[icantstandit]

Great article by the way. Right up the middle and I thought it was a fair read.

[lizard]

Originally Posted by icantstandit

"Of course they don't cover it. They are part of the CIA controlled media machine! Everyone is in on it, didn't you know?"

Funny...


The reason why there isn't a major newsoutlet covering these hairbrained theories is because 90% have no basis what-so-ever, and cannot be proved nor even trusted. Its armchair paranoids with too much free time and too much caffeine in their blood.

These CT sites are opinion sites, with scant evidence and logic jumps galore.

Until they start using real evidence, instead of the "it could never happen, because it has never happened before" defense, I will never believe them.

Guess what? Reality requires proof from legitimate sources, not blogs or CT fan sites.

Yes I agree. But about 90% of the official story is the same. So many points appear to be bullshit. And a lot of the arguments against the CT ists is the same "it could never happen" because too many people involved, our government would not do such a thing etc.
I don't think even the most paranoid person actually accepts all of every CT. But there is no denying the CT's do highlight some solid concrete points.
I'm gonna post this again, as no one really replyed to it earlier.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc1_fire.html
WTC 1: There Was No Inferno

[Nietzsche13]

Originally Posted by icantstandit

Great article by the way. Right up the middle and I thought it was a fair read.

BWHAAHAHA

Hey man, here's a link to Gragster's link to the NIST report on building 7. Penn and Teller on 9/11 CTs

Check that shit out and tell me that it is not pathetic. Is that the best they can do? And people like you wonder how anyone else can use their imagination to fill in the blanks?

[Nietzsche13]

Originally Posted by icantstandit

You sir, are the one talking out of your ass. How ironic! Ha!

"Gee, there probably wasn't any combustable material in the WTC. It was empty- no gas sources, no furniture, no archives, no mountains of paper, nothing. Just air. And this happens all the time, so we know definitively that it could never create a furnace like heat that multiplies its intensity after crashing down 110 stories in a fiery mess. A CT website told me so.
And of all of the 110 story buildings that have had a 747 filled with a cross-country trip's worth of jet fuel slammed into them, NONE OF THEM HAVE EVER CAUSED ENOUGH HEAT TO MELT ****L!!! (So say the CTs...)"[/i]
Ridiculous...
First, we don't know if it were steel. Steel wasn't the only ****l used in the WTC and all of its contents: A handful of individuals working in and around the debris field utilized phrases containing the words “molten ****l” or “molten steel” to describe the devastation. Physicist Steven E. Jones has pointed out that these molten ****l observations cannot be known to be steel without a ****llurgical analysis being done.
Second, even if it were steel, you would need a lot more proof (evidence of Thermite maybe???) to say definitively that this explosion, collapse and subsequent fire (which lasted for weeks, mind you) could not have melted steel. IT WAS AN EVENT LIKE NONE OTHER, AND YOU HAVE NO PROOF OR HARD EVIDENCE OTHER THAN ANECTDOTAL CONJECTURE THAT ESTABLISHES YOUR THEORY THAT "ONLY THERMITE COULD HAVE MELTED STEEL". These molten ****l observations cannot be known to be steel without a ****llurgical analysis being done.
SO what you have to prove, is 1) that is was actually steel, and not aluminium, lead, or some other ****l, and 2) that 'only Thermite could have caused the steel to melt'.
"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 ****l 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.

That sounds like the same stupid shit that came out of Tequilaman's pie hole. You got a head full of bone too. Are you like related to him cause the similarities are uncanny? It all starts with retardation in the DNA. FYI steel becomes molten at about 2800 degrees.

[somethingclever]

Interesting article.

I laughed my ass off at the "tinfoil hat brigade" phrase.

[Cause of Death]

Originally Posted by Gregster

I certainly can address this: it appears to me to be a photo which, upon magnification, may or may not be someone peering out from the hole in the side of the WTC created by one of the planes. I believe this is intended to demonstrate how absurd the idea of the WTC burning furiously is, since if it was burning so much, how could someone survive to reach the edge of the building and peer out of it while getting photographed.

