• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Somebody riddle me this.

If the building was believed to be brought down due to intense fuel fire that reached temperatures over the melting point of steel.
? ... steel does not have to melt to fail.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/woodsteelfire.jpg

Yet, it was clear that the temperature couldn't have been that intense and even if it was near that, the building wouldn't have collapsed.
You have no idea what steel does in fire. This statement is based on ignorance.

The proof for that is many high rise fires and most of them burned for 17+ hours, the twin towers burned for 100 minutes.
Proof you are gullible. The many high rise fires were fought; Fires were fought. Plus the WTC towers burned for weeks, not just 17 plus hours, weeks. The WTC fires were not fought except for WTC 5 and 6, which partially collapsed internally, but survived to stand as empty burnt out structures in part due to WATER, fires fought. You are so gullible, or like to post lie to expose your lack of knowledge. One Meridian Plaza, fires were fought, the building was totaled by fire, never used again. Windsor Building, fires were fought, the building was totaled by fire, never used again, gone.

Most eye witness reports indicate the presence of secondary explosions after the initial impact.
You mean the explosions reported caused the building to collapse? Do you understand many reports of explosions were people hitting the ground? You are gullible.

Which really indicates that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition, as the speed of the collapse was 10 seconds, which was exactly the same as free fall speed.
Using photos and video, the collapse of the towers was not near the time for free fall. You posted lies from idiots.

BTW, what is free fall speed? What does this mean? Explain using math, use some physics, give us a number please!

Common sense should dictate that when a building collapses upon itself in such circumstances where the upper top portion of the building was burning and the lower part remained untouched, the building's collapse time would be delayed due to the resistance from a multitude of floors.
? Show us the numbers!

Physics, shows the buildings could fall as fast as 12.08 seconds. Gee, whiz, math proves you are wrong. Why can't you do the math?

As videos show, the collapse looked too smooth, .
Too smooth? This is your evidence?

and the fact that secondary explosions were present (as previously stated) really points to the fact that controlled demolition had taken place. .
People hitting the ground were reported as secondary explosions, and this is your evidence? Does E=mgh mean anything to you?

The building had also been designed to withstand SEVERAL hits from a Boeing 707, .
What? Robertson designed the building for an impact of a 707 lost in the fog, low on fuel, flying at 180 mph. An impact equal to 186 pounds of TNT. Does E=1/2mv2 ring a bell? Why are you spreading an opinion as your lie?


which is a considerably larger plane with 4 engines instead of 2 engines on the 767's that hit the twin towers, .
The 707 had 4 engines because they did not have engines in the 1950s and early 60s which would have enough trust to fly a large jet on two engines. You failed to use logic. I like having four engines over two engines, but the new engines have 50,000 to 63,000 pounds of thrust, the old engines were 12,000 to 19,000 pounds of thrust. Why would you need 4 now when you have 60,000 of thrust per engine; THREE times the thrust?

707 design at impact weight = 263,000 pounds.
Flight 11 impact weight = 283,600 pounds.
Flight 175 impact weight = 277,580 pounds.
Why did you lie?

Pertaining to the planes on 911, and a 707!
Max weight for a 707 = 333,600 pounds
Max weight for a 767 = 395,000 pounds
You posted a lie, a lie you could correct with google. Why do you post lies?


and the towers would withstand speeds of up to 600 miles per hour, whereas the 767's were moving at the speed of 450.
Another lie you googled from idiots. The speed for design impact was 180 mph; a plane trying to land.
You missed the speeds of impact.
Flight 11 impacted at 470 mph.
Flight 175 impacted at 590 mph.
You failed to get anything right on the speeds.


The OP is proof of not understanding Physics, Math, engineering.
The OP is proof someone is using google filtered to give only 911 truth lies.
The OP is proof someone can't use google to look up 707, 767, or the NIST reports.
 
