• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

This is the thread that may very well change the way you look at 9/11 FOREVER!

28th Kingdom said:
The only thing I have really done, is pose my opening question. A couple people opted to reply to it, but most have simply dragged this debate into the same places the other threads have gone.

Please, don't hold me responsible for this. I tried to set guidelines in my opening post to make this thread, different...but what can I do, when no one obeys those guidelines? I admit, I have been sucked into debating too many different things...and most of which are trite and hackneyed subjects.
Click to expand...

Okay, fine, I'm bored of playing the same old boring records over and over again, so let's see what it is you think you have. I won't even keep pointing out the stacked deck, I'll just humour you. Perhaps everyone else can just look on this as performance art, and stand amazed.

28th Kingdom said:
Question 1: Is it possible to prove whether or not (irrefutably) that in the history of the world...a steel-structured building has collapsed as a direct result of a fire? I know we've all heard that this has never happened before 9/11, but is it possible to prove that statement true or false - without a shadow of doubt? And if we can prove whether or not that statement is true, than please give your answer - yay or nay, and present your evidence.
Click to expand...

Okay, this question is a bit confused. Let me rephrase it, and you can let me know if it's acceptable.

Statement: "No steel-framed structure has ever collapsed as a direct result of fire". Can we prove this statement true or false?

Answer 1: We can (theoretically) prove it false, by providing examples of steel-framed structures which have collapsed as a direct result of fires. We cannot prove it "irrefutably" true, as we can never be sure we have complete knowledge of all such fires in steel-framed structures. It may be provisionally accepted as true, if there is evidence available of such structures not collapsing due to fires.

Good enough? Now show us step 2.*


ETA: If you're feeling overwhelmed, feel free to ignore the Geek Chorus, and focus on this discussion.


*Is step 3 "profit"? If it is, do I get a cut?
 
Last edited:
baron said:
Why not just post the evidence first? You post garbage and then moan when people tell you it's garbage. Then you tell us you're going for a "breather" before returning and no doubt posting even more garbage. Utterly bizarre.
Click to expand...

Give 28th a break. This is alot of posts for someone who's new to this forum. Give him the chance to carefully read and consider what's been written in this thread. I want people's eyes to be open to the conspiracy liars....that doesn't happen in just a few hours.
 
28th Kingdom said:
Thanks everyone for replying. I need a breather, but let me just say, that I'm not retreading the same theories as some here say. Read back over the thread...and you will clearly see, that others are bringing these, "old" points up and I am merely replying to them.

If you will notice...it's weird how much feedback I have received so far, considering the fact that I have yet to present any evidence...or even attempt to submit any evidence. The only thing I have really done, is pose my opening question. A couple people opted to reply to it, but most have simply dragged this debate into the same places the other threads have gone.

Please, don't hold me responsible for this. I tried to set guidelines in my opening post to make this thread, different...but what can I do, when no one obeys those guidelines? I admit, I have been sucked into debating too many different things...and most of which are trite and hackneyed subjects.

Please, just give me some time, and the truth will come out. I will address any and all questions. But, you just need to give me a little time. Whoever the person was who summarized all of the open questions from this thread...hey, that's awesome... I love that. Please, continue to keep a running count of the questions I need to answer, and I promise to address them all.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

Well you see, most CTers are a bit timid about coming here, so it's been a bit quiet recently and any brave souls prepared to stick their head above the parapet tend to get pounced upon.

Don't take it to heart, but also don't start out with the presumption that you have the inside story on what happened on 911.

All of your questions and statements have come straight out of the CTers handbook (well, not the one I wrote....which is still for sale and available for shipping before xmas!) and as such have been done to death here many times before.

But I suspect that you yourself might be open minded enough to take away from here a little better understanding of what actually happened that day, as opposed to what certain CT webmasters would have you believe happened.

But then again, I might be wrong and you will just go to a less taxing forum with the same old fallacies.
 
28th Kingdom said:
Sir,

I thought I answered your question. I apologize. Yes, I can admit when I'm wrong...like I said, I originally believed the official story...and, since then...I have admitted that I was wrong. I can ALWAYS admit when I'm wrong...always. That is one of my best attributes. The problem here, is that I haven't actually presented a single piece of evidence, yet everyone has already tried to discredit me. I don't want conflict between us....I like civil debates.
Click to expand...

Yes so do I now present your evidence , please.

The fact that so many of you believe the official story so wholeheartedly... truly blows me away. Of course, I am working under the false presumption that every one here has been privy to the same evidence that I have. See, I just assume everyone has seen all the video, and audio footage.
Click to expand...
Why do you guys always say that *the official story*? A though it is some sort of collection of obscene word? The official story my friend is made up of credible witnesses statements, expert testimony and engineering a scientific fact. It was not made up by a bunch of NWo’s who sat down in a room and made it all up.
Let me ask this. Of everyone who believes the official story. Do you doubt anything about it? Does anything NOT add up? Anything at all? You don't have any questions? Come on...I thought you guys/gals were diehard skeptics. Like, why was ALL OF THE EVIDENCE at one of the largest CRIME SCENES in the history of the USA, destroyed? Don't you think that the US would want to investigate so they can be 1000% sure, that they know who actually committed the CRIMES?!?!
Click to expand...

Destroyed ? how was it destroyed by whom , did they burn it, blow it up ? how was it destroyed?
Did you expect them just to leave it there ?
What did you expect them to do with thousands of tons of steel and concrete that was lying around ?
They had ZERO foreknowledge of the attacks...yet, they knew all 19 hijackers, and that Osama Bin Laden was behind it (DAY OF) without even investigating the scene. Um, you wanna talk about firsts...convicting criminals in less than a day without a shred of physical evidence...that's a wow moment right there. You'd think a government this savvy, would stop a commercial airliner from plowing into the Pentagon...considering we have the best defense system in the world.
Click to expand...

They did not attack the best defense system in the world they attacked innocent civilians onboard passenger planes. They then flew them into large landmark buildings.
The USG have plenty of prewarnings, but unfortunately failed to act upon them.
You know...I find it truly amazing, how fast they TOLD US who the criminals were in this CRIME that had yet to even be investigated. Pretty interesting stuff. And, just so everyone knows...
Click to expand...
Well there you go, thats what you get when real investigators get on the case and not somebody who watches too many youtube videos
WTC 7 wasn't hit by a plane, although many of you keep referring to planes hitting buildings...in response to my question, about buildings collapsing due to a fire. That question was posed in regards to WTC 7's collapse
Click to expand...
Why did the firemen pull the operation then ?
Click to expand...
 
28th Kingdom said:
considering the fact that I have yet to present any evidence...or even attempt to submit any evidence.
Click to expand...


One typically does this in their OP. They don't wait for the 4th page to merely hint that evidence is forthcoming. Where did you expect the thread to lead when you admittedly initiated it without proper preparedness; and instead asked a few provocative questions?



**emphasis added
 
Hey yall,

Okay...see, I hate doing stuff like this...but anyway. So everyone here are critical-thinkers, who analyze hard data and stuff right? And, everyone has analyzed the actual data of the 9/11 event for themselves, right? You're not just reading some 'experts' take on things, and simply adopting their views as your own, right? Because, hopefully that's not what critical-thinkers do.

So, wipe out the official story. You don't have any idea why the buildings collapsed. You don't know about hijackers...or OBL or false flags...or anything. The only thing you know is that planes flew into two buildings. So, firstly, did they collapse on impact? No. WTC 7 wasn't even hit by a plane.

Now, each building crumbles into it's own footprint. Okay, so in the documented history of steel-structured skyscapers like the WTC towers...there has NEVER (I'm just letting you know, so you don't have to look it up) There has NEVER been a steel-structured skyscraper, that has COMPLETELY collapsed into it's footprint by virtue of a FIRE.

Hopefully, that is a fact you would research while trying to deduce exactly what brought down the three towers. Okay, so now...that you're armed with that nugget of information...you might ask, "Well what else could cause the collapse?" Hmmmmm, well according to most reporters, including Dan Rather, Peter Jennings...and others...one of their first instincts was to say, it looked like a controlled demolition. (video tape of them saying this) That's interesting...see, at this point, they still don't know what's going on i.e. they haven't been FED the official story - this is the frame of mind I'm trying to get you to work from.

So now, we have two options. It's either a controlled demolition or the three buildings collapsed because of fires. Well, the reason I originally said that WTC 7 is and will forever be the smoking gun...is because it wasn't hit by a plane, so you can't use that (plane impacts) to dispel the controlled demolition theory since WTC 7 collapsed just the same as WTC 1 & 2.

So with all of your critical thinking and analyzes...you will conclude, that although a steel-structured skyscraper had never collapsed due to a fire in the history of the world....that three of them just happened to do that on the very same day in the same event? Odds of that happening? Well, you must not be a very prolific critical-thinker...because, once you clear out all of the, "Well, the government would never do that...It would be all over the news etc." from your analysis...there is NO WAY, that anyone could weigh all the data about the actual collapses of the three buildings...and say that, yes...FIRE is what brought them all down.

You must analyze the facts of the collapses...without influence or persuasion from thoughts of who did it, or why they did it.
 
So now, we have two options. It's either a controlled demolition or the three buildings collapsed because of fires. Well, the reason I originally said that WTC 7 is and will forever be the smoking gun...is because it wasn't hit by a plane, so you can't use that (plane impacts) to dispel the controlled demolition theory since WTC 7 collapsed just the same as WTC 1 & 2.
Click to expand...

What was it hit with?

Bolding mine*
 
28th, that is the big difference between us and CTs. We DO have other information that we know for facts. Critical thinkers don't just look at an event and make up a conclusion based on what something may resemble. Critical thinkers analyze all of the evidence, look at facts, research, and THEN we make an informed decision. I suggest that you start doing the same. Please provide some evidence for a controlled demolition other than "It looked like a CD". But since you have none, you might as well stop posting because nobody here will listen to you unless you have scientific evidence, which we have provided PLENTY.
 
28th Kingdom said:
The only thing I have really done, is pose my opening question. A couple people opted to reply to it, but most have simply dragged this debate into the same places the other threads have gone.
Click to expand...

Yes, a couple of people answered your question in the first half of the first page, and by the middle of the page, you said:

28th Kingdom said:
...all I mean, is can we prove whether or not HISTORY has an account (on record in the press or media) of a steel-structured building collapsing due to a fire pre-911? And, I assume that answer to be yes.
Click to expand...

Okay, so what's the problem? I thought you said you came here with a plan? Did the plan not include a Question 2, or did the plan assume a different answer to Question 1?

28th Kingdom said:
Please, don't hold me responsible for this.
Click to expand...

Considering the number of unsubstantiated assertions in your first post, before you even got to Question 1, I vote for "request denied."
 
28th Kingdom said:
So with all of your critical thinking and analyzes...you will conclude, that although a steel-structured skyscraper had never collapsed due to a fire in the history of the world....that three of them just happened to do that on the very same day in the same event? Odds of that happening? Well, you must not be a very prolific critical-thinker...because, once you clear out all of the, "Well, the government would never do that...It would be all over the news etc." from your analysis...there is NO WAY, that anyone could weigh all the data about the actual collapses of the three buildings...and say that, yes...FIRE is what brought them all down.

You must analyze the facts of the collapses...without influence or persuasion from thoughts of who did it, or why they did it.
Click to expand...

Did you read my post? Because if you had, and this post is an explanation of where you thought you'd be going, I have to say, not impressed.

An argument from incredulity, that ignores the plane impacts, and the debris impacts, to focus soley on the fires? How is ignoring the fact that such an event, in all its particulars, had never before taken place before, in any way critical thinking?

I saw this on TV the day it happened. Before I heard any "official story", I never doubted that the impact of the planes and the resultant fires were what caused the collapses. Was it unprecedented? Yes. Surprising? Yes. Unsettling? Yes. Did I think it had to be anything more than what it appeared, a wildly successful attack, that took advantage of weaknesses no one else had noticed? No. And that was before I heard any "official story".

So, can we get back to my other post, or is this all you have?
 
28th Kingdom said:
Hey yall,

Okay...see, I hate doing stuff like this...but anyway. So everyone here are critical-thinkers, who analyze hard data and stuff right? And, everyone has analyzed the actual data of the 9/11 event for themselves, right? You're not just reading some 'experts' take on things, and simply adopting their views as your own, right? Because, hopefully that's not what critical-thinkers do.

So, wipe out the official story. You don't have any idea why the buildings collapsed. You don't know about hijackers...or OBL or false flags...or anything. The only thing you know is that planes flew into two buildings. So, firstly, did they collapse on impact? No. WTC 7 wasn't even hit by a plane.

Now, each building crumbles into it's own footprint. Okay, so in the documented history of steel-structured skyscapers like the WTC towers...there has NEVER (I'm just letting you know, so you don't have to look it up) There has NEVER been a steel-structured skyscraper, that has COMPLETELY collapsed into it's footprint by virtue of a FIRE.

Hopefully, that is a fact you would research while trying to deduce exactly what brought down the three towers. Okay, so now...that you're armed with that nugget of information...you might ask, "Well what else could cause the collapse?" Hmmmmm, well according to most reporters, including Dan Rather, Peter Jennings...and others...one of their first instincts was to say, it looked like a controlled demolition. (video tape of them saying this) That's interesting...see, at this point, they still don't know what's going on i.e. they haven't been FED the official story - this is the frame of mind I'm trying to get you to work from.

