mudslag Posted April 23, 2010 Share Posted April 23, 2010 Gravity and the inability to withstand the force of the upper floors slamming into the lower floors explains the free fall. The molten steel was a result of the fires that continued to burn deep within the rubble. This has been verified by numerous individuals who worked on disposing of the rubble. While I agree there are some questionable answers, that doesnt mean there is automatically a conspiracy behind it. Just throwing this out there, but because no samples of the so called molten steel were made available (No s1k3sT I wont take a conspiracy site as proof), isnt it possible the molten material could have been a number of other materials from the building? Its not like steel was the only metal in or around the building after all. It's the closet you'll get to an admission of defeat. pretty much Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s1k3sT Posted April 23, 2010 Author Share Posted April 23, 2010 Gravity and the inability to withstand the force of the upper floors slamming into the lower floors explains the free fall. The molten steel was a result of the fires that continued to burn deep within the rubble. This has been verified by numerous individuals who worked on disposing of the rubble. Simple physics say that if there is resistance the building wont fall at free fall speeds. Regular fires cannot explain molten steel, only a controlled burn, such as thermite, could explain molten steel. Speaking of thermite, this link explains in simple terms how thermite couldn't have occurred coincidentally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihilus Posted April 23, 2010 Share Posted April 23, 2010 Simple physics say that if there is resistance the building wont fall at free fall speeds. Regular fires cannot explain molten steel, only a controlled burn, such as thermite, could explain molten steel. Speaking of thermite, this link explains in simple terms how thermite couldn't have occurred coincidentally. http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm Again, read above or use google. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mudslag Posted April 23, 2010 Share Posted April 23, 2010 Simple physics say that if there is resistance the building wont fall at free fall speeds. Regular fires cannot explain molten steel, only a controlled burn, such as thermite, could explain molten steel. Speaking of thermite, this link explains in simple terms how thermite couldn't have occurred coincidentally. I disagree with this statement, the "resistance" you speak of was taken out by a BIG ASS PLANE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s1k3sT Posted April 23, 2010 Author Share Posted April 23, 2010 http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm Again, read above or use google. Why don't you read mine? I read the site you linked to forever ago, it's some lame conspiracy theory site... Read this about thermite. I disagree with this statement, the "resistance" you speak of was taken out by a BIG ASS PLANE You think the whole structure of the building was compromised by a single plane?! LOL, that's the kookiest conspiracy theory I've ever heard... Even if you believe it ruined the part it hit where was the resistance for the rest of the uninjured building?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mudslag Posted April 23, 2010 Share Posted April 23, 2010 Why don't you read mine? I read the site you linked to forever ago, it's some lame conspiracy theory site... Read this about thermite. LMAO vs you lame ass conspiracy theory site? L O Fing L You think the whole structure of the building was compromised by a single plane?! LOL, that's the kookiest conspiracy theory I've ever heard... Even if you believe it ruined the part it hit where was the resistance for the rest of the uninjured building?! Yes ignore the fact that multiple floors were compromised :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solid Knight Posted April 23, 2010 Share Posted April 23, 2010 Oh yeah, Jim Hoffman, the software engineer turned demolitions expert. So you're saying what would have really happened is that when multiple damaged floors collapsed the portion of the building above the damaged floor would have just settled neatly on the undamaged floors below now collapsed damaged floors? Remember F = MA. When the thousands of tons dropped on the floors below they accelerated which in turn increased their "weight". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s1k3sT Posted April 23, 2010 Author Share Posted April 23, 2010 Yes ignore the fact that multiple floors were compromised :rolleyes: Yes ignore the fact that not all the floors were compromised yet there was no resistance :rolleyes: Oh yeah, Jim Hoffman, the software engineer turned demolitions expert. Oh yeah, debunking911.com, the something something turned demolitions expert. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Rev Posted April 23, 2010 Share Posted April 23, 2010 I just think it's very 1984 like to call someone a conspiracy theorist when they are pointing out that they don't believe a certain conspiracy theory, and that worries me! LOL, when did I say to not reply? I'm just trying to understand why I'm labeled a conspiracy theorist for saying I don't believe a certain conspiracy theory (the official explanation for 9/11). Because the official story isn't considered a theory, but fact? I mean, we know these people were on the planes, we know they have ties to Bin Laden..... Gosh, u think these Al Queda men were just in the wrong place at the wrong time? You think it was a coincidence that one of the "alleged" hijackers didn't care to learn how to LAND a plane when he was taking flying lessons in a US flight school? Those poor terrorists..... They were just trying to get back to their homeland so they could be with their comrades, and some white american *******S interrupted their plans, made them die for the americans' twisted Christian cause, and somehow managed to divert ALL blame from themselves and onto the Al Queda assoicates.... Yeah, MUCH more believeable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mudslag Posted April 23, 2010 Share Posted April 23, 2010 Yes ignore the fact that not all the floors were compromised yet there was no resistance :rolleyes: Um duh not all the floors were compromised, the plane didnt hit all floors. The floors that were hit were the compromised ones, feel free to add another couple of floors from the fire moving around. Doesnt take a lot of smarts to figure out that if you take out floors 77-85 of a 110 story building, the rest of the upper floors weight will begin to have an affect on the lower compromised floors. The rest is pretty Duh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solid Knight Posted April 23, 2010 Share Posted April 23, 2010 Yes ignore the fact that not all the floors were compromised yet there was no resistance :rolleyes: Because you were in the building measuring it, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SyntaxError Posted April 23, 2010 Share Posted April 23, 2010 It's the closet you'll get to an admission of defeat. I admit nothing, defeat or success. I'm simply saying everyone in this thread is completely and utterly retarded, myself included, for arguing something that will never be proven either way. Here are the only facts: 1. No one on this board is qualified for any sort of debunking or investigation into this matter. 