A very interesting question Joe. I would suggest maybe to keep the heat from travelling through the metal and sparking fires on the other floors. But I am just guessing. My deduction might be wrong.

If fire has no weakening effect on metal, why do cars have cooling systems?

I think it's all a big scam orchestrated by the jews who manufacture auto "coolant".

Tomorrow everyone should go out and drain the "coolant" out of their cars before driving to work. That'll teach a lesson to the jews who own Prestone.

Coolant in auto engines ties in somehow,huh? Well, it's a crazy, jewy world we live in, isn't it? Since the inception of post-9-11 physics we must all worry about our barbeque pits collapsing to the ground in a pile of smoldering rubble and molten steel under the effects of the lighter fluid we used to start the charcoal.

If fire has no weakening effect on metal, why do cars have cooling systems?

I think it's all a big scam orchestrated by the jews who manufacture auto "coolant".

Tomorrow everyone should go out and drain the "coolant" out of their cars before driving to work. That'll teach a lesson to the jews who own Prestone.

Originally Posted by Joe Snuffy
Why do they fire proof the steel support structure in these skyscrapers if fire has no weakening effect on it as you guys say?

Anyone care to answer this besides the one who already did, or tried to.

Steel and all metals are considerably weakened at temperature far
below the Melting Point of the material.
In a chimney type structure like the WTC and a mixture of not only
Jet fuel, but the hydrocarbon gassing from plastics, office furniture,
carprts,ect; the heat would be far aboue the open air burnning
of Jet fuel.
You can put a candle in warm water and then bend it, no need to
Melt it to remove its shear strength. The same is for steel.

If one floor would fail and fall on the one below,then that floor
would also fail and falland so one down to ground level.

My dear Fissle, I know throwing yourself fully behind the official story recounted by the jews and their sg's in power has sort of left you standing in the corner where you must clutch at straws to stay a float. But hey, hey, it's okay buddy. It is a lesson for us all to look before we leap, place our toe in the water first as it were.

But you're among friends. We don't always have to present ourselves in terms of certainties. There is no shame at all in presenting yourself as having an open and inquiring mind. In fact it enchances one's reputation rather than diminishing it. How's about we give it a try. What do you say?

Oh, and I just remembered engines have moving parts. Silly me.

You've never satisfactorily explained yourselves either.

Yeah we have. We explained ourselves over and over. Now we tell you that the debate is finished, over and over.

Why are you still here then?
Personally, I agree with Mr Linder that:

No rational man can doubt that the WTC buildings were blown up after watching this video. It's about an hour.

BTW, did you watch the video? What did you think of it?

Are you a rational mensch, Hatey?

Yeah we have. We explained ourselves over and over. Now we tell you that the debate is finished, over and over.

Coolant in auto engines ties in somehow,huh? Well, it's a crazy, jewy world we live in, isn't it? Since the inception of post-9-11 physics we must all worry about our barbeque pits collapsing to the ground in a pile of rubble under the effects of the lighter fluid we used to start the charcoal.

Flames on your gas bareque are a dam sight hotter than the black smoke oxygen starved kerosine fire in the WTC on 911. But heat inside the combustion chamber of a modern turbocharged piston motor is infinitely hotter. The steel piston rings don't melt even when subjected to an explosion comparable to a hand grenade, in an extremely confined space many thousand times a minute.

The shills are grasping at straws.

Yeah we have. We explained ourselves over and over. Now we tell you that the debate is finished, over and over.

Obviously, the validity of this inquiry has left you and Fissle too far behind to understand what we are talking about.

Either catch up, or go find something else to blabber about.

Your monotonous invalid points are not conducive to the atmosphere of this thread, which is to combine knowledge and valid reasoning in attempts to understand all the implications of 911.

In short, you are ceaselessly arguing that the Earth is flat, while we are stating that the Earth, in truth, has to be round, whether we have all the facts yet or not.

If one floor would fail and fall on the one below,then that floor would also fail and fall and so on, down to ground level.

But at what speed?

One floor collapsing onto another would be met with RESISTANCE. That's what the BYU Professor and others are on about. They say if I were to have pushed a GRAND PIANO off the North WTC Tower at the same moment in time the South WTC began its descent, the Grand Piano and the South Tower would have hit the ground at almost exactly the same time!

The Physics guys say that simply defies belief and could only be explained by the RESISTANCE having been removed with many, many demolition charges. That 'pancake' theory is discredited bullshit.

I'm well aware that to even begin thinking that YOUR GOVERNMENT did this is extremely disturbing. If you're going to hang your hat on something make sure it's solid.

Here's roughly what may have happened:

1) There were NO ARABS anywhere, it's all bullshit to divert attention from the real culprits. Osama was asleep in a Cave when it happened. Arabs can't fly 767's and Arabs can't turn off NORAD F14's. Period. Game over.

2) The WTC Planes were 'decoys' remotely piloted and were the conjurer's magic diversionary trick. While everyone was looking UP saying, 'ooohhh and aahhh', Izzy and his helpers were DOWN somewhere else with remote controls to detonate the many explosive charges that brought down the mighty structures.

3) The 'Pentagon' Plane was what the official fairy tale says it was, Flt77 and it did carry passengers, all were identified by an Army autopsy which, curiously, found no trace of the FIVE Arabs supposed to have been aboard.

4) If that's true, then Flt77 must have been an Aircraft which had been fitted with remote control making it 'hijack proof' so the pilot couldn't overide it. This would explain why the tough ex vietnam Combat Pilot, Burlingham (?) was unable to prevent the crash. Dr Olmstead, who did some research on the passengers, reports that a suspiciously large percentage of the 50 or so passengers worked for 'Remote Control' Technology outfits and others, which are interwoven with the Military application of same. He said some of their relatives claim their loved ones were LURED on to that flight.

Think about that.

5) WTC7 was a 47Story Skyscraper not hit by anything but fell down. My guess is that it , like WTC1 and WTC2, was due to get a suprise visit from one of Izzy's remotely piloted decoy Airplanes, but for some reason it didn't happen. I suspect something also went wrong with their remote control demolition so they spent the entire day trying to set their charges off, succeeding late in the afternoon. The only person said to have died in WTC7 was a male Secret Service Agent. You may want to ruminate as to what a guy who worked for the Agency whose job it is to protect the person of the POTUS was doing inside that building on that fateful day.

Was he 'striking a match'? Funny isn't it, they never talk about this man.

6) If my guess is about right, that may have meant passengers on the REAL flights, Flt11 and Fl175 may have watched that mornings events on TV at some rarely used Airforce base. It is my guess they were disposed of by way of ANOTHER 'hijack proof' Airliner, like Flt77 which may have crashed anywhere, from Shanksville PA to somewhere over the Atlantic.

If this, admittedly outrageous, scenario is broadly they way it was actually done and the American and World community discovers Israel had a major hand in it, heaven help them, because America will turn very ugly.

And heaven help innocent Jews living in America.

Obviously, the validity of this inquiry has left you and Fissle too far behind to understand what we are talking about.

Either catch up, or go find something else to blabber about.

Agree completely. The responses from Team Bush has gone past desperate and entered incomprehensible.

The shills are grasping at straws.

True, but I'm seeing coherence go out the window too. This answer-for-the-sake-of-getting-the-last-word is a disease I've seen elsewhere lately.

9/11 - The Close Ties Between Netanyahu and Silverstein
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=85729

Central to my thesis is that U.S.-based Zionist agents such as Asst. Attorney General Michael Chertoff, Rupert Murdoch, the lease holders Larry Silverstein and Frank Lowy, the chairman of the port authority Lewis M. Eisenberg, the head of the fake moving company Dominic Suter and many others were being organized and arranged in a huge and complex plot by the architect-level planners within the Israeli political and intelligence elite.

At the top of this pile is a man named Benjamin Netanyahu, who happens to be running for prime minister in Israel next month. Netanyahu wrote a book in 1986 about his main thesis which is "the war on terror."

Netanyahu is the Israeli politician who coined the phrase and encouraged the West to join the "war on terror" against Israel's enemies.

Netanyahu is one of the architects of 9-11 and he was instrumental in pulling the strings of the actors involved in this complex plot. An article in the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz from November 2001 shows just how close Netanyahu is with Larry Silverstein, who owned the three buildings that were demolished on 9-11.

The Ha'aretz article by Sara Leibovich-Dar reveals the "close ties with Netanyahu" that Silverstein has.

"The two have been on friendly terms since Netanyahu's stint as Israel's ambassador to the United Nations. For years they kept in close touch. Every Sunday afternoon, New York time, Netanyahu would call Silverstein. It made no difference what the subject was or where Netanyahu was, he would always call, Silverstein told an Israeli acquaintance," the Israeli newspaper reported.

The article is entitled "Up in Smoke" and it is an appropriate title because that is exactly where the evidence pointing to Israeli involvement in 9-11 has gone thanks to the Zionist-controlled press in the United States - up in smoke.

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=97338

Structural steel has to be covered with something to make it aesthetically pleasing, or out of site. My guess is the covering is required to be fireproof to avoid the structural steel uprights from becoming flame-propogating columns/chimneys.

Agree completely. The responses from Team Bush has gone past desperate and entered incomprehensible.

Just like the pro-conspiracy argument has been from the start.

ETA: I refuted your childish arguments in numerous other posts. Apparently facts, logic and science mean nothing to any of you. From here on out, I refute your moronic bullshit with equally moronic bullshit.

I say that the towers were hit with photon torpedoes. Did you know that William Shatner and Leonard Nemoy are both jews?

But at what speed?

One floor collapsing onto another would be met with RESISTANCE. That's what the BYU Professor and others are on about. They say if I were to have pushed a GRAND PIANO off the North WTC Tower at the same moment in time the South WTC began its descent, the Grand Piano and the South Tower would have hit the ground at almost exactly the same time!

The Physics guys say that simply defies belief and could only be explained by the RESISTANCE having been removed with many, many demolition charges. That 'pancake' theory is discredited bullshit.

How come the pieces of the structure falling off to the side of the towers fell faster than the collapse speed. Anyone can see this in the videos so stop saying such nonsense.

Flames on your gas bareque are a dam sight hotter than the black smoke oxygen starved kerosine fire in the WTC on 911. But heat inside the combustion chamber of a modern turbocharged piston motor is infinitely hotter. The steel piston rings don't melt even when subjected to an explosion comparable to a hand grenade, in an extremely confined space many thousand times a minute.

The shills are grasping at straws.

Pistons can't melt, huh? Somebody should have informed this piston.

Bad piston, don't you know you can't melt from some silly old gasoline fire.