i can't get into this too much because i don't know what what the hell i'm talking about… but what would burn? the jet fuel would be gone pretty quickly and there's nothing else that can burn with any degree of destruction.
This has already been proven by engineers. Why is it so hard to believe?
Conspiracy theories are born out of lack of understanding.
Interesting interview with one of the fire chiefs on scene. He said that they noticed that WTC 7 was bulging in one of the corners and they anticipated the collapse.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html
Great read. It must have seemed like Armageddon down there. I wonder if anyone got pictures of the bulge in building 7.
This has already been proven by engineers. Why is it so hard to believe?
Conspiracy theories are born out of lack of understanding.
That is not entirely true in this case. There is still a lot of confusion about 9/11 otherwise you would not have a group of architects and engineers disputing the official story.
Kinda like how there's a bunch of "scientists" refuting global warming? :lol:
Kinda like how there's a bunch of "scientists" refuting global warming? :lol:
Actually, exactly. It took over 20 years of study to slowly sway the scientific community on global warming.
Conspiracy theories are born out of lack of understanding.
Conversely, they are born out of lack of answers.
protect tom mcdonald at all costs
Interesting interview with one of the fire chiefs on scene. He said that they noticed that WTC 7 was bulging in one of the corners and they anticipated the collapse.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html
Do you know or anyone else know what the contents of WTC 7 was? That's an integral part of the "conspiracy".
protect tom mcdonald at all costs
Conversely, they are born out of lack of answers.
oh you mean facts that wingnuts refuse to believe?
i can't get into this too much because i don't know what what the hell i'm talking about… but what would burn? the jet fuel would be gone pretty quickly and there's nothing else that can burn with any degree of destruction.
and this idea the jet fuel burns at some ridiculous temperature melting gigantic iron beams is also questionable. It burns at 410F according to wiki. I roast my brussel sprouts at that temp.
I mean it's just perplexing. Simple logical analysis of the situation never leads to the clean implosion of two 110 story buildings. Plus a never explained third building.
Jet fuel may ignites at 210 deg C but it has a very high specific energy, that's what does the damage. If the fuel is pulverized properly, it can be ignited easily by any spark which were without doubt produced bythe crash.
Another point.
There weren't only steel and concrete. The building (and the planes) had casing in- and outside, which burns easier than steel and concrete. So it wasn't just those two that burnt.
a fireman roomey told me that concrete will still burn
I guess this makes me a wingnut, but I still have questions. What caused the molten steel? How did the top section (pile driver) fall at near freefall speed while crushing the concrete and steel below it?
Pretty sure the Popular Mechanics issue that debunked all the myths listed those, if not, the designer of the building did.
I guess this makes me a wingnut, but I still have questions. What caused the molten steel? How did the top section (pile driver) fall at near freefall speed while crushing the concrete and steel below it?
Freefall: http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm
Molten steel: http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm
That website is almost as bad as the 911-conspiracy websites themselves, but you get the idea.
oh you mean facts that wingnuts refuse to believe?
I give credit to both sides of the "story". Its not so much refusal to believe, just hard to believe. Everything is far too coincidental to believe from the "official" story.
Things like NORAD running the same defense simulation on the same day as the attack. Firefighter reports of explosions in the buildings. A university seismology dept reading that shows 2 readings around 2.2 on the richter, which were not at the same time as the buildings fell but just before. The "plane" that hit the Pentagon. WTC 7 being an FBI document repository as well as most of the terrorists on board those flights being alive today.
But ya, its all coincidental b/c thats the way all those large buildings were supposed to fall in the event of planes flying into them. I'll just stop now b/c I'm obviously too dumb to know any better and think for myself ;)
protect tom mcdonald at all costs
lol to believe the official story is way crazier than questioning it
(not saying it was drones, but the official story has way too many holes in it, as much as it might inconvience the wayne p's of the world
this space is intentionally blank, other than this note about it being blank.
Forum jump:
