Truthers...what is your best piece of evidence ?

[Dave Rogers]

Any links or proof at all is a start

http://www.911myths.com/

I strongly suggest you read everything on that site before you post another word here.

Dave

 

[SabreTruthTiger]

The Windsor tower burned for 18-20 hours!!! As opposed to the couple of hours in the WTC. Windsor tower was still standing afterwards! It was suspected to be arson, if I was a conspiracy nut I'd say that the US Govt did it to tr and prove steel buildings can collpase form fire, but I won't because there's no proof.

 

[stateofgrace]

Initial explosion ?

So how did all the preplanted explosives survive this initial explosion ?

They could have been shielded from heat but detonated by an internal receiver, some may have gone off anyway it was a big fireball.

Shielded from the heat by what ?

Some may have gone off ?

So the explosion got bigger? So why didn't this trigger a chain reaction ?

 

[lapman]

It collapses because it's an old piece of **** building, not a modern solid steel structured one. Only a bit of it collapses, not a complete symmetric collapse, GEE I WONDER WHY?........

Wow, the stupid, it hurts. You even used that purely moronic buidlings are like trees falacy. Do you even know what the search function is on here? Everything you posted was torn apart years ago. SO here is your challange. Provide even one video that has the sound of your demolition charges going off just before the collapse begins. Here is an example of what would have been heard:

Now point out that sound here:

No sound of explosives = no explosives. Don't give us the "people heard explosions" crap. All sorts of things make a loud sound that can be interpreted as an explosion and all sorts of things explode in an office fire. If explosives were used, the sound would have been recorded on 100% of all audio recording devices in the area.

 

[SabreTruthTiger]

Actually jet fuel is refined Kerosine. Airliners use "Jet A" kerosene and the military uses "JP 4" kerosene. Regardless, neither grade burns hot, or it would melt the inside of a jet engine.

 

[WildCat]

The fact that people wer standing in the gash just before the tower collpased and the smoke had been black for a while with very little flame visible shows that the steel had cooled substantially, thus steel weakened by heat could not have caused the collapse

The fact is those people jumped to their deaths after they could withstand the heat no longer.

Why do you think she jumped STT?

 

[Mancman]

The Windsor tower burned for 18-20 hours!!! As opposed to the couple of hours in the WTC. Windsor tower was still standing afterwards! It was suspected to be arson, if I was a conspiracy nut I'd say that the US Govt did it to tr and prove steel buildings can collpase form fire, but I won't because there's no proof.

Yep, this one is a troll.

Don't waste your time, people.

 

[dtugg]

The Windsor Tower was a reinforced with concrete, twoofer.

 

[WildCat]

Actually jet fuel is refined Kerosine. Airliners use "Jet A" kerosene and the military uses "JP 4" kerosene. Regardless, neither grade burns hot, or it would melt the inside of a jet engine.

It's been shown to you that this is irrelevant. Why do you keep bringing it up? It doesn't matter what temp the jet fuel burned at.

 

[Dave Rogers]

The Windsor tower burned for 18-20 hours!!! As opposed to the couple of hours in the WTC. Windsor tower was still standing afterwards!

The steel-framed sections collapsed four hours or so after the fire was first reported, and that's a normal office fire that wasn't accelerated by several tons of kerosene and hence only got going relatively slowly. Only the concrete framed core was standing afterwards; none of the steel framed parts survived. They all collapsed vertically into their own footprints; whether at near-freefall speed is not recorded.

It was suspected to be arson, if I was a conspiracy nut I'd say that the US Govt did it to tr and prove steel buildings can collpase form fire, but I won't because there's no proof.

How very inconsistent.

Dave

 

[SabreTruthTiger]

Shielded from the heat by what ?

Some may have gone off ?

So the explosion got bigger? So why didn't this trigger a chain reaction ?

As I nor you are an advanced explosives maker, speculating on the technology behind the explosives is pointless and misdirects from the physics of the collapse.

 

[progge]

[Evidence for CD snipped]

Excellent proof, mate! I bet you have researched the events of 9/11 in depth to come up with these inventive claims, which are conclusively backed up by the calculations you provided as well as the concise refutation of all the calculations saying otherwise.

Now that the case for CD is eventually substantiated, you´re probably able to single out one of the features of the WTC collapse you just described, and answer the question in the OP ...

... no, wait - don´t. I failed, and you are a troll.

 

[BigAl]

Actually jet fuel is refined Kerosine. Airliners use "Jet A" kerosene and the military uses "JP 4" kerosene. Regardless, neither grade burns hot, or it would melt the inside of a jet engine.

Don't know much about jet engines, do you.

You're on my ignore list.

Bye!.

 

[SabreTruthTiger]

Wow, the stupid, it hurts. You even used that purely moronic buidlings are like trees falacy. Do you even know what the search function is on here? Everything you posted was torn apart years ago. SO here is your challange. Provide even one video that has the sound of your demolition charges going off just before the collapse begins. Here is an example of what would have been heard:

Now point out that sound here:

No sound of explosives = no explosives. Don't give us the "people heard explosions" crap. All sorts of things make a loud sound that can be interpreted as an explosion and all sorts of things explode in an office fire. If explosives were used, the sound would have been recorded on 100% of all audio recording devices in the area.

I'm afraid claiming the argument was debunked years ago is not a refutation. Nor is an arbitrary statement on what people did or didn't hear

 

[Dave Rogers]

As I nor you are an advanced explosives maker, speculating on the technology behind the explosives is pointless and misdirects from the physics of the collapse.

That's called the Appeal to Magic; you try to support a physically impossible hypothesis by asserting that physical impossibilities are, in fact, possible given unknown advanced technology. It's kind of irrelevant, anyway, because your assertions don't need to be disproven; the status quo ante is that the events of 9/11 are well understood, so your claims are effectively presumed to be baseless unless and until you can convince a sufficient number of other people of them. Doing so in this place, in this way, isn't going to achieve that.

Dave

 

[SabreTruthTiger]

Excellent proof, mate! I bet you have researched the events of 9/11 in depth to come up with these inventive claims, which are conclusively backed up by the calculations you provided as well as the concise refutation of all the calculations saying otherwise.

Now that the case for CD is eventually substantiated, you´re probably able to single out one of the features of the WTC collapse you just described, and answer the question in the OP ...

... no, wait - don´t. I failed, and you are a troll.

Refutation fail.

 

[stateofgrace]

As I nor you are an advanced explosives maker, speculating on the technology behind the explosives is pointless and misdirects from the physics of the collapse.

Actually you did speculate, that there were preplanted explosives and the reason they survived each plane crash was because they were shielded.

I simply asked you what was used to shield them, when you are ready take another stab. After all you are the guy with all the facts.

 

[SabreTruthTiger]

That's called the Appeal to Magic; you try to support a physically impossible hypothesis by asserting that physical impossibilities are, in fact, possible given unknown advanced technology. It's kind of irrelevant, anyway, because your assertions don't need to be disproven; the status quo ante is that the events of 9/11 are well understood, so your claims are effectively presumed to be baseless unless and until you can convince a sufficient number of other people of them. Doing so in this place, in this way, isn't going to achieve that.

Dave

Trying to speculate on the techniques used is moot, as the physics of the collapses themselves prove demolition. You don't need to know who a car's driver is to know a car is being driven around the racetrack

 

[dtugg]

I bet the new guy is pdoh.

 

[SabreTruthTiger]

Actually you did speculate, that there were preplanted explosives and the reason they survived each plane crash was because they were shielded.

I simply asked you what was used to shield them, when you are ready take another stab. After all you are the guy with all the facts.

I humoured you with an on the spot speculation but it is just that, as I said before it's unlikely anyone here is an explosives expert, so it's pointless to speculate. It would be more productive however if you could address the violation of the law of conservation of momentum for starters