So now, we have two options. It's either a controlled demolition or the three buildings collapsed because of fires. Well, the reason I originally said that WTC 7 is and will forever be the smoking gun...is because it wasn't hit by a plane, so you can't use that (plane impacts) to dispel the controlled demolition theory since WTC 7 collapsed just the same as WTC 1 & 2.

So with all of your critical thinking and analyzes...you will conclude, that although a steel-structured skyscraper had never collapsed due to a fire in the history of the world....that three of them just happened to do that on the very same day in the same event? Odds of that happening? Well, you must not be a very prolific critical-thinker...because, once you clear out all of the, "Well, the government would never do that...It would be all over the news etc." from your analysis...there is NO WAY, that anyone could weigh all the data about the actual collapses of the three buildings...and say that, yes...FIRE is what brought them all down.

You must analyze the facts of the collapses...without influence or persuasion from thoughts of who did it, or why they did it.
Click to expand...

Oh this is hard. Just looking at the impact, it is equal to a ton of TNT, check it out bet I am within a few hundred pounds of TNT on flight 11 and 175. I would expect a blast that big to cut a lot of the exterior columns and interior columns. I saw a lot of junk exploding out of the building. I saw plane parts fly, glass, paper, people parts, and lots of building stuff including; fire proofing etc.

Now I see the biggest fires I have ever seen in my life in a building. 5 acres of fires growing to 10 to 20 floors on the towers.

Lot of fire, gee, I thought i saw oxygen generators burning in one corner making the aluminum melt and computers melt with burning melting stuff coming out of one building.

The I saw the buildings fall, they released 248 tons of TNT energy each as they fell to the ground some part moving at over 200 mph.

You know the fire energy of just the jet fuel in each building was 315 ton of TNT.

Add it up energy of the day

Impacts about 1 ton of TNT
Fires making heat equal to 315 + 315 tons of TNT (632 ton TNT)
Towers falling equal to 248 + 248 tons of TNT (up to 1128 tons of TNT)

I have left out all the fire energy due to paper and WTC stuff, it is even more.

So why does the WTC complex look like it was bombed out on 9/11. I would say over 1Kt of TNT is enought.

What do you say my physices friend who likes BS but not math.

I only know .00067 percent of all engineers in the united states who will not agree with me that the impact, potential energy of the buildings, and the fires are the things that made the WTC complex fail!

So you are stuck with your .00067 percent of engineers who are on your side if you are a CT guy.
 
28th Kingdom said:
So with all of your critical thinking and analyzes...you will conclude, that although a steel-structured skyscraper had never collapsed due to a fire in the history of the world....that three of them just happened to do that on the very same day in the same event? Odds of that happening? Well, you must not be a very prolific critical-thinker...because, once you clear out all of the, "Well, the government would never do that...It would be all over the news etc." from your analysis...there is NO WAY, that anyone could weigh all the data about the actual collapses of the three buildings...and say that, yes...FIRE is what brought them all down.
Click to expand...
So how many skyscrapers have collapsed from all causes?

Not that many. And I believe most that have are due to earthquakes.

See, the "likelihood" you talk about is meaningless because we have no experience that says it's unlikely, either.

So far, the percentage of skyscrapers that have collapsed after (a) being hit by jetliners and burning out of control, and (b) being hit by other falling skyscrapers and burning out of control is 100%. This suggests that it isn't unlikely at all.

If you want to learn to "think critically," you're at the right place, but you're doing it all wrong. You can't just come here assuming that you know it all, and that we're all deluded. Your attitude is the antithesis of critical thinking.

So open your mind, man.
 
28th Kingdom said:
Hmmmmm, well according to most reporters, including Dan Rather, Peter Jennings...and others...one of their first instincts was to say, it looked like a controlled demolition. (video tape of them saying this) That's interesting...see, at this point, they still don't know what's going on i.e. they haven't been FED the official story - this is the frame of mind I'm trying to get you to work from.
Click to expand...

I am looking out the window right now. The ground looks flat. Therefore I must conclude that the earth is flat. I don't want to hear any of your "round earth" argument based on years of scientific inquiry and study. I am not going to accept the official story you have been FED. I am just following my instincts here, It looks flat!
 
If anyone here can present me with hard data...which proves HOW a fire, can completely destroy the core steel columns of WTC 1 & 2 you will convert me to your club. That's really all you have to do. Prove to me, how the core columns of these two buildings...crumbled, when even a pancake collapse would NOT bring down the core columns...which were one of the unique features of the WTC when they were built.

There is a PBS special with a computer animation of the floors pancaking on the WTC 1 & 2. And guess what...even their simulation shows the steel cores still standing. Whoopsie.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom