Proof to put the 9/11 Truthers to bed in less than 2 mins

#251
#251
jamesthesame said:
I think 9/11 actually was a terrorist attack. Pearl Harbor, on the other hand, was definitely setup by FDR. He had been helping our allies for so long, and needed something to propel us into war.
Click to expand...


You may want to consider changing your screen name from jamesthesame to Jamesinsane.
 
#253
#253
hog88 said:
He's right, FDR knew it was coming, there was a reason non of our aircraft carriers were in port and the ships that were, were old.
Click to expand...


That is something we will probably never know for sure, however, FDR having advance knowledge is a fringe theory that is rejected by most mainstream historians.

W having advance knowledge of 9-11 falls into the same conspiracy class, imo.
 
#257
#257
Pacer92 said:
Propaganda Can’t Melt Steel Beams Washington's Blog
Click to expand...

"Melted" Steel

Claim: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."

FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength—and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

9/11 Conspiracy Theories - Debunking the Myths - World Trade Center
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#259
#259
hndog609 said:
There's obviously a ton of reading from all sides on the subject but I found these interesting. SIAP

9/11 "Truth": How believers in the 9/11 conspiracy theory respond to refutations.



9/11 Truth: How conspiracy theorists react to apostates like Charlie Veitch.
Click to expand...

"But in 2005, Haupt started preaching a theory, referred to disparagingly by other conspiracists as the "no-planer" hypothesis, that the footage of jetliners hitting the WTC seen live on TV that morning was actually of holograms."

Good to see the truthers still have credibility.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#260
#260
BigOrangeTrain said:
Ok so the structual enguneers and physicists that have questioned everything about the 9/11 report findings didnt go to college? Are they less qualified than you to give opinions on the subject? The collapse has been questioned many times by qualified individuals. Why do these individuals disagree when its as black and white as you claim?
Click to expand...

probably for the same reason we fans fight over whether we are good or not. Neither affects the outcome and people see what they want to see. And I would pretty much guarantee an engineer knows more than me. I did the math based on the as-built drawings and the pretty well convinced me. as you said its my opinion, but their opinion isn't any more valid than mine in this case.

and what about all the experts coming out and saying it is what it is? seems like you are as quick to dismiss them on nothing more than a hunch and some internet skulldrudgery, while I have a background and some real knowledge on the situation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#263
#263
theFallGuy said:
"Melted" Steel

Claim: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."

FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength—and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

9/11 Conspiracy Theories - Debunking the Myths - World Trade Center
Click to expand...

Nobody has argued that steel doesn't have to melt in order to yield/lose strength. That is not where the melted steel arguments are based.

The melted steel arguments come from photos and evidence of steel from the towers actually being melted and burning for days/weeks afterwards.

You all are confusing two separate points and trying to combine them into one. The steel losing strength due to heat is one argument that the majority of people agree on. But that doesn't explain the melted steel that was actually present.
 
#264
#264
Grand Vol said:
Look, I'm going to ask the elephant in the room question as it's been asked many times before...

Why would a controlled demolition of the twin towers be necessary? Wouldn't the planes crashing into the buildings be enough already as they were/would have eventually burned up?

And furthermore, why bring them straight down? To preserve life/property? Umm, errr, ummm, doesn't compute. If your motive was to incite fear and anger, wouldn't making them topple onto other nearby buildings causing even more death and destruction be the way you'd want to do that?

And last, but not least, why control demo WTC 7 well after it's been evacuated and well after the initial incident when you know the press would be on scene? What is the purpose? To make the American people angry? We were angry over 3,000 casualties. Imagine just how blood thirsty we would have been had 30,000 been killed.

Anyone that supports a government conspiracy want to take a crack at the questions I posed above?
Click to expand...

So...nobody wants to answer?
 
#265
#265
Rasputin_Vol said:
Nobody has argued that steel doesn't have to melt in order to yield/lose strength. That is not where the melted steel arguments are based.

The melted steel arguments come from photos and evidence of steel from the towers actually being melted and burning for days/weeks afterwards.

You all are confusing two separate points and trying to combine them into one. The steel losing strength due to heat is one argument that the majority of people agree on. But that doesn't explain the melted steel that was actually present.
Click to expand...

Thermite and Sulfur- Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition
 
#266
#266
Grand Vol said:
So...nobody wants to answer?
Click to expand...

I'll give you the best plausible theory to your 3rd question. WTC7 was where the Securities and Exchange Commision's investigation offices were located. As evident in the 2008 crash, there was probably a lot of shady stuff in the finance sector, involving very powerful entities during that time period.
 
#267
#267
red butler said:
I'll give you the best plausible theory to your 3rd question. WTC7 was where the Securities and Exchange Commision's investigation offices were located. As evident in the 2008 crash, there was probably a lot of shady stuff in the finance sector, involving very powerful entities during that time period.
Click to expand...

surely there's a better way to cover it up then to kill 3,000 Americans in a plan so complex that I can't even get my head around how people believe it was invented by multiple government agencies. The same agencies that can't properly vet a terrorist that claims she's allegiant to ISIS on her facebook page
 
#268
#268
I missed you asking this..

Grand Vol said:
And furthermore, why bring them straight down? To preserve life/property? Umm, errr, ummm, doesn't compute. If your motive was to incite fear and anger, wouldn't making them topple onto other nearby buildings causing even more death and destruction be the way you'd want to do that?
Click to expand...

They tried that in 1992 for the original WTC bombing. That would have surely achieved the type of damage you are talking about...
 
#270
#270
theFallGuy said:
surely there's a better way to cover it up then to kill 3,000 Americans in a plan so complex that I can't even get my head around how people believe it was invented by multiple government agencies. The same agencies that can't properly vet a terrorist that claims she's allegiant to ISIS on her facebook page
Click to expand...

Its the very same gvt that continues to run open borders ever since 9/11, yet claim we are under a constant threat of terrorism.

If they were really fighting terrorism, they would have secured the borders that day and we would have been bombing Saudi Arabia instead of Afghanistan.
 
#271
#271
red butler said:
I'll give you the best plausible theory to your 3rd question. WTC7 was where the Securities and Exchange Commision's investigation offices were located. As evident in the 2008 crash, there was probably a lot of shady stuff in the finance sector, involving very powerful entities during that time period.
Click to expand...

I can't imagine even Wile E Coyote on LSD coming up with a more risky and convoluted of addressing that issue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#273
#273
red butler said:
I'll give you the best plausible theory to your 3rd question. WTC7 was where the Securities and Exchange Commision's investigation offices were located. As evident in the 2008 crash, there was probably a lot of shady stuff in the finance sector, involving very powerful entities during that time period.
Click to expand...

So...no good answers to the questions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top