Topic: What do you think about 9/11 mystery? - page 16. (Read 54944 times)

Oh, Spendy. You're so funny^^^.  


US Government Intentionally Destroys 9/11 Evidence







Read a BUNCH more at https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/06/no_author/us-govt-intentionally-destroyed-911-evidence/.

  You mean that the people that were not instantly killed were actually walking around?  Well, that proves they had a few more minutes to live.  Probably also that they were upwind of the fire.  Smoke and poisons from fires incapacitate before people burn to death, incidentally.

Is this all you've got left?  Arguing that some people were walking around, possibly a hundred feet from a fire, and trying to argue that that proves these were not intense fires?

That's pretty ridiculous.

The only way to get jet fuel to burn efficiently in air, is to have a blowtorch effect to add air in sufficient quantities. Since you didn't understand that this is what I was getting at, you easily disqualify yourself as a realistic commenter on the 9/11 subject.



Great. There are some forest fires going in different parts of the country. People walking around in the Towers in the 9/11 inside job were not sufficiently affected by either, the forest fires or the 9/11 fires. How do we know? They were walking around in the Towers. They couldn't have done so if the fires were affecting them. They might have been affected by their fear of the fires, but the fires didn't affect them.

The point? Not enough heat to weaken the Towers sufficiently to bring them down.

Thanks again for helping to prove 9/11 to be an inside job.

You are losing it, buddy. Seems like you gotta be spoon fed the info just to understand.

You mentioned blowtorch and "blowtorch effect." Your words.  Which have no bearing.  Obviously, there were no people walking around in areas too hot to walk around in.  You made up some argument about "water boiling."  For what purpose?  Last I heard a person could walk up to a fire, pretty close. 

Sure, the offices, desks, carpet, drapes, plastic, all that stuff burns in offices will produce a 1000F fire.  Just like a regular wood fire.   It will do it every time, unless someone puts the fires out.

Then why did you bring it up? What can you even be talking about?


Did they have a fireplace for their wood fire in the Towers?


Did they have a fireplace for their wood fire in the Towers?


I'm sure somebody figured out that water boils at 212° at sea level.



Well, you keep talking about stuff in ways that don't apply to 9/11. So, I totally agree with you. You really need to get real about this stuff. But you're fun, even if you don't get serious.

Oh, and btw, thanks again for helping to solidify the fact that 9/11 was an inside job, by not having anything to show that it wasn't.

Nobody said anything about blowtorches.  You make that up?

Just a regular wood fire producing 1000F will reduce steel strength to 20-25%. 

Walking around in heat?  So someone can't walk next to a campfire.

Water boiling heat?   Who made that up?

You need to get real about this stuff.  Ranting and raving and spewing nonsense left and right won't prove up the Trutherisms you want to prove.

Okay, okay. There wasn't any concrete in the buildings. It was all asbestos. LOL!


All that jet fuel that blew out into the air, partially unburned and boiled away, did all that damage, right? Nobody knows how much fuel actually burned. But very little of it, if any, would have burned with blowtorch effect? Why not? No blowtorches. No bellows.

In addition, there are all those people walking around in the heat. People just don't have the ability to walk around in heat that approaches 212°, the boiling point of water. And water-boiling heat is way too little to affect steel beams, steel girders, and "non-concrete" (LOL) especially through asbestos.


If the planes and the fuel were the only things to consider, there might be questions. But there are all the photographs and videos of buildings coming down in ways they couldn't without demolition.

Regarding local combustibles, that's considering buildings that didn't have an unknown amount of combustibles blown out by the force of the explosions, and that were actually known to have burned.

The range for jet fuel is however far someone transports it? What you even talking about?


Again, this isn't proof because there are too many of these factors that have only been guestimated, and might be factors, but aren't facts, couldn't be known to be facts, except by inside job people who had everything calculated out just the way they needed them, to do the demolition job.


And it is even easier to show all the pictures of buildings that are engulfed in flames and don't crash... maybe don't come near crashing. Simply Google "burning buildings."



I didn't forget anything. One gallon of jet fuel in a gallon gas can just sits there. One gallon of jet fuel properly releasing all its nuclear energy might take out an area as large as the whole U.S. - who knows?

In the 9/11 inside job, we simply don't know the conditions of how much of the fuel boiled off without burning, how much of it burned incompletely with great dark billows of smoke, and what tiny amount might have come close to burning efficiently. If the buildings had toppled, there might have been a chance that it wasn't demolition.

What does it matter, about the fuel? All kind of other things show demolition... a 9/11 inside job.

Sez who?  You?  It's very easy to show the calculation that the beams can be weakened by an ordinary fire to the point that the building collapses.   Planes hit buildings, fires start, fires weaken beams, building falls.

We've been through this before and I showed you what one gallon of jet fuel would do.  Guess you've forgotten that?   All that's needed is to get the steel to a temperature of 400-800 F.  Looked at any strength vs temperatures curves for A36 steel lately?

Nope?  Ignore all the relevant facts.
[/quote]

Again, nobody knows how much fuel and heat got into the buildings.

....even burning fuel doesn't penetrate concrete and steel by convection rapidly enough to cause enough weakening to cause this kind of crash.
...
[/quote]Concrete?  Who said anything about concrete?   Rapidly enough?  Sez who?

Some beams were already sheared by the jets impact, some more on the other side are heated by jet fuel and by the office contents burning, not just one but several floors.

I am quite curious.  See bolded above.  Were this true, then you could not be so very certain that the jet fuel and combustibles could not do the job.  In fact you we do know the local combustibles, those have been calculated to about 1 lb per square foot.  And you do know a range for the jet fuel.

The proof that these factors caused the collapse is right in front of you.  It is that similar conditions, impact and fire caused an identical outcome in the second building.  Ordinary fires can easily produce 1000F temperatures. 

It's very easy to show the calculation that the beams can be weakened by an ordinary fire to the point that the building collapses.   Planes hit buildings, fires start, fires weaken beams, building falls.

We've been through this before and I showed you what one gallon of jet fuel would do.  Guess you've forgotten that?   All that's needed is to get the steel to a temperature of 400-800 F.  Looked at any strength vs temperatures curves for A36 steel lately?

Again, nobody knows how much fuel and heat got into the buildings. All the work in the official story is simply speculation. However, even burning fuel doesn't penetrate concrete and steel by convection rapidly enough to cause enough weakening to cause this kind of crash.


Buildings of this size and type simply do not crash this way without demolition:

http://911review.com/attack/wtc/explosions.html

What is there to prove? How do we prove that nobody knows the completely right answer? There is simply no proof in the official story, because as many have shown, there are too many big gaps of information... of things not accounted for.

Buildings of this size and type simply do not crash this way without demolition:

http://911review.com/attack/wtc/explosions.html

The trouble with your argument is that these morons who claim one or another thing should simply be able to prove it.  Time after time, though, simple 8th grade math and physics shows them wrong.  That's their problem, not mine.  My point of view is very simple.  You apply the correct formula, and note what the result is.

It's not exactly something I have control of, what the numbers say.  Not one time have they supported these Truthers' arguments.

To the politicians correct what you have started and make our lives better I am sick of all this
bullshit you create BOOTS ON THE FUCKIN GROUND..To end this bullshit..

THE LAW OF THE JUNGLE IS GETTING WORSE NOT BETTER..So sort it out BIG BOSS..

I am interested in this piece of evidence. Can your provide source of your information?
Is that even remotely true news or it was only a publicity stunt forged by Russian government?

I like how some people are defending the idea of 9/11 being a terrorist attack even though every possible scientific explanations and simulations point to the conclusion that it was an inside job.

Trouble with you is your still stuck in the 8th grade science department..
Did you miss 9 10 11 and so on?
I know your quite smart so stop making yourself look like a DICK
Best for you to withdraw from the conversation you remind me of Badecker with his religion..
YOUR MAKING PEOPLE DO MORE RESEARCH TO PROVE YOU WRONG..NOT WISE..
Anyone with a brain knows it was an inside job..

IN FACT OUR WHOLE LIVES ARE RUN BY AN INSIDE JOB
TO MANY POLITICIANS WHO ARE ROBBING THE TAX PAYER ALL OVER THE WORLD..
When a politician gets in power there intentions are good at first BUT once they see the money they can make they do it no matter what or who gets hurt as long as there family and friends don't get hurt..

To Mr trump good job you got the poles to do the building work on your building because it seems the yanks build terrible buildings ..
Also it seems the Arabs can build better buildings than USA workers seem to withstand fire better..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzA3RzJ6wyM..
ANOTHER BETTER STONGER BUILDING BY ARABS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNU3SaU1A4Y
Just as the fire started notice it started at the bottom so more weight to hold at the top so more chance to collapse steel got more weight to hold if it melts at bottom..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PbHMbs4PBk
Now after the fire do you notice something can anybody say what it is..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmrmlJcDOuQ...
You say WHAT it's still standing..
And building 7 in new York city came down because of fire..

Now if i was you Mr trump never get a yank to build your wall it might blow up with petrol and office items..Get the poles they work for cheap and they under cut everyone good workers FACT..
BAD BUILDERS USA WORKERS..
No wonder all your companies are moving BAD WORKERS
Also be careful who builds your bombs you yanks might blow your own planes up

SO ARE YOUR BUILDINGS SO BAD?..I LEAVE THE ANSWER TO YOU USA CONSTRUCTION WORKERS..