2. The real facts will most likely never be known, despite what anyone thinks. 3. Any url posted here will most likely be a conspiracy site, instantly making it's info suspect. 4. None of us will ever change the mind of someone on the "other side." 5. This thread and others like it are completely pointless. 6. No one can possibly win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihilus Posted April 23, 2010 Share Posted April 23, 2010 Why don't you read mine? I read the site you linked to forever ago, it's some lame conspiracy theory site... Read this about thermite. That is not a peer reviewed paper, and the authors writing it have made money publishing their findings in books. If their results are trustworthy, why are they not peer reviewed? And why has no one else been able to come to the same conclusions? Why has no one else found and run an analysis on these chips in the rubble? Sounds like profiteering to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s1k3sT Posted April 23, 2010 Author Share Posted April 23, 2010 Oh yeah, Jim Hoffman, the software engineer turned demolitions expert. So you're saying what would have really happened is that when multiple damaged floors collapsed the portion of the building above the damaged floor would have just settled neatly on the undamaged floors below now collapsed damaged floors? Remember F = MA. When the thousands of tons dropped on the floors below they accelerated which in turn increased their "weight". Don't try using strawman crap on me, obviously the damaged floors wouldn't "just settled neatly". I want to know how a collapse accelerates without explosives removing the structural support. This is the first time in history such a crazy thing has happened, and everyone keeps conveniently forgetting about building 7 that DIDN'T get hit by a plane! That is not a peer reviewed paper, and the authors writing it have made money publishing their findings in books. If their results are trustworthy, why are they not peer reviewed? And why has no one else been able to come to the same conclusions? Why has no one else found and run an analysis on these chips in the rubble? Sounds like profiteering to me. The site you linked to wasn't peer reviewed either. You want peer reviewed? Here. Tons of people have been running tests, just don't expect the msm to tell you about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solid Knight Posted April 23, 2010 Share Posted April 23, 2010 Don't try using strawman crap on me, obviously the damaged floors wouldn't "just settled neatly". I want to know how a collapse accelerates without explosives removing the structural support. This is the first time in history such a crazy thing has happened, and everyone keeps conveniently forgetting about building 7 that DIDN'T get hit by a plane! Here's how it happened. When the damaged floors gave out for reasons stated above the upper portion of the building fell onto of the lower portion which is the equivalent of me jumping on an empty coke can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamawesomewicked Posted April 23, 2010 Share Posted April 23, 2010 Simple physics say that if there is resistance the building wont fall at free fall speeds. Regular fires cannot explain molten steel, only a controlled burn, such as thermite, could explain molten steel. Speaking of thermite, this link explains in simple terms how thermite couldn't have occurred coincidentally. Wait.. did you just say Thermite was "controlled burn"? Wow.. Go read some science books. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihilus Posted April 23, 2010 Share Posted April 23, 2010 Why don't you read mine? I read the site you linked to forever ago, it's some lame conspiracy theory site... Read this about thermite. You think the whole structure of the building was compromised by a single plane?! LOL, that's the kookiest conspiracy theory I've ever heard... Even if you believe it ruined the part it hit where was the resistance for the rest of the uninjured building?! The building wasn't in free fall. Yes ignore the fact that not all the floors were compromised yet there was no resistance :rolleyes: Oh yeah, debunking911.com, the something something turned demolitions expert. There was resistance, the building didn't collapse in free fall. I admit nothing, defeat or success. I'm simply saying everyone in this thread is completely and utterly retarded, myself included, for arguing something that will never be proven either way. Here are the only facts: 1. No one on this board is qualified for any sort of debunking or investigation into this matter. 2. The real facts will most likely never be known, despite what anyone thinks. 3. Any url posted here will most likely be a conspiracy site, instantly making it's info suspect. 4. None of us will ever change the mind of someone on the "other side." 5. This thread and others like it are completely pointless. 6. No one can possibly win. True, but some of the crap you get running around on the net bugs me. Large numbers of biased/mentally unstable people getting together and coming up with theories free from peer review, free from judgment or verification by any real experts is slightly worrying. If not dangerous. Especially when you then get these theories published by the media, and thanks to the wonderful way the human mind works once someone reads a conspiracy theory in the news no matter how thoroughly it is debunked afterward they are still inclined to continue believing in it. Heh, like those people still arguing you can't date the earth with carbon dating >< No matter how many times it is explained to them, they just don't get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mudslag Posted April 23, 2010 Share Posted April 23, 2010 Don't try using strawman crap on me, obviously the damaged floors wouldn't "just settled neatly". I want to know how a collapse accelerates without explosives removing the structural support. This is the first time in history such a crazy thing has happened, and everyone keeps conveniently forgetting about building 7 that DIDN'T get hit by a plane! Also the first time in history that someone ran a fully fueled 767 at 500+mph into a building. First time for everything Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s1k3sT Posted April 23, 2010 Author Share Posted April 23, 2010 Because you were in the building measuring it, right? No, because I have a brain. The plane is tiny compared to the whole building, even if the plane was somehow facing straight up and down there is no way in hell it could compromise all the floors! What's the tower about 10 times taller at least? How does every floor get compromised? You conspiracy theorists crack me up... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billus Posted April 23, 2010 Share Posted April 23, 2010 I admit nothing, defeat or success. I'm simply saying everyone in this thread is completely and utterly retarded, myself included, for arguing something that will never be proven either way. Here are the only facts: 1. No one on this board is qualified for any sort of debunking or investigation into this matter. 2. The real facts will most likely never be known, despite what anyone thinks. 3. Any url posted here will most likely be a conspiracy site, instantly making it's info suspect. 4. None of us will ever change the mind of someone on the "other side." 5. This thread and others like it are completely pointless. 6. No one can possibly win. Obviously, you can't win. The real facts, or majority of the real facts are already out there. To sum it up very briefly: terrorists hijacked the plane and crashed it into a building/s, the building/s collapsed under the sheer force of several sources (plane, explosions, heat, weight of building etc) and many innocent people died. American and their Allies went to war to fight terrorism. I suppose the London bombings (7/7), Bali and others were also conspiracies. Get your head out of your arse. Seriously, what else do you need to know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s1k3sT Posted April 23, 2010 Author Share Posted April 23, 2010 Also the first time in history that someone ran a fully fueled 767 at 500+mph into a building. First time for everything So, how do you explain building 7? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihilus Posted April 23, 2010 Share Posted April 23, 2010 Don't try using strawman crap on me, obviously the damaged floors wouldn't "just settled neatly". I want to know how a collapse accelerates without explosives removing the structural support. This is the first time in history such a crazy thing has happened, and everyone keeps conveniently forgetting about building 7 that DIDN'T get hit by a plane! The site you linked to wasn't peer reviewed either. You want peer reviewed? Here. Tons of people have been running tests, just don't expect the msm to tell you about it. The collapse didn't occur at free fall speeds, there is no peer reviewed paper explaining how the building didn't collapse in that way because no body needs one. No one has ever made a passable case that the building collapsed without any resistance. Reading that second link now, looks slightly more promising. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mudslag Posted April 23, 2010 Share Posted April 23, 2010 No, because I have a brain. The plane is tiny compared to the whole building, even if the plane was somehow facing straight up and down there is no way in hell it could compromise all the floors! What's the tower about 10 times taller at least? How does every floor get compromised? You conspiracy theorists crack me up... Why do you keep bring up "compromise all the floors"? All floors were not compromised, they didnt need to be for the upper weight of the building to come crashing down on the rest of the building, bring the rest of it down with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solid Knight Posted April 23, 2010 Share Posted April 23, 2010 No, because I have a brain. The plane is tiny compared to the whole building, even if the plane was somehow facing straight up and down there is no way in hell it could compromise all the floors! What's the tower about 10 times taller at least? How does every floor get compromised? You conspiracy theorists crack me up... Fail. What makes you think the plane has to compromise all the floors? Why can't it knock out the the middle and use the weight of the upper floors to slam into the lower floors causing the whole structure to fall down. It was the weight of the upper floors that caused the entire building to collapse. The plane and the fire just destroyed the floors in the middle. Make a tower out of playing cards. Knock out the middle. Watch the whole thing collapse. But like, OMG, you didn't knock out all the floors! You only knocked out the middle. Why did the whole thing collapse? Because the bottom of the structure wasn't strong enough to withstand the force of the upper part of the structure falling on it. Again, like jumping on an empty can of Coke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s1k3sT Posted April 23, 2010 Author Share Posted April 23, 2010 Why do you keep bring up "compromise all the floors"? All floors were not compromised. Then the building shouldn't have fallen at free fall speed, but they did. At the very least you have to admit there is something funny with building 7. It has been proven to have fallen at free fall speed and it wasn't even hit by a plane! Fail. What makes you think the plane has to compromise all the floors? Why can't it knock out the the middle and use the weight of the upper floors to slam into the lower floors causing the whole structure to fall down. It was the weight of the upper floors that caused the entire building to collapse. The plane and the fire just destroyed the floors in the middle. Make a tower out of playing cards. Knock out the middle. Watch the whole thing collapse. But like, OMG, you didn't knock out all the floors! You only knocked out the middle. Why did the whole thing collapse? Because the bottom of the structure wasn't strong enough to withstand the force of the upper part of the structure falling on it. Again, like jumping on an empty can of Coke. I was talking about the free fall collapse. The fail is on you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts