Have you seen the video yet that the thread is about, Fizzie? No? Yet you continue to post your remarks on this thread. To an open-minded gentile that's incomprehensibly stupid.

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

Originally Posted by FranzJoseph
Agree completely. The responses from Team Bush has gone past desperate and entered incomprehensible.

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

Of course fire has a weakening effect on metal. But are there any examples of fires in highrises causing pancake collapse of all every single floor and 47 vertical columns too all at once leaving nothing but a pile of rubble?

Take a look at these photos of the burnt hulk of the Windsor highrise fire in Madrid.

http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html

Of course fire has a weakening effect on metal. But are there any examples of fires in highrises causing pancake collapse of all every single floor and 47 vertical columns too all at once leaving nothing but a pile of rubble?

Take a look at these photos of the burnt hulk of the Windsor highrise fire in Madrid.

http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html

This is really key, guys. Fire never caused a collapse like this in the past. The government's conspiracy theory has it happening 3 times in one day. That's a hell of a "first".

My knowledge of steel and temperatures and stesses is small enough that I honestly believed the government story was possible. Then I read more about building #7. Some windows knocked out and some very small fires. No fuel. Boom Boom Boom and it fell to pieces like the towers did.

Fissile, people are learning more about this attack. There's not much you can do about it. It really was an attack. No doubt about that.

Of course fire has a weakening effect on metal. But are there any examples of fires in highrises causing pancake collapse of all every single floor and 47 vertical columns too all at once leaving nothing but a pile of rubble?

Take a look at these photos of the burnt hulk of the Windsor highrise fire in Madrid.

http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html

The Windsor tower didn't suffer structural damage before it burned, neither was the fireproofing compromised by an aircraft impact.

Jet fuel can't damage steel? Somebody should have told the Germans.

Given the lower-quality steels used in the 004B, these engines typically only had a service life of some 10-25 hours (perhaps double this in the hands of a skilled pilot). Another shortcoming of the engine, common to all early turbojets, was its sluggish response to throttle. Worse, it was fairly easy to "dump" too much fuel into the engine by thottleing up too quickly, allowing heat to build up before the cooling air could remove it. This led to softing of the turbine blades, and was a major cause for engine failures. Nevertheless, it made jet power for combat aircraft a reality for the first time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_Jumo_004

He's very interested in this. That's for sure. That's why he's here. I have no doubts that he's read and watched all that we have. There's a dozen reasons why a plane and it's fuel can't make skyscrapers like the WTC towers just crumble to bits. He knows that.

Even if all that information is ignored, he's stuck on building #7. He won't even mention it.

I'm not really interested in this, since I know the story the government told doesn't hold any water and I know who controls the government, so that is enough, but I suppose I can pick up some slack.

Joe, if it is falling faster that means something must have applied some force to it making its downwards momentum greater than that accounted for by gravity, say some explosions for example.

Fissile you keep on comparing apples with oranges. Anymore moving parts you going to compare to static structures or is this all part of your now infamous Star Trek defense?

Johnny Cochran, you silly incomprehensable old blackman, come back all is forgiven!

Oh yes and I'm off to bed everybody, so I wish you a good day or good night where ever you are. Catch you all later.

Fissle,

You came back but you STILL haven't told us WHY you believe the crashing of the planes caused the buildings to collapse? WHY do you believe that? HUH? Go through it step by step with us, ok? Please don't respond with MORE QUESTIONS, just your detailed scenario, unless you have NO IDEA yourself. Ih which case, why do you beleive something you cannot explain logically to others here? Are you swallowing something on BLIND FAITH? Tsk, tsk.

Snuffy, what is your theory? Did the planes crashing cuase the collapse -or what? Do you even have a theory? Get specific, ok?

Contumacyman

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.

Of COURSE it is faster. It's flying sideways hudreds of feet! Take another LOOK at the video.

The reason?

It was ejected by the massive explosions the the centre of the building. You'd have to blind not to see it, unless of course, you don't want to see it. Or if you're one of the three stooges, you not only don't want to see it, you don't want anyone else to see it.

See?

The Windsor tower didn't suffer structural damage before it burned, neither was the fireproofing compromised by an aircraft impact.

ok, no structural damage, but what was the structural damage to the WTC-- being banged into from the side? so if the plane whacked into it sideways, why didnt it flop over sideways? if you kick a weeble-wobble, does it fall down or pancake vertically?

also was WTC7 structurally damaged?

the most basic premise that can be reasonably accepted is that it was a demolition that caused all three collapses.

that doesnt tell you who set the charges, or why, or whether or not the planes were hijacked or not,

just that the buildings were demolished.

We bring questions and ask for a decent chance to investigate the physical evidence. Which in arsons and transportation accidents is always preserved, right?

Ooops-- Jewliani sent the stuff off to the landfill, and sold the scrap to the Chinks for recycling 2 weeks later. Evidence was destroyed.

Destruction of evidence in court, if it can be proven, establishes some very bad inferences against the one who "spoliates" the evidence. For obvious reasons.

Folks, opposition forum user "guy," an Israeli research assistant flunkie living in NYC, wants to chime in on this. Let's hear what he has to say.

http://www.vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=30411

the title of his thread is "why theologists should stay the fuck away from science."

Jet fuel can't damage steel? Somebody should have told the Germans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_Jumo_004

Your idiotic attempts to act as though you know something are really pathetic. You keep taking something completely out of the context in which it is being discussed and using it as inductive logic to prove your point. Take this gem you just posted for instance. Jet fuel lying in a puddle on fire doesn't burn very hot. Jet fuel mixed with oxygen and compressed does get hot. Why does anybody bother with this moron? Without Jacob P. Slovianski here to spin and constantly reframe the debate you show yourself for the lame dullard you are.

Jet fuel lying in a puddle on fire doesn't burn very hot. Jet fuel mixed with oxygen and compressed does get hot.

Great point.

Couple this with the fact that the jet fuel in the towers was oxygen starved (compared to an engine cylinder) it puts the burden of proof back on the skeptics.

Take into account that WTC 7 didn't even have any jet fuel inside it makes one wonder if the reason the Twin Towers collapsed was because of weakened steel due to jet fuel then how did WTC 7 collapse?

Your idiotic attempts to act as though you know something are really pathetic. You keep taking something completely out of the context in which it is being discussed and using it as inductive logic to prove your point. Take this gem you just posted for instance. Jet fuel lying in a puddle on fire doesn't burn very hot. Jet fuel mixed with oxygen and compressed does get hot. Why does anybody bother with this moron? Without Jacob P. Slovianski here to spin and constantly reframe the debate you show yourself for the lame dullard you are.

I keep "taking something completely out of context"? How about those bullshit videos, of stitched together sound bites, that you all keep offering as "proof".

BTW, jet engines don't operate on liquid oxygen, they use air for the combustion process -- rocket engines use liquid oxygen. Moron.