**New 9/11 docs destroy official story**

Originally posted by Taxi-Driver
Well , I watch Jason Bermas' Fabled Enemies a week or so ago.

Too much accurate information for you to shallow I guess. You at LEAST can't deny the infiltration of Israeli agents doing intelligence gathering and spying in the US when it was backed up by so many sources can you???

Once again, see no evil, here no evil...This ignorance is really getting to me now.

Jim if you are interested in the perps of 9/11 you should watch that first link I put up there. It has some good information in it, but you have to watch the whole thing to realize the gravity of the content.

Oh jeez, a bunch of jihadists on video talking about kill america. Yup, that's all we need to know, end of story. Now I can go back to sleep and wake up in ignorant bliss again.

reply to post by schrodingers dog


I just happened to run across your post that you had listed telling what happened to you, I think I actually replied to it , I was not at the actual scenes when they happened but very close to the pentagon incident. I also was looking at this italian movie well reading about it but I wasnt able to locate a way to view it online yet, heard it is very interesting as well the guy who made it is supposedly a very well known top reporter in italy. Anyways, Im sure it will be posted on the net soon enough if your worried bout posting it here for us to see.

Thanks for stopping by here also

Originally posted by exponent
You mean with fireproofing.

You might want to do some mroe research. The fireproofing, sprinklers, and other fire systems were not put in untill AFTER the 1975 fire.

Indeed it did, after igniting acres of flammable materials.

So you would agree then that all you had was an normal office fire since all the jet fuel was burned off?

[edit on 11-9-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
You might want to do some mroe research. The fireproofing, sprinklers, and other fire systems were not put in untill AFTER the 1975 fire.

They were not, it is a requirement that these buildings be built with fireproofing. The NIST report contains full details of this as usual. Do you have any evidence to suggest otherwise?

So you would agree then that all you had was an normal office fire since all the jet fuel was burned off?

Lets not forget the structural damage and the fireproofing damage, but yes jet fuel served only to ignite a large area in fire, rather than to sustain it. The combustible load in the towers was more than adequate to support large fires.

Originally posted by exponent
They were not, it is a requirement that these buildings be built with fireproofing. The NIST report contains full details of this as usual. Do you have any evidence to suggest otherwise?

The fireproofing was only good for an hour or 2, the fire in 1975 burned for at least 3 hours. The sprinkler systems and other fire systems were not put in till after the 1975 fire.

Lets not forget the structural damage and the fireproofing damage, but yes jet fuel served only to ignite a large area in fire, rather than to sustain it. The combustible load in the towers was more than adequate to support large fires.

Most reports state the buildings withstood the planes impacts.

2. Fires that only lasted about 1 hour. What caused all the molten metal and steel in the basements of the buildings and debris field?

[edit on 11-9-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
The fireproofing was only good for an hour or 2, the fire in 1975 burned for at least 3 hours. The sprinkler systems and other fire systems were not put in till after the 1975 fire.

Actually the fireproofing was rated for 2-3 hours, but even so the fire in 1975 did cause minor damage to trusses etc. It was in no way as serious as the fires on 911 and as you now seem to have conceded, the steel was protected.

Most reports state the buildings withstood the planes impacts.

They did, this does not mean they were not damaged though. That much is evident.

2. Fires that only lasted about 1 hour. What caused all the molten metal and steel in the basements of the buildings and debris field?

There are many metals in the towers which melt in the normal fire range. There is no verifiable evidence of molten steel as far as I am aware. Unless you are contending that someone can tell what a red hot substance is simply by looking at it.

reply to post by exponent


Yes, someone can tell molten metal just by looking at it. I believe that. Im no scientist or anything and im pretty sure a glowing liquid that appears hazy due to heat waves would catch my attention and through minor, visual inspection, I believe i would be able to identify it. Either that or there is a volcano under the towers, last I checked not too many other things resemble molten steel. None that would prove the official story.Why not explain why the buildings fell at near free fall speed? Foget what us "crazy" conspiracy nuts are questioning, explain how what happened is even possible. How does WT7 collapse in on itself with no planes hitting it?

Tell me, how after 7 years, there are articulate, seemingly sound minded individuals that are still buying this garbage from the mob that runs this country. Ignore the facts of the day 9/11 altogether... look at all the profit, insider trading, much more control for government, a reason to take more taxes and our SS away, a reason to set up bases in other countries. To the mob, 9/11 made too much sense not to do. They already have us dumb enough that we buy their lame lame lame lies.

Unfortuantely, we will never have enough hard evidence to "prosecute" or to get any of you "open minded" individuals to believe. You are all way too happy with the worlds state of affairs. You finally know who the bad guy is, huh? GRRRRR.... whatever keeps you cozy at night. How can you think that bombing the hell out of these people without proper evidence and that we need to prove that they didn't do it before we dont bomb them is the good guy mentality? The mob aka gov't AND its supporters are the bad guys. This means YOU! Unless you change your mind, I invite you to open your mind.

Originally posted by Looking4LikeMindz
Yes, someone can tell molten metal just by looking at it. I believe that. Im no scientist or anything and im pretty sure a glowing liquid that appears hazy due to heat waves would catch my attention and through minor, visual inspection, I believe i would be able to identify it. Either that or there is a volcano under the towers, last I checked not too many other things resemble molten steel.

There are many things that resemble molten steel, most metals at similar temperatures glow, the question is just how much. There was never any testing done so we have no way to verify whether this is true or not.

None that would prove the official story.Why not explain why the buildings fell at near free fall speed? Foget what us "crazy" conspiracy nuts are questioning, explain how what happened is even possible.

Firstly, I haven't called you crazy, and secondly, exactly how fast should the buildings have fallen?

You are all way too happy with the worlds state of affairs.

Not at all, and I don't think you would be too happy if I started telling you what you believe would you? Please don't do it to me.

You finally know who the bad guy is, huh? GRRRRR.... whatever keeps you cozy at night. How can you think that bombing the hell out of these people without proper evidence and that we need to prove that they didn't do it before we dont bomb them is the good guy mentality?

Bombing who? I marginally support the war in Afghanistan and don't support the war in Iraq at all.

The mob aka gov't AND its supporters are the bad guys. This means YOU! Unless you change your mind, I invite you to open your mind.

You know this is the same rationale that terrorists use? You're either with us or against us. Well I disagree. I'm not even against the 'truth movement' as such. I encourage open investigation and research, but what I am tired of seeing is false claims and poor rationalisation.

Originally posted by exponent
It was in no way as serious as the fires on 911

So your saying a fire that burned for 3 hours onseveral floors WAS NOT as serious as a fire burning for less then an hour on several floors?

They did, this does not mean they were not damaged though.

But the damage from the planes was not severe enough to be a casue of the collapse.

Unless you are contending that someone can tell what a red hot substance is simply by looking at it.

I do believe the fire chiefs and the demo crews do know what molten steel looks like.

I take it english isnt your native language ultima?
"the towers withstood the impact of the planes" means that: they withstood the impact. they didnt fall over right away. We actually pretty much saw that during the event. It took 1 hour of burning+impact to bring them down.

Yeah i know its hard to wrap your mind around it: the impact alone didnt bring them down. The fire alone didnt bring them down ... but you see, one happened shortly after the other. The Impact damaged the structure and the fire damaged it some more.

You can tell what kind of metal it is by simply looking at it in molten form? thas very impressive Looking4LikeMindz, and I hope you understand that i have some problems believing that. If you could that would propably qualify for the 1 million dollar price from randi...

I hope you agree to a little test? so, what kind of metal is this:

Originally posted by debunky
"the towers withstood the impact of the planes" means that: they withstood the impact. they didnt fall over right away.

Thats funny because some reports state the buildings withstood the impacts and would have kept standing if not for the fire, the fire was the main casue of the collaspe the plane impacts had nothing to do with the collapse.

Please learn to do research kid before responding to a post.



[edit on 12-9-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Sorry it's taken me so long to reply, I have a pretty serious throat infection and have been spending plenty of time in bed

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
So your saying a fire that burned for 3 hours onseveral floors WAS NOT as serious as a fire burning for less then an hour on several floors?

Yes, the fire in 1975 was fought by firefighters, only consumed a relatively minor area of the towers and was attacking steel which was appropriately protected. The volume of fire on 911 was substantially greater, there was no firefighting and the steel was already damaged / stripped of fireproofing.

But the damage from the planes was not severe enough to be a casue of the collapse.

Certainly, but this doesn't mean the damage did not contribute to the collapse.

I do believe the fire chiefs and the demo crews do know what molten steel looks like.

You didn't answer my question. how do you propose they would tell molten steel from molten copper, or molten lead, or molten glass for example?

edit:

Thats funny because some reports state the buildings withstood the impacts and would have kept standing if not for the fire, the fire was the main casue of the collaspe the plane impacts had nothing to do with the collapse.

This is true, Dr Quintiere / Purdue's work suggests that the towers could collapse simply due to fire. However the NIST report is the most in-depth investigation so far, and that suggests both are needed. You are free to argue either way really, I have no particular opinion on which is accurate but use the NIST report mostly when debating with CT believers.

[edit on 12-9-2008 by exponent]

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Reports also say the fire alone was not the cause. It was a combination of the plane impacts and resulting fires that started a chain of events that led to the eventual collapse.

Show me one "kiddo" that doesnt say it was a combination of the 2 things. Reading comprehension isnt your strong side eh? Withstood the impact, but obviously were damaged by it ...

Originally posted by debunky
Show me one "kiddo" that doesnt say it was a combination of the 2 things. Reading comprehension isnt your strong side eh? Withstood the impact, but obviously were damaged by it ...

I don't know of any report that says plane impacts did not have any effect on the structure, but there are at least two reports that suggest just a fire could have caused the collapse of the towers due to inadequate fireproofing on the lightweight trusses. Determining the causes on the day however is not something done so easily.

Originally posted by gavron
Reports also say the fire alone was not the cause.

The reports i posted state the fire was the main cause of the collapse.

The planes only casue for the collapse was that they started the fire that caused the collapse, not the impacts.

www.tms.org...

Of equal or even greater significance during this initial impact was the explosion when 90,000 L gallons of jet fuel, comprising nearly 1/3 of the aircraft’s weight, ignited. The ensuing fire was clearly the principal cause of the collapse.

[edit on 12-9-2008 by ULTIMA1]

See how the spinners dance around the hot potatoes?

The freefall speed of the buildings.. tower 7.. numerous witness accounts denouncing the official lie.. err.. explanation

All they're doing is giving a lesson in distraction and semantics..

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
The reports i posted state the fire was the main cause of the collapse.

Was tms.org an official investigation team at the site? You make it sound like the buildings themselves would have collapsed if no planes were involved at all...just fires.

Originally posted by Phatcat
The freefall speed of the buildings.. tower 7.. numerous witness accounts denouncing the official lie.. err.. explanation

Pop quiz, which buildings fell at free fall speed?