In Support Of The Twin Towers Collapsing Due To Fire .

reply to post by _BoneZ_


" ... he is playing both sides of the fence if you go back and look at his previous posts and threads.

I actually thought he was a truther this whole time until he posted this thread. Who would play both sides of the fence? "


"Playing" ? Who's playing ? Am I to assume that you are saying that the truth can only found on whichever side of the 'fence' that YOU happen to be on ?

Is that how this works _BoneZ_ ? If I'm not on 'your' side , then I am playing ?

So , I've got to be a 'Truther' in order for anything I may say to be considered ?

I have supported you for a ways now , because you have made some valid points in a lot of your posts .

I listed you as a friend so as to remind myself of this , and 'check' myself before responding negatively to something you may say that I would totally disagree with .

It is a system I use to remind myself that someone may not be right all the time , but that I have agreed with them in the past . It works really well , in that it keeps me from posting sarcastic replies in response to anything that you say that I don't agree with .

I expected better than this from you .

So , take my 'Truther' badge and give it to someone who agrees with you 100% of the time . I don't need it or want it , if it means that I'm not allowed to consider all of the possibilities .

FYI : 'Truthers' can't even agree what the hell it is that they agree on .

And be assured that I will probably continue to 'play' both sides of the fence until I am satisfied that I have found the Truth .

I'm not here to be a gang-banger in your little 'Truther' clique .

Totally dis-appointed .

reply to post by mikelee


Thanks for being civilized and mature .

While I don't agree with you 100% percent of the time , be assured that I give you credit when I do .

reply to post by impressme


See my reply to _BoneZ . It also applies to you , verbatim .

I will be sure to show you the same level of courtesy and consideration that you have just shown me , from now on .

reply to post by _BoneZ_


He claims to be an engineer also and that is the reason why he's doing this, yet he placed me on ignore when I asked him to provide credentials...

this guy is up to no good!

reply to post by hippomchippo

Are people not allowed to have more than two ideas in one general topic? Or are people not allowed to change their minds? Or did you just see the thread and automatically jump to your guns?

Not when he has claimed being an engineer with degree's! Then when I have found him playing both sides of the argument I ask him to provide credential and where he's gone to school, I placed on ignore. here is his quote said in reply to me!

Once again , please do not humiliate yourself by attempting to appear capable of an intelligent debate , when it is apparent that you possess no such skill . I HAVE studied the design and contruction of the WTC . And , not that it would matter much to you , I happen to have been to college to study Design Drafting , Mechanical Engineering , Civil Engineering , Architectural Engineering , Welding and Physics ., to name but a few . I have the degrees that I worked for . That qualifies me to hazard an educated opinion . What can you show in the way of study or experience ?

I find that rather apauling if you ask me! I he is going to claim he's an expert I think ATS has policy about providing credential this right other wise this guy is another farse!

I do not appreciate these kind of tactics. Neither should anyone from ATS!





[edit on 27-4-2010 by theability]

reply to post by okbmd


Sorry to upset or disappoint you, but nowhere in the 9/11 truth movement is fire-induced collapse supported and I can never support it because the evidence is stacked highly against that conclusion.

You are certainly entitled to your own opinions, but we don't have to support those opinions, just as the evidence does not.

reply to post by okbmd

Give us ONE witness that can PROVE that what they heard was indeed 'charges going off' .

Give me EVIDENCE of controlled demolition .

PROVE that controlled demolition is the only thing that can account for how the towers came down

As I said your lack of research quite overshadows anything you have to say. Also the way you characterized your thread allows you to absolve yourself from substantiating your "opinion" and you have thrown that defense up already to several posters to avoid substantiating your claims but now ask me to prove and substantiate my claims

So it's clear all you want to do is preach your emotional beliefs and not have to substantiate them and then attack others counter claims and demand proof. I figured as much but thought I would give you the benefit of the doubt until you proved otherwise and of course you did with this weak excuse of it just being your opinion and you don' t have to prove anything.

But being who I am I always provide back up for my claims so here you go: cms.ae911truth.org...

As seen in this revealing photo, the Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all of the characteristics of destruction by explosives:

1. Destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance at nearly free-fall acceleration
2. Improbable symmetry of debris distribution
3. Extremely rapid onset of destruction
4. Over 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes
5. Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally
6. Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking
7. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds
8. 1200-foot-dia. debris field: no "pancaked" floors found
9. Isolated explosive ejections 20 – 40 stories below demolition front
10. Total building destruction: dismemberment of steel frame
11. Several tons of molten metal found under all 3 high-rises
12. Evidence of thermite incendiaries found by FEMA in steel samples
13. Evidence of explosives found in dust samples
14. No precedent for steel-framed high-rise collapse due to fire


This site lays out all evidence to substantiate my claims and many more. So as soon as you can refute them then I might consider what you have to say until then have fun listening to yourself speak...

reply to post by okbmd

See my reply to _BoneZ . It also applies to you , verbatim .

I will be sure to show you the same level of courtesy and consideration that you have just shown me , from now on .

I should hope so, I expect nothing different.

See my reply to _BoneZ . It also applies to you , verbatim

" ... he is playing both sides of the fence if you go back and look at his previous posts and threads.

I do not play games on ATS or on any 911 forums. In fact 911 is one of my passions furthermore, I will never play on both side of the fence. I have chosen one side only and that side is the Truth. The very Truth that is supported by credible sciences, by credible eyewitness, by credible evidence, by credible mathematics, all done by people who are experts in their field of expertise.

If you are in here to deny “ignorance” then I would suggest you at least start presenting credible evidence from credible sources that can back your claims, because “[color=gold]opinions” are not the Truth.

If you want to debate your OP issues with me, I will be happy to debate you, however you will have to back up your claims with credible reliable sources, as I will have to do the same.

FYI : 'Truthers' can't even agree what the hell it is that they agree on .

Again this is your “[color=gold]opinion”

The fact is, not everyone is going to agree with everything including 911, that is human nature.

Most people in the real world are not well verse, or well informed as some of us on ATS. I myself have many years of real research in many Topics of 911, but do I have all the answers, heck no. Can I prove the OS is a lie, yes.

I should say up front that the following is in part , my opinion , so as not to be required to provide 'proof' by those who will disagree with it.

This is not debating facts here.

It is also , in large part , taken from an article from The New York Times , Sept. 8, 2002 , titled "The Height of Ambition" by James Glanz and Eric Lipton .

The writers of this article from the NY Times are not experts they are only journalist giving their “[color=gold]opinions” nothing else.

Most people are not interested in some bloggers opinions including mine.
Most of us are not experts in the fields of expertise to give opinions as facts.

I am not trying to be rude to you; I am just trying to help you to understand, that people are only interested in the credible facts. Facts that stand up to real sciences, or credible sources, and credible eyewitness, you know the hundreds of testimonies that were buried by the FBI because, of what these credible witness saw and heard does not jive with the OS lie.
However, these people who were there, who survived the attacks on 911, who know some of the truth because, they experienced it first hand, not the writers of the proven lies of the 911-commission report, or the proven lies of the NIST report, they were not at the WTC, the Pentagon, or Shanksville, PA on 911.


[edit on 28-4-2010 by impressme]

reply to post by okbmd


well lets see, the fire were not hot enough to kill the people who were seein trapped in the towers on videos. They were SMALL in comparison to the type of fire needed to melt steel.

Secondly, how do you explain no resistance provided by the building as it collapsed?

you do understand the difference between the path of least/most resistance?

I understand you get a good grasp of those two concepts before you argue for the OS anymore

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Sorry to upset or disappoint you, but nowhere in the 9/11 truth movement is fire-induced collapse supported

What do LIHOPers say again?

I believe you to be in error.

Wanna restate?

reply to post by impressme


The best quote I have heard in this thread!

I do not play games on ATS or on any 911 forums. In fact 911 is one of my passions furthermore, I will never play on both side of the fence. I have chosen one side only and that side is the Truth. The very Truth that is supported by credible sciences, by credible eyewitness, by credible evidence, by credible mathematics, all done by people who are experts in their field of expertise.

This sums up alot! Thanks impressme!

Originally posted by VonDoomen
reply to post by okbmd

 

well lets see, the fire were not hot enough to kill the people who were seein trapped in the towers on videos. They were SMALL in comparison to the type of fire needed to melt steel.

Secondly, how do you explain no resistance provided by the building as it collapsed?

you do understand the difference between the path of least/most resistance?

I understand you get a good grasp of those two concepts before you argue for the OS anymore

Just out of curiosity, did you see people alive on the floors where there were flames from end to end over the entire floor?

I dont thinkso.

Where you DID see people alive were on floors above, trapped by flames, smoke, and destroyed stairwells. So no, you cannot just go and claim the fires were "small". They were not.

Look here:








You might want to rethink that "small fires" comment. Those dont look very small to me. Two to three acres of office burning at once is not small, not to mention an entire aircraft burning inside as well.

Second, there WAS resistance. Of course there was. That is why it took nearly 15-30 seconds for total collapse of the Twin Towers. The initial debris impacted the ground at freefall, but not the building itself. In fact, the tower was very much standing when the first exterior columns hit the ground, until it too got obscured by the dust and falling debris. So there WAS resistance, because the building never fell at freefall.

I would recommend YOU to get a good grasp of the facts FIRST before making erroneous statements based on personal incredulity.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
What do LIHOPers say again?

I believe you to be in error.

Wanna restate?

Nope. No 9/11 research organization supports that scenario. You're more than welcome to check with any of the professional 9/11 research organizations yourself.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Nope. No 9/11 research organization supports that scenario. You're more than welcome to check with any of the professional 9/11 research organizations yourself.

Cool thing. So now, according to you, the following are NOT really truthers:

1- no planers
2- the Phil J type dudes that claim fake passengers
3- nukers?
4- space beamers

Any more you wanna add?

Just so that we all know who to ignore from now on, since they're obviously disinfo guv shills sent here to discredit the "honest researchers" like you

[edit on 28-4-2010 by Joey Canoli]

Originally posted by dashen
The only way I can imagine an office fire melting steel is if the winds at the 70 - 90th floors were strong and persistent enough to act as a sort of blast furnace, increasing the heat of the jet fuel and office fires many-fold. Unfortunately you would still be left to explain the huge amounts of molten steel under the towers (and building seven somehow) . Good luck.

IT doesn't have to melt

It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425°C and loses about half of its strength at 650°C A house fire can reach 1000°C , so even if the fire only reached 650°C the steel has lost 50% and been damaged by the impact.

What molten steel under the towers?

reply to post by _BoneZ_



It wasn't JUST fire induced was it remember the planes, structural damge then the fires with HUGE loads above the impact point.
Or does the impact damage and load above the impact point NOT count for some reason.

Originally posted by wmd_2008
Or does the impact damage and load above the impact point NOT count for some reason.

There was only 15%-16% of structural damage in the impact zones according to NIST. That means 85% of the structure in the impact zones was intact and 100% of the structure above and below was intact. So, the damage to the structure was minimal and thus does not count.

And neither do the fires since fires have never caused steel-structured high-rises to collapse, ever.

I still have yet to see anybody refute the above with facts or evidence other than their opinions.

reply to post by hawkiye


Your statements numbered my answers below in red

1. Destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance at nearly free-fall acceleration
It wasn't freefall on videos you see debris falling faster than the tower collapsing

2. Improbable symmetry of debris distribution
How was it symmetrical?

3. Extremely rapid onset of destruction
How was the onset rapid after impact how long before collapse.?

4. Over 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes
Many items can explode under HEAT and pressure when structural fixings fail they make a hell of a lot of noise.!

5. Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally
And?

6. Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking
The concrete was only a few inches thick on a ribbed deck SEE PIC BELOW

7. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds
How much gyproc/sheet rock was in that building ?

8. 1200-foot-dia. debris field: no "pancaked" floors found
Floors fell from 1000ft up on top of each other see 6 above

9. Isolated explosive ejections 20 – 40 stories below demolition front
Cannot be proved could have been dust ejected by failure of building components massive amounts of gyproc/sheetrock

10. Total building destruction: dismemberment of steel frame
Building collapsed large sections of steel all over debris field?

11. Several tons of molten metal found under all 3 high-rises
Prove that?

12. Evidence of thermite incendiaries found by FEMA in steel samples
Before or after steel on site was being cut during search/dismantaling ops

13. Evidence of explosives found in dust samples
What evidence - fuses, wires ?

14. No precedent for steel-framed high-rise collapse due to fire
LOVE this one A PLANE HIT IT then a fire but anyway OTHER STEEL BUILDINGS HAVE COLLAPSED DUE TO ONLY TO FIRE! WATCH AND LEARN!

www.youtube.com...=178


PICTURE www.csi911.info...

ALSO RE THIS OUTFIT cms.ae911truth.org...

Most architects KNOW NOTHING about the engineering of structures So far 1186 architects and engineers think like you out of HOW MANY WORLD WIDE THAT DONT

[edit on 28-4-2010 by wmd_2008]

[edit on 28-4-2010 by wmd_2008]

[edit on 28-4-2010 by wmd_2008]

[edit on 28-4-2010 by wmd_2008]

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

I still have yet to see anybody refute the above with facts or evidence other than their opinions.

Pretty hilarious.

Especially coming from a guy that in that very post made 2 factual statements that AREN'T supported with facts and evidence, and are only opinions.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Pretty hilarious.

Especially coming from a guy that in that very post made 2 factual statements that AREN'T supported with facts and evidence, and are only opinions.

NIST's estimates were just guesses or estimates, so I'll give you that part isn't "factual".

What is absolutely factual is that no steel-structured high-rise has been brought down from fire. Please, try to prove that wrong.