Re: World trade center video
Quote:
Originally Posted by GepperRankins
you might wanna read up on the thread about the fact that the fires were out,
Where did you read such tripe?
The fires were most definitely not "out".
I would have thought your morbid fascination with such things would have revealed that this could not possibly be true...
the heat jet fuel burns doesn't melt steel,
Not familiar with any aspect at all of that phenomenon known to the rest of us as "heat" eh?
It was plenty sufficient to cause the metal to sag, which was all that was required.
Your supposition ignores anything already there the jet fuel might have ignited, too, but that is exactly the type of basic mistake you continually make, Dave.
other buildings have burned for weeks and not collapsed,
Oh, yes-all those other buildings just like the WTC on WTC row in NYC, all built with the same physical characteristics and construction technologies as the WTC that were hit by planes...yes, it is a structural engineer's favorite demolition exercise, known to all in the field.
The WTC's construction was a first of it's kind, Dave.
Just in case no one ever informed you of the fact.
the blasts seen (and caught on photo) coming out of the building below where the planes hit...
...were not blasts at all.
You have allowed yourself to be misled; I can't put it any more simply.
and many other reasons why what you just said falls flat on it's face.
Not even close, Dave.
Rat:
With all due respect, your theory doesn't hold water, either.
A building a quarter-mile high will fall quite quickly if compromised as the WTC was; it you've viewed the film as many times as I have, the slightness in the difference in the speed at which the building and the attendent and adjacent debris fell is of no consequence whatsoever, no matter what the conspiracy.
Air is not like water, especially when the "air" is mostly concrete and steel.
Re: World trade center video
Quote:
Originally Posted by Withcheese
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Alright.
I have been more-or-less absent from the board lately, not only because of the latest "missing threads/pilfered password" debacle, but because of my disgust at the direction of this thread and the defective thought-processes which allow people to entertain wild, conspiratorial and stupid speculations such the one evinced above.
That anyone would prefer to believe such easily-debunked drivel is beyond me, but there it is.
My own favorite and resident conspiracy theorist (quoted^) says, without any qualifying evidence, that metal buildings cannot be significantly damaged by fire, and for such a building to collapse would absolutely require carefully placed explosive charges throughout.
Well, here's the stupid-simple explanation for that which has so profoundly baffled you all and leads you so wildly astray:
The inner girders which spanned and tied together the outer skeleton of the WTC were sprayed (during construction) with a fire and heat resistant retardant which should have been sufficient to withstand any normally anticipated fire event, however not one which also involved a 500+ MPH impact, courtesy of a terrorist piloting several hundred tons of airliner and carrying many thousands of gallons of jet fuel.
What actually resulted is so simple even you should be able to understand it, Dave.
The impact literally blasted the insulation from the beams, exposing them to the heat of the fires, depleting their temper and causing them to sag under the weight of the intact structure above the impact area.
The beams eventually gave way at the points they fastened to the outer skeleton, allowing the upper floors to fall through the impact area relatively unfettered and continue downward with the resultant "pancake" effect causing the outward trajectory of glass and concrete, etc., that you inanely ascribe to explosive charges.
In any case I'd think you and all the other conspiracy-mongers here would have tumbled to the rather obvious fact that, for your idiotic scenario to be feasible, the points at which the two collapses were to begin would have had to be known beforehand by the pilots of the hijacked planes (for aiming purposes, you see), and, if that were the case, both pilots would most likely have hit each tower at precisely the same altitude and attitude.
The second impact is the best refutation of your cockeyed "theory", as the plane's trajectory, relative to the first impact, must be considered as wildly imprecise.
Lastly, the correct deduction is cemented firmly by the fact that the south tower collapsed first, due to no other reason than that the impact area was significantly lower than the first, causing the greater weight above the impact point to be brought to bear sooner.
I believe your argument is in shambles, unless you would now care to posit that your "explosive charges" were placed and energized post-impact...
And just think-I didn't have to google a thing.
It's an interesting rebuttal but, surely, you could have managed it without the childish insults. No wonder people have fun deleting your posts...
Cheese, I'm quite sure, were you the one posting this pish, you could have presented it and your emphases without that particular style which provokes me.
Consider my response tailored specifically to the participants I have offended with my remarks, for I did indeed intend to offend them, and not you.
I take your point, but without any guilt whatsoever.
If I had summoned the nerve to similarly question the events of 7/7 to young Dave, perhaps you have him on the carpet just now, eh?
Re: World trade center video
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Air is not like water, especially when the "air" is mostly concrete and steel.
[/COLOR][/I]
Are you saying that the debris "outside of the building" was not actually in free fall as we have been led to believe.
Feck, you'll be suggesting that some of it may have been the subject of upward forces next. Something like the air being forced back up, or turbulance, or some other such mad talk.
Grow up man, there were explosives strategically placed, by the US Government, in one of it's principal financial centres. It's the only sensible explanation.
Re: World trade center video
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Air is not like water, especially when the "air" is mostly concrete and steel.
[/COLOR][/I]
Are you saying that the debris "outside of the building" was not actually in free fall as we have been led to believe.
Feck, you'll be suggesting that some of it may have been the subject of upward forces next. Something like the air being forced back up, or turbulance, or some other such mad talk.
Grow up man, there were explosives strategically placed, by the US Government, in one of it's principal financial centres. It's the only sensible explanation.
That's it, then.
I'm convinced. :P
Re: World trade center video
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Odd, wouldn't you say, that nobody apart from we two is so afflicted with reason and sense? ;)
l resent that, you're not the only one here to oppose the conspiracy theories, it didn't take you long to climb back aboard your high horse, did it?
Re: World trade center video
Quote:
Originally Posted by whypikonme
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Odd, wouldn't you say, that nobody apart from we two is so afflicted with reason and sense? ;)
l resent that, you're not the only one here to oppose the conspiracy theories, it didn't take you long to climb back aboard your high horse, did it?
You will always find me astride a taller horse; it is my choice of moral steed.
I have not been off her since I joined this hellhole, and it is for that reason I am periodically absented, I imagine-however you would have to consult the culprit to be sure. ;)
Re: World trade center video
Quote:
Originally Posted by whypikonme
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Odd, wouldn't you say, that nobody apart from we two is so afflicted with reason and sense? ;)
l resent that, you're not the only one here to oppose the conspiracy theories...
Ah, yes...forgot my manners for a cyber-moment-I hereby openly recognize your distinct and unmistakable rejection of the conspiracies presented in this thread. ;)
Mea maxima culpa. :)
Re: World trade center video
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Quote:
Originally Posted by whypikonme
l resent that, you're not the only one here to oppose the conspiracy theories...
Ah, yes...forgot my manners for a cyber-moment-
I hereby openly recognize your distinct and unmistakable rejection of the conspiracies presented in this thread. ;)
Mea maxima culpa. :)
I, as well, don't subscribe to these theories (except the Pennsylvania crash but I came to that conclusion by my lonesome). However, I don't discount everything either. Some of these theories do sound far-fetched.
Re: World trade center video
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Ah, yes...forgot my manners for a cyber-moment-I hereby openly recognize your distinct and unmistakable rejection of the conspiracies presented in this thread. ;)
Mea maxima culpa. :)
I, as well, don't subscribe to these theories (except the Pennsylvania crash but I came to that conclusion by my lonesome). However, I don't discount everything either. Some of these theories do sound far-fetched.
Your exception is noted also.
I should also apologize to our Dave, as I only identified him (among several others) by name in my post.
It was rude of me.
Rat gets nothing, 'cuz he was just wishy-washy. ;)
Re: World trade center video
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
I, as well, don't subscribe to these theories (except the Pennsylvania crash but I came to that conclusion by my lonesome). However, I don't discount everything either. Some of these theories do sound far-fetched.
Your exception is noted also.
Why thank you kind sir.
I feel better now and can go to sleep. I'm sitting here falling asleep on my music equipment and haven't belted out anything new in the last 30 minutes.
I keep letting the same loop play that I've recorded over and over and ov....
