quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

quote:

ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3
Also a portion of the fire proofing was stripped off during the impact so it was useless after far less time than a few hours.

There were no planes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3
Who said anything about there being planes I didn't, I've always argued that it was a gigantic sea creature that did it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

quote:

ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3
Also a portion of the fire proofing was stripped off during the impact so it was useless after far less time than a few hours.

There were no planes.

some think that it was a missile.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
You probly also know that the wtc was built with 5 times redundancy.

The only physical structure I know of with five times redundancy is your brain and there is some keen debate as to if that is actually a physical structure rather than one of pure theory.

Also a portion of the fire proofing was stripped off during the impact so it was useless after far less time than a few hours. I mention these things continuously but you never listen because such points are inconvenient to your proposition.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3

No jet fuel fire load spread around by water based extinguishers because the fire suppressant system was expecting the fire load to be coming from the office furniture alone?

It wouldn't be the first structure to collapse due to fire, why people think this is unlikely is beyond me given what we know about how steel loses strength under such conditions.

If a demolitions expert did this it was the most sloppy work ever as the building lurched as it fell and that is a no. Also I didn't hear any sequence of explosions that are evident in controlled demolitions, there are sound clips available just contrast and compare. All I hear is a constant rumble, no peaks of sound wave magnitude.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule
You are now speaking about one of the towers? Or did WTC7 also lurch?

I did investigate the fires in the towers. Those fires were small, of limited duration, and as best as I could determine burned at a maximum temperature of about 230 degrees Centigrade. Those fires could not have made the towers collapse.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3

No jet fuel fire load spread around by water based extinguishers because the fire suppressant system was expecting the fire load to be coming from the office furniture alone?

WELLLLLLLLLL
the gubes said virtually all the fuel burned off in 10 seconds.  That makes sense because you see if you have a fuel tank smashing into a wall at the speed of a 45 acp bullet do you think it likely that the fuel would turn to mist at that speed or is fema completely out to lunch on that one?

Therefore the residual fires could only have been from office furniture.

It wouldn't be the first structure to collapse due to fire, why people think this is unlikely is beyond me given what we know about how steel loses strength under such conditions.

Nice use of structure unqualified.  LOL

TRY STEEL STRUCTURE as in HI RISE STEEL STRUCTURE and yes it seems to me all 3 of them were the first to ever "collapse"....

If a demolitions expert did this it was the most sloppy work ever as the building lurched as it fell and that is a no.

Well nothing like proving beyond any shadow of a doubt that you have zippo knowledge about the demolition business, because the wtc will go down in history as one of the best engineered demolitions in history.   I mean some serious ching went into that baby.

Also I didn't hear any sequence of explosions that are evident in controlled demolitions, there are sound clips available just contrast and compare. All I hear is a constant rumble, no peaks of sound wave magnitude.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

When will this thread be moved to "Polls and random stupidity"

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

When will this thread be moved to "Polls and random stupidity"

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

quote:

ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3
Also a portion of the fire proofing was stripped off during the impact so it was useless after far less time than a few hours.

There were no planes.

some think that it was a missile.

I had read up about that suggestion a couple of years ago and my conclusion was that there was no solid evidence for missiles being present: missiles are a false trail.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

When will this thread be moved to "Polls and random stupidity"

personally I would complain to the mods if I were you after all you disagree with it right.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule
You are now speaking about one of the towers? Or did WTC7 also lurch?

I did investigate the fires in the towers. Those fires were small, of limited duration, and as best as I could determine burned at a maximum temperature of about 230 degrees Centigrade. Those fires could not have made the towers collapse.

WTC7 from memory wasn't that slender, why should it lurch it already had a low centre of gravity.

It really offends me because I watched those towers burn before they collapsed, you nuts are taking away from the fact people were waving for help from those towers with fire raging beneath them. The fire we all saw.

I get offended when people claim they watched it burn and for the life of me I cant find any damn fire!  Please point out the fire?







I get very offended when people claim there was all that fire when I cant find any substantial fire what so ever.
So please for all of us point out all that fire that you watched?

I really dont think you need a degree in fire to understand the difference between fire and no fire.

You are taking away from those many independent sources that recorded the initial impacts from various locations. You are trying to rewrite the history we all saw and remembered.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3

It really offends me because I watched those towers burn before they collapsed, you nuts are taking away from the fact people were waving for help from those towers with fire raging beneath them. The fire we all saw.

You are taking away from those many independent sources that recorded the initial impacts from various locations. You are trying to rewrite the history we all saw and remembered.

The building collapsed ... and it colapsed in a remarkably controlled manner.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeffff

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

When will this thread be moved to "Polls and random stupidity"

personally I would complain to the mods if I were you after all you disagree with it right.

Thats interesting since I had a post pulled specifically because it was mocking you.

I argued a bit, but I lost. I figured they were protecting the retarded kid.


Jeff

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
the gubes said virtually all the fuel burned off in 10 seconds. That makes sense because you see if you have a fuel tank smashing into a wall at the speed of a 45 acp bullet do you think it likely that the fuel would turn to mist at that speed or is fema completely out to lunch on that one?

Therefore the residual fires could only have been from office furniture.[/color]

quote:


Nice use of structure unqualified. LOL

TRY STEEL STRUCTURE as in HI RISE STEEL STRUCTURE and yes it seems to me all 3 of them were the first to ever "collapse"....[/color]

quote:


Well nothing like proving beyond any shadow of a doubt that you have zippo knowledge about the demolition business, because the wtc will go down in history as one of the best engineered demolitions in history. I mean some serious ching went into that baby.[/color]

quote:

ORIGINAL: JonnieBoy
Not sure what people waving for help has to do with the question ??? I think it's more emotive to say falling helplessly to death rather than be burned alive (did they show that in the USA ? because that's certainly what I saw where I watched it).