The_Patriot21 Posted December 17, 2015 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 28 Topic Count: 338 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 15,710 Content Per Day: 2.46 Reputation: 8,526 Days Won: 39 Joined: 10/25/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/27/1985 Share Posted December 17, 2015 Alright at the risk of dredging up an old topic and lighting a fire, Ive been seeing a resurgance of "conspiracy theories" concerning 9/11, especially on facebook. One of their "biggest" arguments is the temperature of jet fuel, and the melting point of steel. Well, this blacksmith shows exactly what happens when jet fuel burning will do to structural steel. The video takes 2 minutes, it will change your life. Also keep in mind, that inside a confinsed space, the internal temperature around the steel will be hotter just because the space is confined-likely even hotter then whats in the video. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omegaman 3.0 Posted December 17, 2015 Group: Graduated to Heaven Followers: 57 Topic Count: 1,546 Topics Per Day: 0.21 Content Count: 10,320 Content Per Day: 1.41 Reputation: 12,323 Days Won: 9 Joined: 04/15/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/05/1951 Share Posted December 17, 2015 2 hours ago, the_patriot2015 said: Also keep in mind, that inside a confinsed space, the internal temperature around the steel will be hotter just because the space is confined-likely even hotter then whats in the video. The guy in the video is funny, and his point is valid. However, I think your point about combined space, though not backwards, is not optimum. Ever see the movie back draft? No matter. Here is the thing. A building with a hot fire burning in it, will function like a chimney. Heat rises and all that sir going upward, has to be replaced by new air coming in. That new air, and a velocity, and when the velocity is higher, more air is coming. That moving air, is brings oxygen, exactly what a flame needs to burn. No new oxygen, and the flame will just go out. However, blowing new oxygen on it, and the flame gets hotter. Ever blow on the end of a glowing stick? What happens? It goes from a dull red to a bright, almost white color from the increased heat. This is why that phrase "fanning the flames" exists. Wind makes forest fires incredibly hot, I imagine in those towers, the air was howling through there. You point though, is entirely correct. Hot steel does not need to melt in order to weaken and fail structurally. People who spread such nonsense, should not foist these tales on other ignorant people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Patriot21 Posted December 17, 2015 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 28 Topic Count: 338 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 15,710 Content Per Day: 2.46 Reputation: 8,526 Days Won: 39 Joined: 10/25/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/27/1985 Author Share Posted December 17, 2015 you bring up a good point omega, oxygen is needed, and in the case of the twin towers, there were big gaping holes in the side of the building to let air in, my comments about the confined spaces were in reference to most of the fire being inside of the building, as opposed to just pouring some jet fuel on open pavement and lighting it on fire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
other one Posted December 17, 2015 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 29 Topic Count: 598 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 56,127 Content Per Day: 7.56 Reputation: 27,855 Days Won: 271 Joined: 12/29/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted December 17, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SINNERSAVED Posted December 17, 2015 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 6 Topic Count: 150 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 2,195 Content Per Day: 0.69 Reputation: 2,409 Days Won: 14 Joined: 07/30/2015 Status: Offline Share Posted December 17, 2015 I cannot help my self , but to comment on this, so hear it goes, now this is my opinion and I have studied this topic of the 9/11 in depth, and there is no way you are going to make me believe it happened by planes to discinerated two buildings to the ground by one air plane each there were no plane parts found in this , from a video I watched, also the firemen also said they heard like demo charges all through the floors like in sequence, so this did not come down from two planes with the same out come, to the ground and beams with cuts in them? there is way to much going on in this event that is not even ,acceptable as even being realistic, but this is my take on this , my opinion, and there is mass amounts of evidence against this. in fact building number 7 was not hit by a plane and it was demo, on the spot on the same day , and came down , also what a odd thing to happen on that same day?, so please don't even get me started, this is my conspiracy thoughts , I have my foil tin hat on and I am ready for warp speed captain.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Patriot21 Posted December 17, 2015 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 28 Topic Count: 338 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 15,710 Content Per Day: 2.46 Reputation: 8,526 Days Won: 39 Joined: 10/25/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/27/1985 Author Share Posted December 17, 2015 Sinner, here's the problem your listening to lies. No plane parts found? That is true of WT7. But, there are thousands of witnesses who saw the first plane hit-and I saw the second plane hit on live television. Your argument is wrong. Was there a conspiracy? Maybe. Maybe not. But using the argument "there were no planes" is total bunk-and as this video pointed out, using the argument jet fuel can't burn hot enough, is also total bunk. If you want people to take you seriously your going to need some stronger