Last edited:
Sorry beachnut...but I believe you just wasted a decent amount of time typing all that. You know damn well the OP ain't coming back.
 
Sorry beachnut...but I believe you just wasted a decent amount of time typing all that. You know damn well the OP ain't coming back.

I was checking the facts which were easy to check, like a 707 and 767. Easy stuff to check. Seconds to check a few of the lies he posted.

10 minutes to type, 10 seconds to check the facts.

The post failed to get the easy stuff right.

Your post is correct
 
Last edited:
I'm interested if this poster will return.
 
I'm interested if this poster will return.

In context you guys were alot nicer to me then this poor sap lol

But i do understand why. i just asked a few dumb questions and got lumped in with the trolls by accident

The OP just buried himself from the get go lol


Is this the crap you guys are referring to? if thats the case i sympathize
 
Great post, with excellent points. Except I'm not sure about this. If you're referring to Bill O'Reilly, I'm a regular viewer, and he hates Twoofers as much as you do, for the same reasons.
Methodology. Find those facts or allegations that look worst for the oposition and carve them upon stone tablets.
 
In context you guys were alot nicer to me then this poor sap lol

But i do understand why. i just asked a few dumb questions and got lumped in with the trolls by accident

The OP just buried himself from the get go lol


Is this the crap you guys are referring to? if thats the case i sympathize

Usually, it is not this blatant. Search for "the mark of woo" and you can get an understanding of how these things progress most of the time.

1) "Fence sitter" comes in asking questions.
2) "Fence sitter" receives numerous responses, with at least a few detailed and sourced answers.
3) "Fence sitter" either a) argues a triviality or b) moves onto more questions without acknowledging any responses.
4) "Fence sitter" gets asked if his questions were answered to his satisfaction.
5) "Fence sitter" can no longer keep the charade up and exposes himself/herself as a truther, not a fence sitter.
 
Usually, it is not this blatant. Search for "the mark of woo" and you can get an understanding of how these things progress most of the time.

1) "Fence sitter" comes in asking questions.
2) "Fence sitter" receives numerous responses, with at least a few detailed and sourced answers.
3) "Fence sitter" either a) argues a triviality or b) moves onto more questions without acknowledging any responses.
4) "Fence sitter" gets asked if his questions were answered to his satisfaction.
5) "Fence sitter" can no longer keep the charade up and exposes himself/herself as a truther, not a fence sitter.
How true.

In many cases, there is a 6)
6) "Fence sitter" is banned as sockpuppet of a previous "Fence sitter".
 
Last edited:
Did someone hit their head on their toilet seat?

fluxcapacitor.jpg
 
How true.

In many cases, there is a 6)
6) "Fence sitter" is banned as sockpuppet of a previous "Fence sitter".

You are correct, and I even allude to it in my sig. Thanks for the addition, since I should have added it.
 
1) "Fence sitter" comes in asking questions.

Because real skeptics always have a position on a subject first, and don't need to ask questions.


2) "Fence sitter" receives numerous responses, with at least a few detailed and sourced answers.

Lol Where? :D


3) "Fence sitter" either a) argues a triviality a point that naturally arises when one follows bedunker logic, or b) moves onto more questions without acknowledging any responses.

ftfy


4) "Fence sitter" gets asked if his questions were answered to his satisfaction.

To which he would have to reply "no". :D


5) "Fence sitter" can no longer keep the charade up and exposes himself/herself as a truther, not a fence sitter.

Yeah. OR "fence sitter" has a life and can't rush back to JREF every ten minutes to respond to 45 inane replies to his single post. Just another possibility that may not have crossed bedunker minds... :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Way to miss the point as usual ergo. Funny how "truthers" lie about their intentions so often here.
 
Common sense should dictate that when a building collapses upon itself in such circumstances where the upper top portion of the building was burning and the lower part remained untouched, the building's collapse time would be delayed due to the resistance from a multitude of floors.


Delayed by how much?
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom