This still makes me angry.

Agreed -- anybody who doesn't have sincere questions about 9/11 is living under a rock of stifled intellect.
 
sturg33 said:
Simple physics? The physics is basically impossible. The heat from fire wasn't hot enough to melt the steel support. Even if it was, it wouldn't collapse so quickly. There are hundreds of other examples of large building being on fire for much longer, and shockingly, did not collapse.
Click to expand...

Who said anything about the steel melting? And I googled "building on fire collapses" and and found multiple examples on the first page.
 
weso1 said:
Just google what I googled and you'll find several examples on the first page.
Click to expand...

I did. I see afew images of some major damage... Trying to find any videos of large buildings collapsing at free fall speed... I'm having some trouble... help me out
 
sturg33 said:
Click to expand...

I should probably tune into BBC for some lottery picks before they are annouced... They seemed to have a leg up on the news over there... Announcing it before it happened. Pretty impressive.

Here's another one... The funny part about this one is, the building actually collapses while they were talking about it already having been collapsed.

 
Haha those are the examples?

For starters, those are relatively small buildings... maybe 10 stories - but that is just a guess. Second off all, they were only partial building collapses. As a reminder, here was WTC 7:


That is what a controlled demolition looks like. A natural collapse due to fires looks like what you posted. The building collapses unevenly. Not gently to the ground in a nice pile.
 
I knew you were going to immediately right off those videos even though they clearly contradict your point. I mean come on, the 2nd video I posted fell just like WTC7. The first one looked more like WTC 1 and 2 because the fire was higher up.
 
weso1 said:
I knew you were going to immediately right off those videos even though they clearly contradict your point. I mean come on, the 2nd video I posted fell just like WTC7. The first one looked more like WTC 1 and 2 because the fire was higher up.
Click to expand...

They fell just like 7 and 1&2???? They're both still standing!
 
Also how are they even remotely comparable? We're talking about mega sky scrapers versus dinky little buildings

No comments on the newscasts prematurely reporting the collapse?
 
In the second video the building that was on fire completely collapsed. The portion of the building that was on fire completely collapsed in the 1st video. The videos I posted completely disprove your hypothesis that large buildings on fire do not collapse like a building would collapse in a controlled demolition. That was the only point of my post. The 2nd building in particular clearly collapses similar to a controlled demolition.

Look, if we're going to continue this debate then you are going to have to give me the point that buildings on fire can and have collapsed like they would in a controlled demolition. If you can't give me that point then there's no point in answering your other question.
 
Buildings can collapse due to fire. Buildings do not collapse like a controlled demolition due to fire. Especially sky scrapers. Neither of your videos show me a sky scraper collapsing because of a fire. And lastly, how can you say they are the same when the videos you posted are still standing (at least some of them)... WTC 7 completely went down.
 
The only 9/11 conspiracy theory that has ever made ANY sense to me was the one I read about how some folks were working in areas around the foundation pillars (this was a crony deal for a buddy of W's) in and around the elevator shafts. Then when the planes hit the buildings they set off pre-placed explosives that helped in bringing the towers down. This was of course covered up so that the Dems wouldn't say W was either in on it or at least complacent in it. I don't believe W had anything whatsoever to do with the 9/11 thing but since we all know he, like every president before him and the only president after him was up to his arse in crony contracts I at least cede the possibility that this may have been part of the problem. I'm not saying I believe this theory but of all the ones I've ever heard this is the only one that makes any sense whatsoever.

I do not blame W for this, maybe for not having the nation better prepared (since he WAS the commander in chief at the time) but even though I loathe his presidency, I don't see this as anything to try and tie to him or his presidency. Maybe he should have been more careful in who he did/did not trust (tell me any president who can't have this one tied around his neck) but I don't think he had anything to do with it, directly or indirectly.

Oh and Mossp-man yes it STILL makes he angrier than hell that these bastards hit us and killed 3000 Americans and it took 10 years to send that bastard to fry in hell for all eternity. Yeah this still pisses me off to the extreme and I'm not placing blame on anyone, except Osama is now where he belongs Bin Fryin.
 
sturg33 said:
Buildings can collapse due to fire. Buildings do not collapse like a controlled demolition due to fire. Especially sky scrapers. Neither of your videos show me a sky scraper collapsing because of a fire. And lastly, how can you say they are the same when the videos you posted are still standing (at least some of them)... WTC 7 completely went down.
Click to expand...

So your hypothesis is that it's impossible for a skyscraper to collapse similar to a controlled demolition due to a fire? And you are 100% confident in that? Even though I've shown you video evidence of buildings with critical fire damage collapsing like a controlled demolition? I feel like your argument is based on this belief that it is 100% physically impossible for that to happen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top