9-11 Demolition Documentary.. - Page 2

New001 · #11 09-18-2006, 03:06 AM

Here we go again! "Red-orange flames are what we saw on September 11th." Right, on the outside of the building. I'm not going to draw any conclusions on the temperature of the fire inside the building by looking at the color of the fire on the outside.

And the steel doesn't have to completely melt either, just be weakened enough to no longer hold the weight of the building.

More misleading information, meaningless points brought up to be deliberately confusing, and ambiguous "facts." Yawn.

New001 · #12 09-18-2006, 03:09 AM

"And we were led to believe that these blah blah buildings collapsed from small scattered fires and 90 minutes blah blah." Stop it, seriously. This is retarded. She quoted ONE FIREFIGHTER on the BOTTOM FLOOR OF THE FIRES saying there were SCATTERED FIRES and now the entire building collapsed just from scattered fires? Ugh.

New001 · #13 09-18-2006, 03:11 AM

"Would fire have the strength to eject such huge chunks of metal?" Yeah. Explosive fire.

No, anyone who claims that "fire ejected huge chunks of metal" is retarded. Here's an experiment. Take a glass box of some sort. Put a platform on top of it and jump up and down on it until the glass breaks. Is the glass going to fall straight down underneath itself? I imagine not. Presumably, when an upper floor collapses onto the lower floor, a similar thing should/could happen.

See? More ambiguous stuff. She didn't say anything wrong. "Could a fire have done this?" The answer is no. She wants you to think the answer is no. But the important question is not what she's asking.

hmkpoker · #14 09-18-2006, 03:12 AM

Don't hold back, New. Tell us how you really feel.

New001 · #15 09-18-2006, 03:13 AM

No, I think I'm done. 20 minutes of this is just too much [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] I try every time one of these is posted to sit through it all and point out what's wrong, but I can never make it.

MrMon · #16 09-18-2006, 11:37 AM

I'm not going to bother with the videos, seems like a rehash of the same thing again, but I did encounter a bit of new information after going through some of the 5th anniversery programs. According to "Inside The Twin Towers", the chief engineer of the buildings managed to get up to the main damage of WTC1 about 30 minutes after the attack and saw that there was a major structural problem with the main elevator shaft - the core of the building. So the guy who knew the building the best knew there was a good chance they were going to at least paritially collapse in short order.

Add in the fact that even from the outside, you can see every one of the buildings that did collapse - WTC 1, 2 & 7, slowly sag over time. It's not as if the building were rigid and intact and then suddenly collapsed, that would be suspicious. No, if you look at the photographic evidence, all three show signs of distortion that gets progressively worse until structural failure occurs. This distortion occurs way before any "explosions", so unless someone wants to explain how "quiet explosives" were used, then they went with the conventional noisy ones, anyone sticking with the demolition theory is ignoring the evidence.

CrazyPsycho · #17 09-18-2006, 11:59 AM

[ QUOTE ]
No, I think I'm done. 20 minutes of this is just too much [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] I try every time one of these is posted to sit through it all and point out what's wrong, but I can never make it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you even get to the 2nd video with the sounds?

CrazyPsycho · #18 09-18-2006, 12:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not going to bother with the videos, seems like a rehash of the same thing again, but I did encounter a bit of new information after going through some of the 5th anniversery programs. According to "Inside The Twin Towers", the chief engineer of the buildings managed to get up to the main damage of WTC1 about 30 minutes after the attack and saw that there was a major structural problem with the main elevator shaft - the core of the building. So the guy who knew the building the best knew there was a good chance they were going to at least paritially collapse in short order.

Add in the fact that even from the outside, you can see every one of the buildings that did collapse - WTC 1, 2 & 7, slowly sag over time. It's not as if the building were rigid and intact and then suddenly collapsed, that would be suspicious. No, if you look at the photographic evidence, all three show signs of distortion that gets progressively worse until structural failure occurs. This distortion occurs way before any "explosions", so unless someone wants to explain how "quiet explosives" were used, then they went with the conventional noisy ones, anyone sticking with the demolition theory is ignoring the evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I need to watch it again, but there are alot of witnesses that said there were explosions occuring not long after the plane hit. The way they explained it, there are several types of explosions necessary to set up the demolition so it falls onto itself.

MrMon · #19 09-18-2006, 12:13 PM

Lots of explosions not long after a plane carrying 9000 gallons of jet fuel crashes into a building? What are the odds? I'm shocked no one has picked up on this before.

CrazyPsycho · #20 09-18-2006, 12:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Lots of explosions not long after a plane carrying 9000 gallons of jet fuel crashes into a building? What are the odds? I'm shocked no one has picked up on this before.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the lobby? Why were the lobby windows blown out? In the basement? Why?