Sez who?  You?  It's very easy to show the calculation that the beams can be weakened by an ordinary fire to the point that the building collapses.   Planes hit buildings, fires start, fires weaken beams, building falls.

We've been through this before and I showed you what one gallon of jet fuel would do.  Guess you've forgotten that?   All that's needed is to get the steel to a temperature of 400-800 F.  Looked at any strength vs temperatures curves for A36 steel lately?

Nope?  Ignore all the relevant facts.

The Towers came down after they sat there for a while after the planes flew into them. This means that there is more to it than the simplicity of the Towers coming down because the planes flew into them.

Again, the fires were not sufficient to cause the buildings to fall, even in their weakened conditions. People were walking around in the little bit of heat that there was. Not enough heat to do anything.


Can't change any facts that are unknown, one way or another. And that is the exact thing we are attempting to find here... the facts. We know it wasn't the plane crashes themselves. We know it wasn't the heat. All that is left is demolition.


Insurance company stuff is for the public eye. Nobody knows what deals were made behind the scenes.


What? LOL! They were walking around after they jumped to their deaths? How absurd can you get?


But they were walking around. How many guys did you have to call to get some of this garbage you are trying to show?



In everything you always say about this, you start out assuming that the official story is truth. If you can't back away and ask questions and look at answers from the standpoint of not knowing, you are simply trying to push an idea, and cover for someone.

Oh, and thanks again for helping to support the 9/11 demolition/inside job idea.

Unfortunately, the evidence is that the towers came down after the planes flew into them.  This indicates that the towers were not capable of withstanding the impact and the fire of that exact plane, speed and fuel load.  Simple as that.

Now, can you refute this by arguing #1?  Nope.  For two reasons.  First, the test scenarios used were different.  As always, an engineering test is a very specific test.   For example, is a safe "Fireproof?"  

No, of course not.  A safe might be rated for 15 minutes, or 30 minutes at a certain temperature.  But you'd like to ignore that, and extend the SIMULATED (using 1960s technology, too) design testing to the glib, broad statement "The Towers were designed to handle planes crashing into them."

That's changing the facts to support your predetermined hypothesis.  That's what Truthers do, of course.  

Of course, you seem to think that you can blindly assert that the "Engineers were right" but then the "Insurance companies were all wrong" when they looked into insurance fraud.  You don't have any facts on this, you just blindly assert it.  I believe they both could be right or wrong, but certainly you've misrepresented the facts on the testing and design verification of the structure.  Basically, you are lying when you assert certainty.

Then you'd like to try to argue that there "were people walking around."  But you neglect to cite that they were walking around before they jumped to their death.  Therefore, there was fire pretty close to them.  Your design to bind the facts to your scheme blindly is telling.  For example, weren't they walking around on the upwind side, where the wind was coming in?  Again, you seem to be lying by modifying the facts to support your Truther viewpoint.

A good conspiracy theory really shouldn't require lying to support it, should it?  As an example, I don't know of anyone who has discussed the JFK killing who has had to lie to assert a point.  Zero.  Nada.  Zip.  Nunca.

Yeah, there were some  400+ jews killed.  Which pretty much tracks with the NY population being 10-15% Jewish.  5 identified Israeli citizens were killed.   As for the Israeli citizens, not sure that means much of anything.

The rumor that you mentioned about the IM, I don't have data to state that it was Arab propaganda, but it was certainly reported and propagated by one of the big Muslim newspapers.  Of course they promote all kinds of anti-Jewish anti-Israel stuff, because their audience laps it up.
The nature of propaganda is that it self propagates, of course, so all propaganda is "unintentional" by the naive, gullible propagators....

If Silverstein is such a good Jew, then he knows that in the Tanakh, Solomon is recorded as saying, "He who loves money never has money enough." This is why he has people like you, working to keep the sheeple from finding out that, "He who loves money never has money enough."

I suspect that Silverstein DOES care about people to a great extent. But he got himself into a bad deal, and it was, "play the thing through, or be terminated," by those with even more power and money than he. The fact that he tried to get as many people out of harm's way is a noble notable thing. The fact that he saved his own financial skin by letting a bunch of people die, throws all his noble notability under the bus.

James in the Bible says at James 2:5-7:
Maybe you should check into Silverstein a little more before you start bragging about his greatness. Oh, but you can't, can you? He would stop paying you if you did that. Worse, his henchmen (or those of his bosses) just might give you something undesirable to remember him by.



EDIT: But I really have to thank you, again, for helping to show that 9/11 was an inside job.