evidence then the temperature of jet fuel, or the lie that no planes hit the towers. I know your intent is good, but the video you are basing your opinion on is bogus. As is evidenced by the fact that they argue no planes hit the towers. That much we know, 100% for a fact is true there is no arguing it. And that ruins the videos credibility. If they get a known and obvious fact wrong chances are they are lying about the rest to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OakWood Posted December 18, 2015 Group: Royal Member Followers: 7 Topic Count: 867 Topics Per Day: 0.24 Content Count: 7,331 Content Per Day: 2.00 Reputation: 2,860 Days Won: 31 Joined: 04/09/2014 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/28/1964 Share Posted December 18, 2015 You know that the propaganda is working when they make you disbelieve the evidence of your own eyes and your own ears. Hundreds (if not thousands) of people witnessed first-hand two planes flying into the twin towers, yet somebody is trying to tell them that this never happened. As for the demo-charges, well have you ever seen or heard a large heavy slab fall flat onto another large heavy slab? The sound is like an explosion and the dust shrapnel cast out looks just like an explosion. As the different levels fell in succession they would present what appeared to be a series of timed explosions. This has been discussed time and again. BTW if somebody wanted to fake a convincing attack on the Twin Towers, you think they'd at least do their research..... If skyscrapers are not meant to collapse after planes flew into them, then make sure that they don't collapse - just make sure that two planes penetrate and stick fast there, burning away and killing people but with the towers remaining standing. The last thing you want is for the towers to come toppling down, and the very last thing you should do is plant explosives in the buildings to make them fall down. You know how people love to gossip! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
other one Posted December 18, 2015 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 29 Topic Count: 598 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 56,127 Content Per Day: 7.56 Reputation: 27,855 Days Won: 271 Joined: 12/29/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted December 18, 2015 Actually Oak, most of the people that I know that have done any research at all only say that they don't believe that a plane flew into the pentagon (and it is hard to comprehend how that could have happened the way it is presented)...... I have very set views of what happened that day beyond what those planes did to the buildings.... but two planes did hit the building for I saw one of them live and the other on a playback. But for people who believe that there is much much more to that day besides 19 Muslims hijacking the planes. It makes it very difficult when one wants to get beyond that level of knowledge of the surface. Who, where,why and how never get addressed when one rejects the obvious that we all saw. That is how the global elite keep us in line..... if we argue about what we all saw happen, we never get past that and figure who, how and why. So to even get into debates of if a plane really did hit the pentagon is fruitless unless people can get past the incident itself and find who, how and Why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Patriot21 Posted December 18, 2015 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 28 Topic Count: 338 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 15,710 Content Per Day: 2.46 Reputation: 8,526 Days Won: 39 Joined: 10/25/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/27/1985 Author Share Posted December 18, 2015 Problem with that other is I have physically talked to people who saw the plane hit pentagon, Hundreds of people saw it. There is security footage showing it. Add into that the C/Ts evidence that no plane hit the Pentagon is as weak as their argument against the twin towers and the melting point of steal. They argue the plane couldn't have made the maneuver. Well, boeing and basic laws of flight prove them wrong. They argue the light poles are facing the wrong way, based on a single picture showing the Pentagon. Well, the ones by the Pentagon are going to face away-the explosion would affect them more then the plane. The C/Ts evidence is all either completely false or circumstantial at best. And no one has been able to explain how demo crews could have snuck past security (it was very heavy there) and work unnoticed for weeks without anyone noticing. Yet you expect us to take such theories seriously? No concrete evidence, and what evidence provided is flimsy at best, and putting it mildly. Like Ive stated before if there was a conspiracy, it didn't involve high explosives or fake plane crashes. In fact if there was a conspiracy whoever is behind it started all the rumors about professional demos and fake planes just to discredit anyone who might be watching. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
other one Posted December 18, 2015 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 29 Topic Count: 598 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 56,127 Content Per Day: 7.56 Reputation: 27,855 Days Won: 271 Joined: 12/29/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted December 18, 2015 I personally have not seen any footage that I would consider reliable, and I know several people who tell me it was something much smaller than a commercial plane.... another friend tell me he smelled cordite in that air also.... so we are at an impassioned and no real discussion as to who or why. As for the pilot, I have had no less that 10 active duty G fighter pilots tell me that could not have happened..... So from my perspective why should I listen to you.... I do agree two planes hit the trade center buildings we all watched them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts