What would prove to you that 9/11 was not a conspiracy?

Originally posted by jackinthebox
Official estimates put the fuel burn at no more than ten minutes. Secondary burn was supposedly fueled only by office contents, and structure materials.

Yes, most reports state the fires did not burn long enough or get hot enonugh to casue the collapse.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jackinthebox
Official estimates put the fuel burn at no more than ten minutes. Secondary burn was supposedly fueled only by office contents, and structure materials.

Yes, most reports state the fires did not burn long enough or get hot enonugh to casue the collapse.

Even if the fire did burn long enough??? Rocket fuel still doesn't reach the temeratures to melt steel even if it does go all day..

Take a paper clip and a lighter hold the lighter to it all day see it it melts....

Originally posted by billybob

and one thing i get peeved about is people willy-nilly saying the fire could get that hot.

Of course office fires get that hot. Who has lied to you and convinced you that they don't? Here's a link to a very respected European structural fire engineering company. They're not debunkers or anything silly like that either. And they're outside the US so I don't think that Bushie is exerting influence on them. Browse around a little. Somewhere on there - I refuse to find it, ha ha - there a study done how typically the stel beams, as measured in their tests, "lag" the heat rise inside the test rooms by something like 20-30 minutes when the insulation is stripped off. So I agree that the air would serve as an insulator, as you stated, but it only serves for 20-30 minutes. So a 50 and 100 minute fire in the towers would be able to heat the steel just fine, according to their study. Anyways, judge for yourself and see if it has any credibility.

www.mace.manchester.ac.uk...

Thought I'd throw in a graph of typical temps in a room for you to check first if you'd like.

www.mace.manchester.ac.uk...

reply to post by ThatsJustWeird

Did they or did they not disappear while everyone was watching them?

How should I know? The only planes I saw were the two that went into the WTC.

Sure there is. Besides all the plane parts that match the planes, the bodies, etc. you can ask the people on here who have had a chance to examine the FDRs.

The FBI has already admitted they did not identify the plane parts. Do you know something that the FBI doesn't?

What bodies? The bodies of the people who were in the buildings when they were hit?

How many times do we have to tell you that the FDR's show anomalies that are unexplainable thus far. Such as the FDR actually shows a flight path which is incongruos with the damage path in the are surrounding the Pentagon. Why was the tower not knocked down or damaged. Furthermore, the FDR actually shows that Flight 77 was an a altitude above the height of the Pentagon. So unless you have some way to explain these anomalies, don't bother to bring up the FDR's again.

While you're talkng about physical evidence, how about supplying me with some. Vids are cool and are, but won't be able to stand up in court and are for the most part circumstantial.

I think you have derailed this thread long enough. The question is "What would prove to you that 9/11 was not a conspiracy?"

So the onus is on YOU to provide evidence, which other members see as lacking. We don't have to prove there is a conspiracy, or that the official version is wrong. The only way to challenge the members who post an answer to the question posed, is to supply them with the evidence which would prove that there is not a conspiracy. Can you do that?

So, because you saw a video with a picture for a brief second on what looked like molten steel, you're now a 100% hardcore believer?

Now you still choose to continue to argue about something you didn't even bother to look at, nor investigate. That really makes you look idiotic the rest of us who have spent many hours looking at evidence.

You have no idea when or where that picture was taken.

The same could be said of the pictures you provided. The same could be said of the DNA evidence, that we have no idea when or where it was recovered.

Furthermore, my evidence was not just a "picture" but video footage corroborated by firefighters. If you bothered to do any research, you would also see that the molten steel at Ground Zero is FACT, which has been corroborated through many sources.

You're asking me to prove stuff, but then you go around believing stuff you have no proof of whatsoever?

If you don't believe your own eyes, then I don't know what to tell there champ.

Actually, yes I did go there. Did you?

I sure didn't smell burnt steel and flesh in a report. Yes, I was there. When were you there? Last Summer in a tour group?

Sure it did. Do you know how much energy was released in just the fall of one of the buildings?

Okay, so explain this to me. If the steel didn't melt, then why did the Towers collapse?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Oh you mean the FDR from Flight 77 that questions the official story?

That has the plane at a different fligth path and the altimeter shows the plane to be over the Pentagon at time of impact? Also that the altimeters were reset?

Oh and what about the FDRs from the WTC ?

I am still wating for any reports that match the parts found to any of the 9/11 planes.

The FDR from 77 doesn't question anything. It's the interpretation of it by some dubious characters over at P4T that made the mistake of 1- correcting the heading IN THE WRONG DIRECTION, and 2-not admitting that the last few seconds aren't ON the FDR.

But whatever, you're claiming that the FDRs found at the Pentagon, that match the plane, aren't evidence. Riiiiight.

There, you have your report of parts that match the plane. That is evidence. Just like the jokers over at P4T have evidence, although it's been severely discredited. So from now on, your claim that you have seen no evidence of parts...... etc, is a lie.

Carry on as you see fit.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
I guess you never heard of thermite or chemical beam cutters?

Not thermite, no.

Also, if they cut the beams after the towers fell then, there is no issue what they used. But we're talking about being used in a CD. Have you ever heard of thermite being used in CD?


metal:

The tower which was struck second suffered less damage from the plane because it was a less direct hit and most of the jet fuel was seen ignited outside the structure!yet this tower collapsed first.

Do you have something showing the internal structural damage was less than that of the first tower? Not saying it wasn't.
But the tower was also struck lower. There would have been considerable more weight above the impact site.

How could two isolated pockets of fire destroy the bases of the support columns causing the buildings to implode?

I can't recall anyone stating the fires alone caused the buildings to collapse (and they did collapse, not implode).

Paul Isaac told me, �Based on video footage of the collapse of the South Tower, the structural collapse is not consistent with the angle the building was struck.�

Why would he tell you that? The thing about the collapse of Tower Two was that it WAS consistant with the angle (as the plane did indeed go in at an angle) in which the building was struck.

Videos are better but many are too close or too far.
Here you can see it collapsing from the angle and side of which it was hit
youtube.com...
And in the last few seconds of this you can see that it did not just fall straight down or turn to dust
youtube.com...

Was he reffering to Tower One?


Couple random things
- I have never seen planes that size crash into buildings and not cause significant structural damage (regardless of the fires).
- Steel didn't have to melt. All it had to do was weaken.

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
They called from the planes. The calls lasted until the plane hit the towers. The transcripts of the records are available, but of course you'll continue to ignore the evidence and talk all this BS.

Prove that the calls made were from the two planes that allegedly hit the towers. They could have been made from anywhere. You have to prove that they were from those two planes that allegedly hit the towers.

Nothing you have typed to me has shown me that alleged planes that hit the towers were AA11 and UA175.

You have not shown me any evidence. All you have done is rehash circumstantial snippets of the official story.

Show me how an undamaged, unburnt passport allegedly survives an intense jet fuel fireball (hot enough to melt steel) to land safely on the street.

Originally posted by jackinthebox
How should I know? The only planes I saw were the two that went into the WTC.

What?
You were trying to argue that those planes could have been any planes.

Were those planes that crashed into the towers the same ones that everyone was watching since Boston or did they somehow switch planes?

What bodies? The bodies of the people who were in the buildings when they were hit?

No, the bodies of those on the plane.

How many times do we have to tell you that the FDR's show anomalies that are unexplainable thus far. Such as the FDR actually shows a flight path which is incongruos with the damage path in the are surrounding the Pentagon. Why was the tower not knocked down or damaged. Furthermore, the FDR actually shows that Flight 77 was an a altitude above the height of the Pentagon. So unless you have some way to explain these anomalies, don't bother to bring up the FDR's again.

So the FDR was indeed from Flight 77. Thanks. That would confirm Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.
...Whodunit went over the rest....

I think you have derailed this thread long enough. The question is "What would prove to you that 9/11 was not a conspiracy?"

So the onus is on YOU to provide evidence, which other members see as lacking. We don't have to prove there is a conspiracy, or that the official version is wrong. The only way to challenge the members who post an answer to the question posed, is to supply them with the evidence which would prove that there is not a conspiracy. Can you do that?

LOL Didn't think you would.
There is evidence. But as I stated, you're not really looking for evidence. You're only looking for stuff that supports your own theories. Evidence that doesn't fit your views means nothing to you as this thread has shown.

Now you still choose to continue to argue about something you didn't even bother to look at, nor investigate. That really makes you look idiotic the rest of us who have spent many hours looking at evidence.

wtf?
Who says I didn't investigate...

Did you see this video?


In case the vid doesn't work
youtube.com...
That is EXACTLY why I asked for the source of those pictures. That "pool" is nothing more than light! LOL!

you would also see that the molten steel at Ground Zero is FACT, which has been corroborated through many sources.

Really?
Remember when I said bunny, bunny, bunny, bunny = bunny?
Perfect example right here.

If you don't believe your own eyes, then I don't know what to tell there champ.

No, I AM believing with my own eyes and not what some video tells me to believe.

I sure didn't smell burnt steel and flesh in a report. Yes, I was there. When were you there? Last Summer in a tour group?

Nah, it was the following weekend...

Okay, so explain this to me. If the steel didn't melt, then why did the Towers collapse?

I don't know...probably had to do with two planes crashing into them! lol
Seriously....structural integrity was compromised due to planes and fires. There's no way that at least from the impacts sites and above would have stayed intact with that kind of damage.



tezz, your post grow increasingly disturbing. Either you can not read, or you are being purposely ignorant. If you want info, look for it. I gave you places where you can start. ATCs have the transcripts of the phone calls if you want that. Seriously man...you're not funny anymore. It was cute at first. ha ha. Now you're just purposely being annoying and are wasting space.

[edit on 19-3-2008 by ThatsJustWeird]

[edit on 19-3-2008 by ThatsJustWeird]

reply to post by ThatsJustWeird

Were those planes that crashed into the towers the same ones that everyone was watching since Boston or did they somehow switch planes?

How am I supposed to know what planes actually took of from Logan in the first place? Second of all, no one was physically watching them. They were observed through the use of equipment that can fail and/or be manipulated, and/or misused.

No, the bodies of those on the plane.

Show me.

So the FDR was indeed from Flight 77. Thanks. That would confirm Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

Possible, but not proven. Besides, if the data shows that the plane flew over the Pentagon, how does that prove the plane crashed into the Pentagon?

Evidence that doesn't fit your views means nothing to you as this thread has shown.

Blah, blah blah. You bore me now.

No, I AM believing with my own eyes and not what some video tells me to believe.

No, you are believing what the government and corporations are telling you to believe.

Seriously....structural integrity was compromised due to planes and fires. There's no way that at least from the impacts sites and above would have stayed intact with that kind of damage.

Okay, even if I buy that, why did the buildings collapse entirely at free-fall speed?

EDIT to add: BTW, your video isn't working.

[edit on 3/19/0808 by jackinthebox]

I think this is a Valid video showing the un-common yet do-able "top down" Demolision..


www.liveleak.com...

Gotta run but...

Originally posted by jackinthebox
Okay, even if I buy that, why did the buildings collapse entirely at free-fall speed?

You saw debris fall at "free-fall" speed.
You can see significant portions of the structure not however.

EDIT to add: BTW, your video isn't working.

That's why I posted the link.

reply to post by ThatsJustWeird


Perhaps you should take a look at some more evidence. But thanks for your video.

Proof of molten steel...

reply to post by ThatsJustWeird

You saw debris fall at "free-fall" speed.

I saw an entire building cease to exist in about ten seconds.

www.liveleak.com...
www.liveleak.com...
www.liveleak.com...
www.liveleak.com...
www.liveleak.com...






Obsesive compulsive, 1 2 3 4

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
tezz, your post grow increasingly disturbing. Either you can not read, or you are being purposely ignorant. If you want info, look for it. I gave you places where you can start. ATCs have the transcripts of the phone calls if you want that.

I expect that you will find my posts disturbing.

You cling to a theory that two passenger planes called AA11 and UA175 smashed into the towers. Yet, you can't prove it. That has to be disturbing for you to not be able to provide any evidence that those two planes were the ones that smashed.

Nothing you have shown me has been able to positively identify the two alleged planes that allegedly smashed into the two towers. I too would be disturbed, if I had no evidence to support the official story that I was lead to believe is true. I feel your pain about my disturbing posts.

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
tezz, your post grow increasingly disturbing. Either you can not read, or you are being purposely ignorant. If you want info, look for it. I gave you places where you can start. ATCs have the transcripts of the phone calls if you want that.

I expect that you will find my posts disturbing.

You cling to a theory that two passenger planes called AA11 and UA175 smashed into the towers. Yet, you can't prove it. That has to be disturbing for you to not be able to provide any evidence that those two planes were the ones that smashed.

Nothing you have shown me has been able to positively identify the two alleged planes that allegedly smashed into the two towers. I too would be disturbed, if I had no evidence to support the official story that I was lead to believe is true. I feel your pain about my disturbing posts.

A story i fail to believe as well...The story we where givem was an insult to intelligence , even Us itelligence

Originally posted by tezzajw
I expect that you will find my posts disturbing.

You cling to a theory that two passenger planes called AA11 and UA175 smashed into the towers. Yet, you can't prove it. That has to be disturbing for you to not be able to provide any evidence that those two planes were the ones that smashed.

Tezz what the F are you talking about?
I have provided PLENTY of evidence. Your refusal to look at the evidence is an indication that you are either an idiot or just playing around. Also, it's using F'ing common sense.
You have not proven once that the plethora of evidence that those planes crashed into the buildings is false. Not one piece of evidence anywhere even slightly hints at any other planes crashing.
Theory? It's not a theory, it's a fact.

Just show me ONE piece of evidence that disputes that FACT. Just one.

How about you read my posts for once. NOTHING you have shown has disputed the evidence I have provided as you have shown NOTHING.

Until you show something disputing that those planes crashed then again, you're wasting time and space. If you don't think those planes crashed then SHOW why you think that??

Also, read up on the American air control system. I don't know what you guys have over there in Australia or wherever the F you are, but over here we don't have planes that can just disappear with everyone watching them and no one not notice.

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by ThatsJustWeird

 

Perhaps you should take a look at some more evidence. But thanks for your video.

Proof of molten steel...

Man, that just says it all. It really, really does. There is no way that is all caused by Jet Fuel and a building collapse. There is something going on there. Great video btw, really great.

reply to post by ThatsJustWeird


some witnesses said it was a military plane with no windows.

that is evidence.

in all the videos and photos, you cannot see any markings on the plane. in fact, the plane looks like a grey blob.

that is lack of evidence.

the wreckage was never identified.

that is lack of evidence.

so, where's your alleged 'proof'? you have no evidence that the planes that hit are the planes that they say hit.

be more polite, please. you sound like a 'gee'-ing mean drunk, by golly.

and for people who don't think the government writes the gospel, check this out:

911anomalies.wordpress.com...

Originally posted by jackinthebox
Perhaps you should take a look at some more evidence. But thanks for your video.

Proof of molten steel...

Ugh! I lost my reply

Basically, I saw the video before and the video I posted pretty much explains a lot of that. Sure there was molten metal and probably even molten steel (especially in the basements where all that energy from the collapses would have been concentrated. Sure it could have melted in those conditions, especially if it was already weakened, and if it wasn't certified as claimed.) Those claims of molten pools of steel and all of that though certainly haven't been proven as there is no evidence of that.

In those conditions, and as the firefighters explained, there was certainly backdraft conditions down there. Because of the massive amount of debris and rubble produced by the fall of two 1000+ foot tall skyscrapers in those conditions, the fact that it burned for weeks...months is hardly surprising.

What you want is proof the fires burned that hot BEFORE the collapse. That would show something.

Also, as stated before, the nature of thermite pretty much rules it out.



Don't know if this has been posted before, but this is another read on the nature of the collapses and collapses period. Sorry, it's very technical.
www.scribd.com...