The Best 11 9/11 Questions to 'throw back' at 'Official Believers....!

Originally posted by thedman


WTC 7 did not as you seem to beleive fell down - it was heavily damaged
on south face and on fire all day.

Which explains why the North side fell simultaniously with the heavily damaged South side? At best, the Sout side might pull down the rest, after it has begun to fall. Citing localized damage does more to bolster CD on WTC7. Or did you leave out the new "sympathetic collapse" syndrome? You know, where part of a building is damaged so the rest of the building gives way just to go along with the damaged part.

Oh, and where is all this heavy damage and these huge, superhot fires? I still have not seen any of that anywhere.

Originally posted by wmd_2008
You cant all agree then theres the other things you try to claim as evidence

Well, it may have been a lot easier to convince people with actual evidence eh?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Edit: My first link had an extension "flagit". I did an experiment to see if I could flag my own thread. The answer is yes, you can flag your own threads. I must have copied that link instead of the regular one. It was not an attempt to secretly flag my thread from people clicking the link. So, I changed the link.

The thing is again the building shown has NOTHING in common with the construction of the TOWERS you guys are very QUICK to jump to conclusions!

One of my conclusions is the towers and the rest of the WTC site were built in a shoddy manner.

IMO, it's one or the other.

1. Either the buildings were built worth crap. Which means that all those people lied to us from the Port Authority saying "it could handle multiple hits". Why are they not fired or blacklisted from their jobs? But, people like Dr. Jones and Dr. Wood are called "crazy" for even thinking the way they do?

2. Or they were CD'd in some way. Which, IMO doesn't matter if it was or not because anyway anyone looks at it, the reports were a whitewash and I personally am insulted.

[edit on 12/5/2008 by Griff]

[edit on 12/5/2008 by Griff]

Originally posted by thedman
notice heavy fire and smoke
issuing from building

www.911myths.com...

Can you point out this "heavy fire"? Cause all I see is smoke.

As a fireman thedman, are you telling me a fire seen in 7 windows is going to bring down a steel building? Symmetrically?



[edit on 12/5/2008 by Griff]

Can you point out this "heavy fire"? Cause all I see is smoke.

I know truthers are rather slow - so will explain. What do you think is
causing all that smoke? Don't you you think there might be a FIRE
behind all that smoke? If you look at some of Spak;s videos can see
several floors heavily involved in fire, including windows being blown
out by the fires.

Originally posted by thedman

Can you point out this "heavy fire"? Cause all I see is smoke.

I know truthers are rather slow - so will explain. What do you think is
causing all that smoke? Don't you you think there might be a FIRE
behind all that smoke? If you look at some of Spak;s videos can see
several floors heavily involved in fire, including windows being blown
out by the fires.

*snip* It is quite easy to generate lots of smoke with very little to no fire at all. People keep saying "look at these huge heavy fires" and show pictures of smoke. If I show you a smoke bomb, will you equate that with a blowtorch?

p.s. you could have saved the insult and shown us these huge fires but then again, that would require heavy fires to show us so I can see why you just wasted a post insulting people but to then go on to say something so ignorant confuses me a little. If you want to prove something, prove it. *snip*

[edit on 4-12-2008 by angel of lightangelo]

Mod edit: removed personal attacks.

[edit on 4-12-2008 by Duzey]

Which explains why the North side fell simultaniously with the heavily damaged South side? At best, the Sout side might pull down the rest, after it has begun to fall.

Actually, thats pretty much what did happen. The collapse was initiated on the south side of the building. If you look hard enough, you can find some photo/video evidence showing WTC 7 with a distinct tilt towards the south as it collapses.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Because it takes an IQ of 32 to think it's a demo job.

But since we're smarter than that........

If I didn't know better, I'd think that was a personal attack on many of us here.

But, you wouldn't stoop that low would you Seymour?

Oh, but you DO know better....

Besides, how can anyone expect a guy to pass up such a golden oppurtunity?

Originally posted by Griff


IMO, it's one or the other.

Nope, there's a third possibility you've left out.

3- your opinion is wrong, and the other 99% of SE's in the world, who see no problem, are correct.......

Originally posted by Griff
reply to post by Seymour Butz

 

Can I subtract the core area as it was mainly an open tube? Thus, much of the air would be forced down through? Especially if we are to believe jet fuel made it down that far?

Also, can I subtract the air that would be forced out of the top as everything is disintegrating? Leaving a nice big open area for air pressure to be released?

Also, the windows would break once a significant deformation occured releasing air pressure before the collapse would hit the floor. So, the 12.7' is too much IMO. More like about 2-3'.

Still nothing?

Look, take the easy way out.

The long floor spans were 60', the short 32'. Average = 46'. So the air had to travel, on average, 46' to exit the building.

46' in .2 second = 230 fps.

230 fps x 60 seconds/minute x 60 minutes/hr = 828,000 feet/hr

828,000 feet/hr/ 5280 ft/mile = 156 mph.......

Note that this excludes 100% of the air in the cores, which I don't necessarily feel should be excluded. if you use just 75' ( 3/4 ), it's 255 mph.

it looks like you should just exclude the whole silent thermobarics idea before you end up as Stundie material......

reply to post by Seymour Butz

What you see is the air rushing out of the building. You'd be surprised at how fast the air must leave the building as the floors above it falls.

Thank you Seymour Butz for your wonderful “opinion” however my eyes do not see the floors falling, what I see is the floors being “BLASTED” out of the building, everything is being BLASTED out by explosions and that is my “OPINION”! Those puffs of smokes are call squibs, something well known by demolition experts.

reply to post by Griff


If you think that the WTC towers etc were built in a shoddy manner then THAT could mean plane crashes WERE the only reason that the towers came down (NO EXPLOSIVES) and then the only reason to get rid of the evidence quickly was NOT because the towers were brought down on the day BY some secret government op but to cover up shoddy construction. NOW thats a whole lot different sitiuation from what most of you guys think!

Would you not agree that is a far more plausible IDEA than the controlled demo BS!

[edit on 5-12-2008 by wmd_2008]

Originally posted by cashlink
reply to post by Seymour Butz

 

What you see is the air rushing out of the building. You'd be surprised at how fast the air must leave the building as the floors above it falls.

Thank you Seymour Butz for your wonderful “opinion” however my eyes do not see the floors falling, what I see is the floors being “BLASTED” out of the building, everything is being BLASTED out by explosions and that is my “OPINION”! Those puffs of smokes are call squibs, something well known by demolition experts.

Cashlink WHAT about that picture WHATS UP your not that slow to reply the rest of the time or is it you JUST feel a bit SILLY now that you posted it!

[edit on 5-12-2008 by wmd_2008]

reply to post by wmd_2008

This is what a building collapse should look like notices all the broken slabs of concrete.


The thing is,is this supposed to prove that the WTC Towers were in fact blown to bits because thats what cashlink really believes.

I never said this picture proves that the WTC was blown to bits, so stop “lying” what I said this photo is what the WTC should look like had it just collapse ( in the photo.) However, I do not believe I posted that picture in this thread to begin with. You are taken my pictures, and quotes, from other topics and are trying to twist everything I have said in other threads. You have stoop to the lowest, under handing, of dishonesty I have yet seen.

reply to post by wmd_2008


You “opinions” are getting ridiculous!
Why don’t you post some real facts, with some real science to back you claims?
You could at lease show, were you get all your sources from.

Originally posted by cashlink
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

This is what a building collapse should look like notices all the broken slabs of concrete.


The thing is,is this supposed to prove that the WTC Towers were in fact blown to bits because thats what cashlink really believes.

I never said this picture proves that the WTC was blown to bits, so stop “lying” what I said this photo is what the WTC should look like had it just collapse ( in the photo.) However, I do not believe I posted that picture in this thread to begin with. You are taken my pictures, and quotes, from other topics and are trying to twist everything I have said in other threads. You have stoop to the lowest, under handing, of dishonesty I have yet seen.

Oh I have hit a nerve haven't I wasn't the other post also about the WTC also how could a STEEL building when collapsed look like REINFORCED CONCRETE building!

reply to post by wmd_2008

Oh I have hit a nerve haven't I wasn't the other post also about the WTC also how could a STEEL building when collapsed look like REINFORCED CONCRETE building!

You are taking my quotes and photos from other threads and twisting what I have said, and posting it in this thread! You are committing fraud, with information and I can now prove it! You need to stop what you are doing. You are not in here seeking to discuss the truth or present the truth.

Originally posted by thedman
If you look at some of Spak;s videos can see
several floors heavily involved in fire, including windows being blown
out by the fires.

Instead of telling me to "look at some Spak's videos", could you just post the one where you claim to see "several floors heavily involved in fire"? Thanks in advance. Maybe I just haven't seen it yet.

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
3- your opinion is wrong, and the other 99% of SE's in the world, who see no problem, are correct.......

Could be. I never claimed to be the end all, be all definative authority on the subject. You guys are the one's who think I make that claim not me.

But, you're going to have to convince me a lot better than the 9/11 Omission report, the FEMA report, or the NIST reports.

reply to post by Seymour Butz


Wow, you've simplified that problem. If that problem were a human, what you'd have left is a simple celled organism.

It's easy to make numbers fit your theory, but they have to have meaning also. Start talking about fluid flow rates and velocities and I might take this problem seriously.

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by Griff

 

If you think that the WTC towers etc were built in a shoddy manner then THAT could mean plane crashes WERE the only reason that the towers came down (NO EXPLOSIVES) and then the only reason to get rid of the evidence quickly was NOT because the towers were brought down on the day BY some secret government op but to cover up shoddy construction. NOW thats a whole lot different sitiuation from what most of you guys think!

Would you not agree that is a far more plausible IDEA than the controlled demo BS!

Yes. But, then it still goes back to who funded the project, who maintained the project, etc. I believe that is the PA which ultimately is the government. So, either way, there is a government conspiracy to hide the truth.

reply to post by Griff

Instead of telling me to "look at some Spak's videos", could you just post the one where you claim to see "several floors heavily involved in fire"? Thanks in advance. Maybe I just haven't seen it yet.

www.911myths.com...

Spak Video # 3 - Southwest corner - can see fire on south face, heavy smoke pouring out, as camera pans back can see fire on several floors at southwest corner


Spak Video #9, 10, 11- North face of building , floor heavily involved in fire
in video 11 can see fire on at least 2 floors