Of course, putting much stock in this first involves being able to definitively prove that what you're looking at is a person.

It's a person.

Then, you have to demonstrate exactly *why* that persons' appearance there contradicts the official story in a manner that rises above the level of "I say it's impossible, therefore it is so."

Because the official theory suggest that the fires were so hot, it weakened the steel and caused the building to collaspse, even though there isn't any evidence to support that theory. However, if these fires were so hot, how could this woman even get to the edge? Did she walk through the fire? If the fire wasn't hot enough to destroy human life, how could it destroy steel?

[Gregster]

Originally Posted by Cause of Death

It's a person.

Because the official theory suggest that the fires were so hot, it weakened the steel and caused the building to collaspse, even though there isn't any evidence to support that theory.

Well, except for the huge ball of fire that erupted when the planes hit, and the flames, and smoke. Bright orange flames and dense smoke has, to me, typically indicated the presence of fire, though I'm not Mr. Science over here the way some of you guys who keep declaring the absolute certainty or complete impossibility of all sorts of things apparently are.

However, if these fires were so hot, how could this woman even get to the edge? Did she walk through the fire? If the fire wasn't hot enough to destroy human life, how could it destroy steel?

The first one is iffy, the second two certainly look like people. Now then: why does this refute the official explanation? The official explanation says that fire weakened the structure; does it say that fire engulfed every square inch of every floor anywhere near the impact site and continued roaring full blast, leaving no place untouched, until the second the towers fell?

As usual, you take a piece of anecdotal evidence, assign your own wildly speculative assessment of it with nothing in the way of supporting fact, and yell "Guilty!"

[JB_likes_mma]

Originally Posted by Gregster

I certainly can address this: it appears to me to be a photo which, upon magnification, may or may not be someone peering out from the hole in the side of the WTC created by one of the planes. I believe this is intended to demonstrate how absurd the idea of the WTC burning furiously is, since if it was burning so much, how could someone survive to reach the edge of the building and peer out of it while getting photographed.

Of course, putting much stock in this first involves being able to definitively prove that what you're looking at is a person. Then, you have to demonstrate exactly *why* that persons' appearance there contradicts the official story in a manner that rises above the level of "I say it's impossible, therefore it is so."

But if you were looking at a photo from the WTC showing one of the hijackers behind the controls of an airliner coming toward the tower, you would cite it as definitive proof of the official story. Even though, by your logic, you should have to prove that he was actually controlling the plane and that it wasn't remote controlled by the U.S. military (which would require examination of the wreckage).

I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just pointing out something that I see people on both sides doing.

[Cause of Death]

Originally Posted by Gregster

Well, except for the huge ball of fire that erupted when the planes hit, and the flames, and smoke. Bright orange flames and dense smoke has, to me, typically indicated the presence of fire, though I'm not Mr. Science over here the way some of you guys who keep declaring the absolute certainty or complete impossibility of all sorts of things apparently are.

Care to point out where I said there wasn't a fire? Or are you so obtuse, you don't understand the difference between "no fire" and "no evidence the fire was hot enough to weaken steel"???

The first one is iffy, the second two certainly look like people. Now then: why does this refute the official explanation? The official explanation says that fire weakened the structure; does it say that fire engulfed every square inch of every floor anywhere near the impact site and continued roaring full blast, leaving no place untouched, until the second the towers fell?

Well, then where did it weaken the structure if not in the area of impact? A little common sense goes a long way, and for being such an arrogant prick, you sure seem to lack it. If the fire wasn't where the impact, and large explosion took place, then where the fuck was it?

As usual, you take a piece of anecdotal evidence, assign your own wildly speculative assessment of it with nothing in the way of supporting fact, and yell "Guilty!"

I didn't take any evidence and do shit. You asked a completely asinine question, and I answered it.

"duhhh, if there is a person standing in the hole where the fire started from the impact of planes, how does that prove that the fire didn't weaken the steel? because as we all know, human flesh > steel."

[JB_likes_mma]

War Human Flesh!