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

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
1. Other steel buildings have had longer lasting fires and more structural damage then the WTC buidlings but did not collapse.

www.pleasanthillsfire.org...

*yawn*
You have provided no proof those buildings were more structurally damage than the WTC. Seeing as those were ordinary fires and the no planes crashed into them, I fail to see how that would be possible.

2. None of the parts and pieces found have been matched to any of the 9/11 planes through part numbers.

Did you see the pic I posted earlier?
And again, all that is not even necessary as we have MULTIPLE other ways of confirming for a FACT that those were indeed the planes.
Until you prove the other ways we have of confirming for a fact that those were the planes, is in anyway wrong, then...you have nothing. So please, I have been asking for that past few days.....present ONE piece of evidence that would even slightly suggest any other plane crashed.

I fail to see what is so difficult in responding to my request. If you're going to go for days claiming something, that means you believe it or you have reason to believe it. Yet you guys have presented NOTHING to support you claims.
I'll ask again to make sure you see it:
PLEASE present at least ONE piece of evidence to suggest any other plane crashed into the towers.


...This is a "Either put up or shut up" situation...
How much longer will we have to wait for your evidence?

The eywitnesses at the Pentagon could not agree on what type of plane it was. Also 1 witness stated that they did not know what hit the Pentagon he was told later it was a 757. None of these witness statements would hold up in court.

Umm...who cares

reply to post by ThatsJustWeird

They said those were a combination of metals fused together.

Including STEEL. I really don't care what else is mixed in there. If the steel became molten and mixed with other materials, the other materials are besides the point. (Unless of course you are talking about the traces of thermite residue.)

You almost got away with the pools of molten steel which turned out to be nothing more than light, so this time hopefully you're more prepared

Nice try at deflection there.

Is it your position then that the so called meteorites are some sort of "light" anomaly?

Because the combination of factors that lead to the collapse (including the weakening of the steel) didn't take full effect immediately.

You are ignoring the fact that all structural failures would have to have occured simultaneously. There wasn't just one single key support structure holding up the entire building.

Try it this way, in a very basic example. Put a heavy weight on top of a tin soda-pop can. Almost enough to crush it. Now hit the can from from the side, enough to cause a dent, or even to tear a hole in it. What happens? The can folds in half. It is not crushed uniformly vertically.

Before the collapse the fires were able to spread and were more exposed.

Exposure causes the intensity of a fire to increase. Why should any reasonable person believe that the intensity of the fire should increase once starved of oxygen? After all, isn't the the most basic tenet of fighting fire? To starve it of oxygen?

With the collapse they become much more concentrated plus all the energy added during the collapse.

Show me how the energy of the collapse translates to concentrations of heat well above 2000 degrees.

Originally posted by jackinthebox
Including STEEL. I really don't care what else is mixed in there. If the steel became molten and mixed with other materials, the other materials are besides the point. (Unless of course you are talking about the traces of thermite residue.)

It does matter what the material is. It could be just trace amounts of steel. It could be metals fused around the steel.

Nice try at deflection there.

Is it your position then that the so called meteorites are some sort of "light" anomaly?

Deflection?
What? Not even close. I asked you what the composition of those things were. You claim they are steel, so I take it you have proof to back that up.

You are ignoring the fact that all structural failures would have to have occured simultaneously.

Says who?

There wasn't just one single key support structure holding up the entire building. Try it this way, in a very basic example. Put a heavy weight on top of a tin soda-pop can. Almost enough to crush it. Now hit the can from from the side, enough to cause a dent, or even to tear a hole in it. What happens? The can folds in half. It is not crushed uniformly vertically

bad example.
Try a house of cards. Take a card away (really just one) and it sets of a series of events that will lead to it's collapse.

Exposure causes the intensity of a fire to increase. Why should any reasonable person believe that the intensity of the fire should increase once starved of oxygen? After all, isn't the the most basic tenet of fighting fire? To starve it of oxygen?

The fires did die down. That by NO means is any indication that the heat subsided. The firefighters explained that there were backdrafts as they removed the debris. As that heat was exposed to oxygen it ignited. Meaning the heat did not decrease.

Show me how the energy of the collapse translates to concentrations of heat well above 2000 degrees.

Who said it got well above 2000 degrees? There is no indication there were large pools of molten steel, meaning there was no widespread temperatures that high. Also, the steel was not as strong as it was before the collapse, which also would have lowered the melting point.

reply to post by ThatsJustWeird

Try a house of cards. Take a card away (really just one) and it sets of a series of events that will lead to it's collapse.

Like this "house of cards"?



Like every other steel structure in history? Please. Talk about a bad example there.

EDIT to add:

If that was true, then demo crews would only have to set one charge every time they take down a building. Or perhaps, they could do like we are meant to believe about the WTC. They could blow a few floors, and the whole rest of the structure will fold right up in its own footprint.

The fires did die down. That by NO means is any indication that the heat subsided.

Which proves that there were temperatures high enough to moltenize steel at the time of the collapse.

Who said it got well above 2000 degrees?

Rudy Giuliani for one.

There is no indication there were large pools of molten steel, meaning there was no widespread temperatures that high.

Go ahead, keep ignoring the evidence.

Also, the steel was not as strong as it was before the collapse, which also would have lowered the melting point.

Complete and utter bunk. If you really believe that, then I don't know what to tell ya there chief.

[edit on 3/20/0808 by jackinthebox]

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
You have provided no proof those buildings were more structurally damage than the WTC.

Did you see the pic I posted earlier?
And again, all that is not even necessary as we have MULTIPLE other ways of confirming for a FACT that those were indeed the planes.

1. Photos of other buildings that had longer fires and worse structural damage then the WTC 1,2 and 7 buildings but did not collapse.

i114.photobucket.com...

i114.photobucket.com...

i114.photobucket.com...


Photos of other WTC buidlings that had longer fires and worse structural damage then WTC 1,2, and 7 but did not collapse.

i114.photobucket.com...

i114.photobucket.com...

i114.photobucket.com...


2. You have no actual facts or evidence to support what planes hit the towers or the Pentagon.

A. There are no reports that match the parts found to any of the 9/11 aircraft.

B. There are no actual photos or videos of of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon.

C. Flight 77 was off radar for a total of 36 minutes.

D. Witness statements (like the official story) would not hold up in court.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Nice pics ULTIMA.

I always think about OKC too. They were trying to knock that sucker down with the biggest bomb they could build, and still only got this...

OKC

Originally posted by jackinthebox
Nice pics ULTIMA.

Well i try to go by facts and evidence that can be verified. Like firefighter sites, the photos of the First Bank building are form there also.

www.pleasanthillsfire.org...


[edit on 21-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by jackinthebox
Like this "house of cards"?

Like every other steel structure in history? Please. Talk about a bad example there.

What are you talking about?
I was giving an example, not saying what happened. The house is built of many parts working together to hold it up. The failure of one of those parts however can end up with catastrophic results.
No other buildings in history were damaged the way the WTC were.
And what does 3 have to do with anything?

If that was true, then demo crews would only have to set one charge every time they take down a building.

Yes, and they can.
But demos are not meant to just bring a building down. They're meant to bring a building down in a way that minimizes damgage to the surrounding areas.

Or perhaps, they could do like we are meant to believe about the WTC. They could blow a few floors, and the whole rest of the structure will fold right up in its own footprint.

WTC certainly didn't fold in its own footprint so I'm not sure what you're talking about.


Please review the link I provided earlier about collapses.

Which proves that there were temperatures high enough to moltenize steel at the time of the collapse.

No...unless you have proof of this. If that was the case, you would have seen widespread evidence of it and the buildings would have fell immediatly.

Rudy Giuliani for one.

Did it back it up with scientific proof?

Go ahead, keep ignoring the evidence.

The only evidence you provided of pools of molten steel or widespread molten steel turned out to be doctored photos. Or photos of which may not even be steel at all. I'm still waiting for you to provided the chemical compositions....

Complete and utter bunk. If you really believe that, then I don't know what to tell ya there chief.

Do you even know what steel is?

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Then of course, there is the time the WTC itself burned on six floors, for three hours. The fires started on the eleventh floor of the North Tower which means, as if it really made any difference, that there was far more weight bearing down on the affected area. Of course, there was no collapse or even any weakening of the structure that would obviously have condemned the building.

reply to post by ThatsJustWeird

I was giving an example, not saying what happened.

If your example doesn't show what happened, then really, what was the point? :shk:

Yes, and they can.

Prove it. I stand by my assertion that you cannot bring down an entire steel structure with a single charge.

...and the buildings would have fell immediatly.

The buildings did fall immediately, once the key points of steel in the structure were moltenized.

By the way, I was not even a CD believer until I got into this debate with you.

I am not even going to bother responding to the rest of your points and encourage your useless arguments that have degenerated into outright trolling.

Originally posted by jackinthebox
By the way, I was not even a CD believer until I got into this debate with you.

I almost laughed out loud at this, because I know the sentiment.


Case in point:

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Try a house of cards. Take a card away (really just one) and it sets of a series of events that will lead to it's collapse.

There is nothing you can say to this individual that will make him change his mind on this, because he is arguing with you. Even though he has no idea what he is talking about (would anyone who has had statics like to back me up? ), you have to understand, he just cannot ever be wrong. He has an audience, you know? He feels too good, jacked up on endorphins or whatever your brain releases during these kinds of arguments. He's not going to correct himself.


For anyone who knows a little about construction and civil engineering, the forces holding a building together are orders of magnitude greater than the forces it would take to dissemble it. Period. There is no such thing as a "house of cards," as far as legal civil engineering goes. Columns are bolted/welded end-to-end, braced, the braces are bolted/welded, etc. There were even rubber dampers between the perimeter columns and trusses to absorb lateral fluctuations in forces from wind loads and etc. An insane amount of energy would be required to separate the buildings back into their component parts.

[edit on 21-3-2008 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by jackinthebox
Then of course, there is the time the WTC itself burned on six floors, for three hours. The fires started on the eleventh floor of the North Tower which means, as if it really made any difference, that there was far more weight bearing down on the affected area. Of course, there was no collapse or even any weakening of the structure that would obviously have condemned the building.

Yes, you are talking about the 1975 fire in the North tower. Something you will never see being talked about by the people that believe the official story.

Its also what casued them to put in fire proofing and close off mechanical accesses to make the building a little more fire proof.

Originally posted by bsbray11 An insane amount of energy would be required to separate the buildings back into their component parts.

So you would agree then the planes impacts had nothing to do with the collapse?

Since the building was designed to handle more then the planes impacts.

www.tms.org...

The early news reports noted how well the towers withstood the initial impact of the aircraft; however, when one recognizes that the buildings had more than 1,000 times the mass of the aircraft and had been designed to resist steady wind loads of 30 times the weight of the aircraft, this ability to withstand the initial impact is hardly surprising. Furthermore, since there was no significant wind on September 11, the outer perimeter columns were only stressed before the impact to around 1/3 of their 200 MPa design allowable.

reply to post by ULTIMA1

Its also what casued them to put in fire proofing and close off mechanical accesses to make the building a little more fire proof.

They decided to install a sprinkler system after that too. Which goes to show that there was absolutely no protection against fire in the building at the time, that may have helped to maintain the structural integrity during the blaze.

Originally posted by jackinthebox
They decided to install a sprinkler system after that too. Which goes to show that there was absolutely no protection against fire in the building at the time, that may have helped to maintain the structural integrity during the blaze.

Yes kind of funny that a fire in 1975 that lasted for 3 hours casues no damage to steel but a fire in 2001 that lasted less then an hour casues enough damage to the steel to casue a collapse.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
So you would agree then the planes impacts had nothing to do with the collapse?
Since the building was designed to handle more then the planes impacts.

ok...lets remove the planes from the equation then. No planes involved.

Are you saying the buildings would still have collapsed?

If you answer is no, then the planes impacts would have something to do with the collapse.

True, the impacts themselves didnt bring the buildings down (as stated in the official reports), and the resulting fires themselves did not bring the buildings down (as the official reports state). It was a combination of the two that started a chain of events leading to the eventual collapse. (as stated by the official reports).

Heck, even your own "thermite theory" requires the aluminum from the shreded aircraft to interact with the fires....so you cannot say the planes impact did not play a roll.

[edit on 21-3-2008 by Disclosed]

Originally posted by jackinthebox
If your example doesn't show what happened, then really, what was the point? :shk:

Example: A problem or exercise used to illustrate a principle or method.

Since 9/11 never happened before you can't really compare it to anything else. It was also a 100000000000x more complicated than a house of cards , but you get an idea. Once things are put in motion, it's pretty hard to stop it.

What was the point of your example?

Prove it. I stand by my assertion that you cannot bring down an entire steel structure with a single charge.

Well it would seriously depend on the amount of explosives used and of course the size of the building. I'm pretty sure there are no examples (so no way to prove it) as that is not the point of a CD.

Relevance to the WTC?

The buildings did fall immediately, once the key points of steel in the structure were moltenized.

And you have evidence of this?

By the way, I was not even a CD believer until I got into this debate with you.

So which is it? Was it a CD or did the steel moltenize?
Have you ever seen a CD moltenize steel?

Have you ever seen a CD in which the explosives were able to withstand an object such as a plane slamming into them, with the resulting explosion from that object, and the explosives still work?
Have you ever seen a CD in which the buildings did not fall immediately?
Have you ever seen a CD in which an unpredictable reaction such as thermite was used?

I am not even going to bother responding to the rest of your points and encourage your useless arguments that have degenerated into outright trolling.

Asking for data to back up your claims is considered trolling?
I don't get it.
You ask me for data, and I provide it. I can't ask the same? How does that work?



bs

There is nothing you can say to this individual that will make him change his mind on this, because he is arguing with you.

You're joking right?
Yeah, unlike you guys I don't go around believing everything I see on youtube or on some one sided conspiracy site as that data can easily be manipulated (as we have seen in this thread). But that is hardly any indication that I'm not willing to "change my mind."

He's not going to correct himself.

Hillarious. Ok, tell me what I'm wrong about backed with unbiased scientific data, and I'll GLADLY correct myself.

For anyone who knows a little about construction and civil engineering, the forces holding a building together are orders of magnitude greater than the forces it would take to dissemble it. Period. There is no such thing as a "house of cards," as far as legal civil engineering goes. Columns are bolted/welded end-to-end, braced, the braces are bolted/welded, etc. There were even rubber dampers between the perimeter columns and trusses to absorb lateral fluctuations in forces from wind loads and etc. An insane amount of energy would be required to separate the buildings back into their component parts.

Absolutely correct and nothing I said disputes that. That is exactly why I told jack to review the link about collapses I posted earlier.




Jack and Ultima, why are you guys still talking about regular fires?
I ask again, name one source that has stated that the fires alone caused the collapse.
If you have another example of planes that size being flown at that speed and being crashed into buildings with similar structure, then you can compare the situations (waits for someone to bring up the B25 ). All this stuff about other fires is completely irrelevant.

Still waiting btw Ultima...

It isn't even about proving it was a conspiracy anymore to me at least; the world was plunged into chaos, trying to find the root of chaos is useless; or rather it made the whole world aware of it's own chaos and unfortunately the only people trying to help fix current problems and preemptively fix future problems is super paranoid military figures and huge corporations, politicians and control figures, the very destructive entity we are growing out of and moving away from. The rest of us seem paralyzed as if we don't know history or haven't seen death or evil.

If it was a conspiracy; what do we do about it being a conspiracy?
If it wasn't a conspiracy; what do we do about profitable war situation? and what do we do about those who seek to change others spiritual beliefs? and what do we do about the mounting senseless violence & curruption?

[edit on 3/21/2008 by PuRe EnErGy]

Originally posted by Disclosed
Are you saying the buildings would still have collapsed?

We have gone over this many times.

The plane impacts had nothing to do with the collapse since the buildings were designed to withstand more then the planes impacts (per reports).

The fire was not hot enough or burn long enough to cause the collapse (per reports).

So that only leaves a third reason for the collapse that casued the molten steel in the basements and debris. Something that left traces of thermite reactions (per reports).

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Asking for data to back up your claims is considered trolling?
I don't get it.

I sympathise with you here.

When I ask for any data to prove that the alleged flights AA11 and UA175 allegedly crashed into the towers, I get called names by some people in their reply posts to me.