9/11, structural steel.

[other one]

close minded people are impossible to talk with.....    you are a broken record.....    the real thing you brought out that is important is that you really don't care....   I'll take you at your word...

[WilliamL]

2 minutes ago, The_Patriot2016 said:

The facts say that the planes could have taken down the towers.

Even if this were true, no plane hit Building 7. Which also collapsed into its own footprint exactly like the Twin Towers, just like buildings taken down in professionaly-prepared demolitions do. NO professionally built concrete-and-steel highrise before or since has ever collapsed due to fire, yet on the day of 9-11, three did within hours. If you cannot explain building 7, you cannot say you have proved anything about the Twin Towers.

[WilliamL]

18 minutes ago, other one said:

Now can people at least find out what people are talking about before they push everything else the whole world has said down our throats....

OK, you've peaked my interest, will check it out. Please post or PM a URL.

[The_Patriot21]

1 hour ago, WilliamL said:

Even if this were true, no plane hit Building 7. Which also collapsed into its own footprint exactly like the Twin Towers, just like buildings taken down in professionaly-prepared demolitions do. NO professionally built concrete-and-steel highrise before or since has ever collapsed due to fire, yet on the day of 9-11, three did within hours. If you cannot explain building 7, you cannot say you have proved anything about the Twin Towers.

I never said a plane did hit building 7. I did bring up other evidence, like it was hit by a falling column from the twin towers, and there was other fires burning inside,  but I never said that a plane did, in fact, pretty much no one did, other then perhaps a few confused reporters on that day (which, in an incident like that, misinformation is to be expected) That is another argument, that the C/Ts are arguing-which isnt an argument. No official source will tell you a plane hit building 7-not me, not the government, no one. So stop putting words in my mouth, and in the mouths of everyone whom you disagree with.

 

In fact, in the original post I didnt say there was, or that there was not a conspiracy. What I said was, the argument that jet fuel couldnt have compromised the structure of the twin towers was total bunk, which it is. Thats not saying that there wasn't a conspiracy-just that that argument for it, was incorrect, and not based in any actual fact. What Im saying is, if you truly believe in this conspiracy you need to look elsewhere for evidence, because this particular argument about the jet fuel, is false. The person in the video said that-I said that (even though I am of the opinion that this was not some global conspiracy) what was said originally, was that if there was a conspiracy, to get a better argument.

[SINNERSAVED]

2 hours ago, other one said:

Interestingly Dr. Wood agrees with you....   and so do I.

Other one I have watched her videos and she is really good, but you cannot convince anyone that is not willing to listen, so it is what it is, I have tried to say what is reasonable and logical, and it is not for many to want to hear, so its best to let it go , but I  thought the video you mentioned was out standing, its a evidence of foul play ,for sure, thank you blessings to you

[SINNERSAVED]

41 minutes ago, The_Patriot2016 said:

I never said a plane did hit building 7. I did bring up other evidence, like it was hit by a falling column from the twin towers, and there was other fires burning inside,  but I never said that a plane did, in fact, pretty much no one did, other then perhaps a few confused reporters on that day (which, in an incident like that, misinformation is to be expected) That is another argument, that the C/Ts are arguing-which isnt an argument. No official source will tell you a plane hit building 7-not me, not the government, no one. So stop putting words in my mouth, and in the mouths of everyone whom you disagree with.

 

In fact, in the original post I didnt say there was, or that there was not a conspiracy. What I said was, the argument that jet fuel couldnt have compromised the structure of the twin towers was total bunk, which it is. Thats not saying that there wasn't a conspiracy-just that that argument for it, was incorrect, and not based in any actual fact. What Im saying is, if you truly believe in this conspiracy you need to look elsewhere for evidence, because this particular argument about the jet fuel, is false. The person in the video said that-I said that (even though I am of the opinion that this was not some global conspiracy) what was said originally, was that if there was a conspiracy, to get a better argument.

HuH...no explaination  needed .

[simplejeff]

Once "foul play" is realized.....  everything is simple and uncomplicated.

But if someone trusts the fox to guard the hens, 

no explanation why not to do that helps.---

the fox gets the fowl.

[WilliamL]

5 hours ago, The_Patriot2016 said:

What Im saying is, if you truly believe in this conspiracy you need to look elsewhere for evidence, because this particular argument about the jet fuel, is false. The person in the video said that-I said that...

Agreed, you both said that. But neither of you have presented credible evidence. You took the man's word for everything he said on faith, not actual evidence.

How hot was the furnace? Was that really structural steel he used? You and I have no way of knowing. And even if everything he said checked out, it is irrelevant, because you still haven't provided any evidence that the short-lived fires in the Twin Towers would have had both enough time and enough fuel to heat up not only the steel, but first the concrete pillars surrounding the steel, to 1500+ degrees.

In short, all we have for your "proof" that you keep claiming is your faith in your opinion about how it happened.

[The_Patriot21]

1 hour ago, WilliamL said:

Agreed, you both said that. But neither of you have presented credible evidence. You took the man's word for everything he said on faith, not actual evidence.

How hot was the furnace? Was that really structural steel he used? You and I have no way of knowing. And even if everything he said checked out, it is irrelevant, because you still haven't provided any evidence that the short-lived fires in the Twin Towers would have had both enough time and enough fuel to heat up not only the steel, but first the concrete pillars surrounding the steel, to 1500+ degrees.

In short, all we have for your "proof" that you keep claiming is your faith in your opinion about how it happened.

actually, I didn't. I just gave you the video, because it presents the case rather clearly. On top of that, some common sense plays into it, if he actually heated that bar up to the melting point, it wouldnt have bent-it would be molten. If you look up actual metalurgy, and not the psycobabble presented by the mighty google warriors, what he says stands. The fire didn't have to get hot enough to melt the steel-just soften it, and with that much fuel burning, in a confined space such as that building, with the chimney effect as brought up by omega early on, the fire easily got hot enough to soften that steel-the weight of the building above, would do the rest. Thats not faith-thats science. That doesnt prove that explosives wernt used, mind you-all it proves, is that particular argument, is junk-the planes really could, have taken the building down.

 

What is still on the table, is how they managed to setup a professional demo like that, with no one noticing. Ive seen some wild theories, but nothing with even so much as circumstantial, evidence, to suggest as to how that is done. 

[WilliamL]

On 12/19/2015 at 10:05 AM, The_Patriot2016 said:

11 hours ago, The_Patriot2016 said:

The fire didn't have to get hot enough to melt the steel-just soften it, and with that much fuel burning, in a confined space such as that building, with the chimney effect as brought up by omega early on, the fire easily got hot enough to soften that steel-the weight of the building above, would do the rest. Thats not faith-thats science.

The evidence I provided doesn't prove that the planes took them down, but it does prove its possible.

And I repeat, for the final time, that the evidence you have provided, and the theories (only) you state about how hot the jet-fueled fires could have gotten, have not at all proven it was possible. Also, what you have presented is certainly not "science," only conjecture.

For it to begin to be scientific, you would have to provide controlled experiments with jet fuel in a confined space matching the Twin Towers. The forge used in the video is irrelevant to this type of controlled experiment (and that forge clearly was not heated by kerosene).