It's not a conspiracy

[hdood]

OMFG

How come you can't go back and answer my earlier replies to you?

It's not built of solid brick. There are rooms, hollow points, air pockets. Places with less structual foundation than other's. Places where failure can start and stop.

It wasn't built of "brick" at all. It was only steel. There also were no structural supports apart from the core and the outer walls. The floors were suspended between the two. There were no parts with more or less support. This made it unlike other buildings.

[iamawesomewicked]

OMFG

It's a game, genius. We're talking about BUILDINGS. QUAKE PROOF STRUCTURES BUILT TO WITHSTAND STRONG WIND.

It's not built of solid brick. There are rooms, hollow points, air pockets. Places with less structual foundation than other's. Places where failure can start and stop.

If kids are learning physics from games... never mind I'm not even going to answer that. That's like comparing the Titanic break up to the collapse of the twin towers.

... You know that Physics doesn't lie right?

Also.. to Sikest... You know that Thermite reacts Chaotically right? meaning it doesn't make clean cuts... or cuts on an angle.

[Billus]

OMFG

It's a game, genius. We're talking about BUILDINGS. QUAKE PROOF STRUCTURES BUILT TO WITHSTAND STRONG WIND.

It's not built of solid brick. There are rooms, hollow points, air pockets. Places with less structual foundation than other's. Places where failure can start and stop.

If kids are learning physics from games... never mind I'm not even going to answer that. That's like comparing the Titanic break up to the collapse of the twin towers.

That youtube video has nothing to do with any games, it's a scientific visualization of the crash. If you actually watched it, you would realise how stupid your claims are.

[SyntaxError]

Oh yeah, all the oil we could have gotten from a dozen other places and were already getting from Iraq via Oil for Food. I'm sure the billions spent on the war totally made it an economical plan. Cheapest damn oil we ever got. I wonder why we don't buy it in high quantities. I wonder why Iraq isn't exclusively selling it to the US.

Oh, and he might of profited? Because starting a war was the only way that could of happened. It's not like he could have just set up contracts with preferred companies on the sly without having to start two wars first. Because no other politician in history has ever set up a contract that they could profit from without going to war first.

I never said we were getting oil from Iraq, nor did I imply such a thing.

And it's a fact that war = profit. (for some)

[Joe User]

Sorry, I read your post wrong when I replied to it. I've looked into the all the evidence from both sides and I can't see how anyone that has done the same can still believe the official story...

Did you read the stuff from the link I posted?

http://www.springerlink.com/content/f67q6272583h86n4/

Proof of thermite, that HASN'T been debunked!

Honestly, I didn't see proof of thermite anywhere in that paper. I did see possibility for highly energetic compounds. Like fuel, possibly from the working railroad, the parking garages, or the fuel storage tanks.

I also saw no mention of office supplies, namely, about 500+ large offices and storage areas with items like computers, batteries, laser printers and copier toner. One copier, printer and computer, no problem, just a few highly volatile chemicals.

Now, go set 15,000 on fire.

One LiOn battery from a laptop can cause a sizable explosion, how about 1,000?

[Solid Knight]

I never said we were getting oil from Iraq, nor did I imply such a thing.

And it's a fact that war = profit. (for some)

You did imply it. You implied it when you said that Bush had ties to big oil. You still have to explain why they went through all this effort when all they got in return was a money hole. Nobody assumed power so power isn't the motive. Some people got money but you don't need to start a war to get that and the nature of capitalism makes profit seeking a norm which in turn makes the war entirely superfluous in this regard.

But then again you're the guy who thinks that a 757 slamming into support columns couldn't possibly weaken a structure enough to make it collapse because it was designed to withstand wind and earthquakes which are entirely different than collision damage. My house withstands wind and earthquakes but for some reason if you drive a car through it the house collapses. Pretty weird, huh? I mean, wind and earthquakes are totally like being rammed with large objects, right?

[SyntaxError]

I don't about all the various materials in the buildings and their highest burn temps, but jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to soften, let alone melt, structural steel. Yet there were pools of molten steel found in the wreckage of both buildings.

What's it mean? I don't know. There's never been any report on the type of steel in those molten pools, that I know of.

[Jim K Global Moderator]

Do your own research. The above link is just American crashes I believe.

Addendum to my previous post: According to this page http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0901/091101k1.htm the "plane" that hit the Pentagon, first hit a helicopter landing pad then skidded into the building. Yet what the camera footage I mentioned shows something completely different. What it shows is clearly flying, not skidding on the ground. Also, there was no helicopter pad in the path of the "plane".

um...that square with the "H" isn't a helicopter pad? :whistle:

yea...I'm sure some portion of the plane went over that pad regardless of the angle the plane hit the Pentagon.

[SyntaxError]

But then again you're the guy who thinks that a 757 slamming into support columns couldn't possibly weaken a structure enough to make it collapse because it was designed to withstand wind and earthquakes which are entirely different than collision damage. My house withstands wind and earthquakes but for some reason if you drive a car through it the house collapses. Pretty weird, huh? I mean, wind and earthquakes are totally like being rammed with large objects, right?

Ever seen any police chase videos? Cars do drive into houses on occasion and they don't collapse. Pretty weird, huh?

um...that square with the "H" isn't a helicopter pad? :whistle:

yea...I'm sure the length of the wings went over that pad regardless of the angle the plane took.

Doesn't change the fact that the object in the security camera footage was most definitely NOT on the ground, but flying in the air.

[hdood]

I don't about all the various materials in the buildings and their highest burn temps, but jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to soften

It was the building interior that burned, the jet fuel that made it in mainly helped set it on fire. It was more than hot enough to weaken it (and melt other metals like the aluminum cladding.)

[Solid Knight]

Ever seen any police chase videos? Cars do drive into houses on occasion and they don't collapse. Pretty weird, huh?

Doesn't change the fact that the object in the security camera footage was most definitely NOT on the ground, but flying in the air.

Depends on what they hit. But a house isn't under the same load as a skyscraper.

The thing to remember with a skyscraper is that they are pushing the limits of the materials involved. Yes, they are strong structures, they have to be. But they aren't designed to have huge chunks of them to be knocked out and set on fire simultaneously after receiving a massive impact shock. Engineers weren't 757 proofing their structures.

[Jim K Global Moderator]

Ever seen any police chase videos? Cars do drive into houses on occasion and they don't collapse. Pretty weird, huh?

Doesn't change the fact that the object in the security camera footage was most definitely NOT on the ground, but flying in the air.

Doesn't change the fact you can not determine what was on that video. I believe that is more probable to catch a larger object (i.e. a plane) than a smaller...much faster object (i.e. a missile) in that crappy security camera. You can not correctly tell if that object was skidding on the ground or flying in the air.

Doesn't change the fact that you were WRONG when saying there was no helicopter pad. Makes your other accusations seem...well...less "truther"ful.

:)

[SyntaxError]

Doesn't change the fact that you were WRONG when saying there was no helicopter pad. Makes your other accusations seem...well...less "truther"ful.

So there's a damn helicopter pad. That makes absolutely no difference to anything. Don't break your arm.

[Joe User]

I don't about all the various materials in the buildings and their highest burn temps, but jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to soften, let alone melt, structural steel. Yet there were pools of molten steel found in the wreckage of both buildings.

What's it mean? I don't know. There's never been any report on the type of steel in those molten pools, that I know of.

Seriously?

I don't know about all the various materials in the buildings and their highest burn temps, so I'll ignore all of them and focus on the temperature of burning jet fuel in a controlled environment.

[hdood]

Depends on what they hit. But a house isn't under the same load as a skyscraper.

The thing to remember with a skyscraper is that they are pushing the limits of the materials involved. Yes, they are strong structures, they have to be. But they aren't designed to have huge chunks of them to be knocked out and set on fire simultaneously after receiving a massive impact shock. Engineers weren't 757 proofing their structures.

The conspiracy theorists like to treat everything as isolated, when it was actually a series of events that caused the collapse. The planes hit, dislodged fire-proofing (which was already shoddy), damaged some columns, and then spread jet fuel over several floors which set all the interior on fire (which can actually reach over 1800 degrees). Those fires then gradually weakened the steel floors until they pulled the outside wall columns far enough in to fail. At that point they fell, and the maths shows that the floors below could handle at most six floors falling on them. Since more than that fell, the whole building came crumbling down.

[iamawesomewicked]

Comparing a vehicle plowing into a house and a 757/767 flying into a skyscraper is just not a good comparison to make. Cars generally will not blow up on impact with a house.

[Howling Wind]

That youtube video has nothing to do with any games, it's a scientific visualization of the crash. If you actually watched it, you would realise how stupid your claims are.

Doesn't change the fact that using (pulling bricks from a pile) demonstrates anything thing that happened with the twin towers. I never said the twin towers had brick in them.

Every fool knows they were built from steel and concrete.

[iamawesomewicked]

Doesn't change the fact that using (pulling bricks from a pile) demonstrates anything thing that happened with the twin towers. I never said the twin towers had brick in them.

Every fool knows they were built from steel and concrete.

Jenga isnt bricks. It's wooden blocks. It still doesn't make the physics wrong.

[hdood]

Every fool knows they were built from steel and concrete.

They were only steel. There were no other materials used for structural support. The floors had a very thin layer of light concrete to create a floor surface, but this had no structural function. The walls were drywall.

[Billus]

Doesn't change the fact that using (pulling bricks from a pile) demonstrates anything thing that happened with the twin towers. I never said the twin towers had brick in them.

Every fool knows they were built from steel and concrete.

No ****. I'm just saying a 6 year old has a better grasp of physics than you do.

[Solid Knight]

Also, a missile wouldn't level out before impacting the building. It'd hit it from the top. And from the video that'd be one huge missile.

[SyntaxError]

Seriously?

I don't know about all the various materials in the buildings and their highest burn temps, so I'll ignore all of them and focus on the temperature of burning jet fuel in a controlled environment.

Oh so the combination of jet fuel, human body parts, office furniture, computers, carpet, glass, concrete, other metals, and whatever else was there was enough to raise the temp enough to melt structural steel? I don't think so.

A fire is only going to burn as hot as it's most energetic fuel, which is the jet fuel. The only other way to make it burn hotter would be a jet engine or a forge, both use forced air. There was obviously no blacksmithing going on, so that leaves the jet's engines.

Were they still running, even though the planes were in 10 million tiny pieces and their fuel tanks ruptured? Don't think so.

Comparing a vehicle plowing into a house and a 757/767 flying into a skyscraper is just not a good comparison to make. Cars generally will not blow up on impact with a house.

I wasn't the one who mentioned cars crashing into houses. Someone else did that and I simply pointed out that houses don't usually collapse when hit by a car.

Just like buildings don't normally collapse when hit by planes.

Once again, you fail english.

Also, a missile wouldn't level out before impacting the building. It'd hit it from the top.

Not if they wanted to make it look like a plane. Plane or missile, either way if there's nothing to hide, then why hasn't the entire video been released, along with the video from the gas station across the street that the FBI seized immediately after the crash? Not a single frame of that one has been released.

[Howling Wind]

Exactly. So I never said there was "brick" in the twin towers.

Wooden blocks, brick blocks, whatever. You pull bricks out of a pile in the shape of the twin towers they will collapse. But it all depends on which ones you pull out and how many. It's not about the twin tower's collapsing at this point. It's about how. Straight down, slightly sideways or at all? The towers clearly leaned in the beginning yet wound up falling quite suddenly just like a controlled demolition. I'm just pointing that out and I personally DO NOT think the planes alone took the twin towers down. Make of that what you will. Until I have more time to discuss the topic, this will be my last post.

[hdood]

Exactly. So I never said there was "brick" in the twin towers.

Wooden blocks, brick blocks, whatever. You pull bricks out of a pile in the shape of the twin towers they will collapse. But it all depends on which ones you pull out and how many. It's not about the twin tower's collapsing at this point. It's about how. Straight down, slightly sideways or at all? The towers clearly leaned in the beginning yet wound up falling quite suddenly just like a controlled demolition. I'm just pointing that out and I personally DO NOT think the planes alone took the twin towers down. Make of that what you will. Until I have more time to discuss the topic, this will be my last post.

Please read post 140 and 144. The reason it went down has to do with gravity.

[Billus]

Oh so the combination of jet fuel, human body parts, office furniture, computers, carpet, glass, concrete, other metals, and whatever else was there was enough to raise the temp enough to melt structural steel? I don't think so.

Once again, you fail english.

So you're saying that you need molten lava to melt metal? I don't think so.

By the way, it's: Once again, you fail English.