. Can plane fuel ( Kerosene ) cause steel to melt.
In a raging fire that consumed a variety of materials with ready access to oxygen, there is clearly enough heat to lose integrity.
4. Can fire cause a steel building to collapse and disintegrate to the ground.
In most cases, if the insulation on the steel is intact, no. But the towers were a unique case, the crash removed insulation from the steel which might have protected it from the heat of the fire.
5. Did a steel building ever in history collapsed due to fire. ( Look at Windsor building fire - Spain )
Irrelevent, since the conditions on 9.11 were unique.
6. Why Building 7 collapsed to the ground, while it wasn't hit by a plane.
I don't know exactly, but that isn't really sinister.
7. What is control demolition.
It is what didn't happen on 9.11. I have seen controlled demolition, and there were no shock waves or flashes from detonations.
8. How buildings collapse in an uncontrolled fashion.
Straight down mostly.
9. How buildings collapse in a controlled fashion.
Straight down mostly, but neater.
10. When a plane crash, how much debris ( Engines, landing gears, wheels, seats, luggages, plane parts... ) can be found in the crash site.
11. Why there was no plane debris at the pentagone.
It's "Pentagon", and there was debris. The Pentagon is also a unique structure, it was recently heavily reinforced which absorbed instead of disintigrated under the tremendous forces involved.
12. Why until now the Government doesn't want to show us the plane that hit the pentagone, approaching and crashing into the pentagone.
They did release something. Again it doesn't prove anything.
If you don't want to waste your time than stop writting in this thread.
Every one of your questions has been addressed several times at sciforums. Why don't you at least read through this thread before continuing?
I think, it is actually very possible, that 911 could have been an inside job. I remember Bush once saying that oil was priceless (Among some of the othe stupid shit he has spouted off). It's a scarey thought, that those in great and high power, flout it with even greater impunity. The American Governement, and even FEMA, are notorious for such actions.
Listen noob, you got six posts under your belt, and that doesn't earn you the right to start telling people what to do.
This topic has been discussed and debunked on this forum already, and you have nothing to add.
Go do your homework.
Do you mean that an object falling in the air and the same object falling through steel and concrete, will reach the ground at the same time?
If it is true then a DOG ALSO CAN FLY
Go back to secondary school
This shows that you know nothing about physics. At half the temperature of the melting point (2750°F), steel weakens but not melt. If it weakens then steel will bend not break, and the building will not fall.
Ohhhh...I forgot, maybe you went to the same University as phlogistician.
On 9/11 the WTC fires were deprived from oxygen that's why we saw the thick black smoke coming out from the WTC. Have you seen the 9/11 news report? What you just said, only happens in a foundry. On 9/11 we didn't have the conditions of a foundry for steel to melt. I'll give you another news, a fire fighter on the south tower's 83rd floor where the plane hit, said: " There are too small pockets of fires and can be put down with only too lines of water". Remember this 83rd floor is where you said the steel melted. So, is the firefighter words or your word we take?
This is an old argument that holds no more. The towers consisted of a 47 Steel core columns placed in the center, they haven't been weakened by the crash, because we saw people walking around the impact zone in the tower and shouting and waving for help. This shows that there wasn't enough heat to cause the steel to melt.
Yes the condition on 9/11 were unique, there wasn't enough fire to cause the building to crash. The WINDSOR CASTLE IN SPAIN was on raging fire for more than 20 hours and it didn't collapse. Have you seen those images, go to Youtube and see for yourself.
hahahahaha...You don't know? how comes you manage to explain the WTC1 & 2 collapse but can't even dare to explain the WTC7 sudden collapse to the floor neatly in 6 seconds ( free fall speed again ) on it's own footprint, like they do it in control demolition. WTC5 and WTC6 were heavily damaged but they didn't collapse to the floor.
For your knowledge, WTC7 was the command center where all the preparation and the execution of the 9/11 crime was done. So when WTC1 & 2 were down to the ground they had to remove the last of their evidence which is WTC7 so they had to PULL THE BUILDING (this is a term used when taking down a building with control demolition) these are the words of WTC7 owner Larry Silverstein.
You couldn't see shock waves or flares from detonation because what happened to the WTC was explosions not implosions happening to each floor to bring the WTC down. Every floor was exploded to dust one by one from the 83rd floor to the ground.
Remember this...control demolition means symmetrical fall of the building, and concrete pulverize to dust. This is what exactly happened to WTC1 & WTC2 and WTC7 on 9/11.
Remember this ... they should fall in a none symmetrical way. WTC1 & WTC2 & WTC7 fell all symmetrically. This can only happen in a controlled demolition fashion.
You forgot something, which is, CONCRETE ALSO PULVERIZE. YES...that's what it happened exactly on 9/11. Straight down, symmetrical fall to the footprint of the building with CONCRETE PULVERIZED TO DUST. That's what happened to WTC1 WTC2 and WTC7.
REMEMBER THE HUGE DUST SHOOTING OUT FROM THE COLLAPSING BUILDINGS WTC1 & WTC2 & WTC7 .... THAT'S WHAT WE NORMALLY SEE IN CONTROL DEMOLITION.
Do you think we are stupid. If it's true what you are saying, then a Rabbit ALSO CAN FLY.
In a plane there are indestructible parts, indestructible landing gears, indestructible engines, indestructible metal parts, wheels, seats. Boeing 767 has 60 tones of parts where did they go?
Do you really think that if the government has the evidence of a plane crashing into the Pentagon he will not release it?
It's in his interest to release it. But he doesn't have that evidence, because no plane has crashed. From the available evidence at the crime scene it's most probably a missile.
Last edited:
This is for those who are genuinely searching for the TRUE
This is an extended course on the 9/11 event, learn about the following:
These are documentaries that can help you - Also available to watch free on Youtube and Google video:
911 Mysteries Part 1: Control Demolition
911 Ripple Effect
Painful Deceptions
Loose Change
911 In plane site
I think this should be enough for you to start your own investigation.
Good Luck
This is an extended course on the 9/11 event, learn about the following:
- What is free fall speed.
- From 415meters, If an object falls through air and the same object falls through steel and concrete. Which one reaches the ground first.
- What is the minimum temperature for steel to melt.
- Just after the WTC1 & 2 collapsed we saw steel beams cut in an angular shape. Was shape charge used in WTC1 & 2?
- Can plane fuel ( Kerosene ) cause steel to melt.
- Did dark smoke rise from WTC1 & 2? Dark smoke tell us that the fire is deprived from oxygene. This is called a poor fire. All expert say that this type of fire should and will never melt steel.
- Can fire cause a steel building to collapse and disintegrate to the ground.
- Did a steel building ever in history collapsed due to fire. ( Look at Windsor building fire - Spain )
- Why Building 7 ( a 47 story steel framed building ) collapsed to the ground in 6 seconds, while it wasn't hit by a plane.
- Why WTC5 and 6 were heavily damaged, yet they didn't collapse.
- What is control demolition.
- How steel is cut during control demolition
- Does the concrete turn to dust during a control demolition
- Did we see huge cloude of DUST during the collapse of WTC1 & WTC2 and WTC7
- How buildings collapse in an uncontrolled fashion.
- How buildings collapse in a controlled fashion.
- When a plane crash, how much debris ( Engines, landing gears, wheels, seats, luggages, plane parts... ) can be found in the crash site.
- Why there was no plane debris at the pentagon.
- Why until now the Government doesn't want to show us the plane that hit the pentagon, approaching and crashing into the pentagon.
These are documentaries that can help you - Also available to watch free on Youtube and Google video:
911 Mysteries Part 1: Control Demolition
911 Ripple Effect
Painful Deceptions
Loose Change
911 In plane site
I think this should be enough for you to start your own investigation.
Good Luck
I would like to respond to James911, if I may.
This is a farcical argument. First, the vids of the building don't show anything like free fall. Why? Because the pieces falling off the buildings fall faster than the building itself.
Done. No more of that.
That is an utter absurdity. If the structural strength of steel - as you admit - decreases by half, then the load it is capable of carrying will also decrease by half. Ergo, the building will indeed fall. Much contrary to your point, this is indeed the physics of the situation. Your miscomprehension terrifies me.
First, your use of the word "too" confuses me gravely. It is clearly some other homonym you are searching for.
Second: the glow was probably actually aluminum:
See also:
http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm
Your argument is indeed a spurious one (with apologies to a monkey I know). First, where are these people walking around? Second, do you know that this is where the exact impact was? Do you realize that a fire can be going on a few walls away without roasting people alive?
A tower, it should be noted, that wasn't also hit by an aircraft, which I'm sure you don't deny.
Again: this was not a free fall.
Proof?
Pull or pull from? Mr. Silverstein is quite clear about his meaning in later interviews. Also this: if they were going to demolish WTC7, why would they send any firefighters in at all? Why not simply "pull" the building outright, at the start? And if the setup for the demolitions needed to be so extensive - as experts illustrate it would necessarily have to have been - then why would Mr. Silverstein think he could get away with saying they had to "pull" (as in demolish) the building on a national interview?
This is something of a new switch in the 9/11 argument. It used to be that people saw "flashes". But now you're saying that since no flashes were actually seen, that it was implosion.
Catastrophic structural failure also means symmetrical fall. This argument of yours is meaningless.
Or when any other building collapses under its own weight of thousands of tons.
For the furtherance of this discussion, I will decline to answer this question.
There were parts of planes found all over all three sites. Please, go online and look for plane pieces in other than the Troofer sites, who - I note - curiously seem to avoid posting such pictures. (I wonder why?) You are actually attempting to say that all the people involved in cleaning up these sites - literally thousands or tens of thousands - saw no plane pieces. One would think their clamour would be enormous. But, nothing.
"He" won't release it? That's a curious pronoun to use for an organization in what is almost entirely a gender-neutral language, Jimmy. Est-tu français? Non, c'est la gouvernement en français, si je me souviens. Huh. Odd.
Anyway: no, it's quite reasonable to assume they wouldn't release it if they considered it evidence of something. Governments aren't God, Jimmy. They can be extraordinarily stupid and short-sighted, like when they refuse to have nationally mandated requirements in education for history, sociology and logic.
Actually, we have, in the above post, dealt with almost all the topics on your list. I think we may now move on to other such issues, if any exist. In hope of your own edification, may I recommend the following link:
http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr/
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/
There are others in the same series and genre. Could you familiarize yourself with them before we continue, assuming that we continue?
GeoffP
Lizardoid, 1st class
This is a farcical argument. First, the vids of the building don't show anything like free fall. Why? Because the pieces falling off the buildings fall faster than the building itself.
Done. No more of that.
That is an utter absurdity. If the structural strength of steel - as you admit - decreases by half, then the load it is capable of carrying will also decrease by half. Ergo, the building will indeed fall. Much contrary to your point, this is indeed the physics of the situation. Your miscomprehension terrifies me.
First, your use of the word "too" confuses me gravely. It is clearly some other homonym you are searching for.
Second: the glow was probably actually aluminum:
See also:
http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm
Your argument is indeed a spurious one (with apologies to a monkey I know). First, where are these people walking around? Second, do you know that this is where the exact impact was? Do you realize that a fire can be going on a few walls away without roasting people alive?
A tower, it should be noted, that wasn't also hit by an aircraft, which I'm sure you don't deny.
Again: this was not a free fall.
Proof?
Pull or pull from? Mr. Silverstein is quite clear about his meaning in later interviews. Also this: if they were going to demolish WTC7, why would they send any firefighters in at all? Why not simply "pull" the building outright, at the start? And if the setup for the demolitions needed to be so extensive - as experts illustrate it would necessarily have to have been - then why would Mr. Silverstein think he could get away with saying they had to "pull" (as in demolish) the building on a national interview?
This is something of a new switch in the 9/11 argument. It used to be that people saw "flashes". But now you're saying that since no flashes were actually seen, that it was implosion.
Catastrophic structural failure also means symmetrical fall. This argument of yours is meaningless.
Or when any other building collapses under its own weight of thousands of tons.
For the furtherance of this discussion, I will decline to answer this question.
There were parts of planes found all over all three sites. Please, go online and look for plane pieces in other than the Troofer sites, who - I note - curiously seem to avoid posting such pictures. (I wonder why?) You are actually attempting to say that all the people involved in cleaning up these sites - literally thousands or tens of thousands - saw no plane pieces. One would think their clamour would be enormous. But, nothing.
"He" won't release it? That's a curious pronoun to use for an organization in what is almost entirely a gender-neutral language, Jimmy. Est-tu français? Non, c'est la gouvernement en français, si je me souviens. Huh. Odd.
Anyway: no, it's quite reasonable to assume they wouldn't release it if they considered it evidence of something. Governments aren't God, Jimmy. They can be extraordinarily stupid and short-sighted, like when they refuse to have nationally mandated requirements in education for history, sociology and logic.
Actually, we have, in the above post, dealt with almost all the topics on your list. I think we may now move on to other such issues, if any exist. In hope of your own edification, may I recommend the following link:
http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr/
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/
There are others in the same series and genre. Could you familiarize yourself with them before we continue, assuming that we continue?
GeoffP
Lizardoid, 1st class
There are photos showing steel which appears to be cut, however these photos were probably taken during the clean up. Steel was most definitely cut during this time so it could be taken away.
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1578128&postcount=306
It was however, hit by a section of one of the tallest buildings in the world. It was then left to burn for seven hours. The firefighters at the scene thought it was going to collapse long before it did which is why they pulled their men out.
They didn't get as much debris that WTC7 did. They were so damaged that they had to be demolished though. Clearly WTC1 and WTC2 weren't perfect collapses as the debris fell onto other buildings.