Somebody riddle me this.

[Quad4_72]

With so much fail in the first sentence alone, I can't help but to think the OP is the equivalent to leaving a burning bag of **** on the porch and ringing the doorbell.

And if it had been posted on a lesser forum, they would have tried to put it out with their shoe. But on here, it was quickly put out with fire extinguishers

 

[sheeplesnshills]

If the building was believed to be brought down due to intense fuel fire that reached temperatures over the melting point of steel. 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. The proof for that is many high rise fires and most of them burned for 17+ hours, the twin towers burned for 100 minutes. Most eye witness reports indicate the presence of secondary explosions after the initial impact. 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. 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.

As videos show, the collapse looked too smooth, and the fact that secondary explosions were present (as previously stated) really points to the fact that controlled demolition had taken place. The building had also been designed to withstand SEVERAL hits from a Boeing 707, which is a considerably larger plane with 4 engines instead of 2 engines on the 767's that hit the twin towers, and the towers would withstand speeds of up to 600 miles per hour, whereas the 767's were moving at the speed of 450.

Are you twoofers tag teaming or something? use the search function, all this woo was debunked years ago.

 

[cyclonic]

If the building was believed to be brought down due to intense fuel fire that reached temperatures over the melting point of steel. 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. The proof for that is many high rise fires and most of them burned for 17+ hours, the twin towers burned for 100 minutes. Most eye witness reports indicate the presence of secondary explosions after the initial impact. 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. 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.

As videos show, the collapse looked too smooth, and the fact that secondary explosions were present (as previously stated) really points to the fact that controlled demolition had taken place. The building had also been designed to withstand SEVERAL hits from a Boeing 707, which is a considerably larger plane with 4 engines instead of 2 engines on the 767's that hit the twin towers, and the towers would withstand speeds of up to 600 miles per hour, whereas the 767's were moving at the speed of 450.

Polly want a cracker?

 

[IdiotWhacker]

Who believes that?

The people who believe in the preliminary report of what happened which is vaguely being used by 9/11 truthers.

 

[beachnut]

If the building was believed to be brought down due to intense fuel fire that reached temperatures over the melting point of steel. ... of 450.

Why are 911 truthers disrespectful, turn 911 deaths into a "Riddle Me This" post of lies and idiotic delusions.

One post wonder, disrespectful, delusional, anti-intellectual, junk.

Flippant post by someone who can't figure out 911, someone who plagiarized all his claims from idiots.

 

[DGM]

Somebody riddle me this

OK. What kind of post does a person make when they only want to troll for their own giggles?

Answer:

If the building was believed to be brought down due to intense fuel fire that reached temperatures over the melting point of steel. 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. The proof for that is many high rise fires and most of them burned for 17+ hours, the twin towers burned for 100 minutes. Most eye witness reports indicate the presence of secondary explosions after the initial impact. 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. 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.

As videos show, the collapse looked too smooth, and the fact that secondary explosions were present (as previously stated) really points to the fact that controlled demolition had taken place. The building had also been designed to withstand SEVERAL hits from a Boeing 707, which is a considerably larger plane with 4 engines instead of 2 engines on the 767's that hit the twin towers, and the towers would withstand speeds of up to 600 miles per hour, whereas the 767's were moving at the speed of 450.

Poor attempt if you ask me.

 

[Edx]

How did you manage to get every single point totally wrong?

If the building was believed to be brought down due to intense fuel fire that reached temperatures over the melting point of steel. 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. The proof for that is many high rise fires and most of them burned for 17+ hours, the twin towers burned for 100 minutes. Most eye witness reports indicate the presence of secondary explosions after the initial impact. 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. 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.

As videos show, the collapse looked too smooth, and the fact that secondary explosions were present (as previously stated) really points to the fact that controlled demolition had taken place. The building had also been designed to withstand SEVERAL hits from a Boeing 707, which is a considerably larger plane with 4 engines instead of 2 engines on the 767's that hit the twin towers, and the towers would withstand speeds of up to 600 miles per hour, whereas the 767's were moving at the speed of 450.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

If the building was believed to be brought down due to intense fuel fire that reached temperatures over the melting point of steel.

Zero to fail in 23 words.

The temperature needed to turn steel I-beams into half-cooked spaghetti is more than a thousand degrees below its melting point.

This makes the rest of your post null and void as no further response is required.

 

[Macgyver1968]

Most likely a drive by (or Schwinn by) troofing.


Hmmm....Joined in May..waits till now for a first post...sock maybe?

 

[fezzic]

So the OP is presented with a number of facts that seem to contradict his version of what happened to the WTC towers and thereby render it false, it is then necessary for the OP to then explain how his version of what happened has more likelyhood of being true than the OCT (official conspiracy theory [of the events]). Everything that is a unproven contradiction of what the audience commonly accepts acts to undermine the OP's version.

The audience generally feels that the official and other non-governmental investigations have validity. It is up to the OP to demonstrate critical flaws that falsify the assumptions, compromise the analysis, and negate the conclusions.

I would point out to the OP that the assumptions he makes and the particular "facts" and "arguments" he chooses to include in his reasoning leads him to a conclusion that is consistent with those assumptions, "facts" and "arguments", but it does not mean that his reasoning has any validity since the basis of his reasoning is seriously disputed (and in the view of others totally discredited) which makes it unconvincing at best and ridiculously stupid at worse.

 

[SUSpilot]

Oy! Not this tired old crap again!

<snip>

Common sense should tell you that you have been misled by some really stupid and crazy people, such as O'Reilly ...

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.

 

[Sabretooth]

If the building was believed to be brought down due to intense fuel fire that reached temperatures over the melting point of steel. 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. The proof for that is many high rise fires and most of them burned for 17+ hours, the twin towers burned for 100 minutes. Most eye witness reports indicate the presence of secondary explosions after the initial impact. 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. 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.

As videos show, the collapse looked too smooth, and the fact that secondary explosions were present (as previously stated) really points to the fact that controlled demolition had taken place. The building had also been designed to withstand SEVERAL hits from a Boeing 707, which is a considerably larger plane with 4 engines instead of 2 engines on the 767's that hit the twin towers, and the towers would withstand speeds of up to 600 miles per hour, whereas the 767's were moving at the speed of 450.

Wow...barely a dozen words into the first sentence before setting up the first lie. Gotta be a truther record, no?

 

[Sabretooth]

The scary part is that an F18 has two engines meaning its the same size as a 767!

no, no...you're thinking of a Super Hornet...

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Hmm. Last weekend I went to a local airfield where they were flying gliders but I could not see them because they had no engines.

 

[njslim]

The building had also been designed to withstand SEVERAL hits from a Boeing 707, which is a considerably larger plane with 4 engines instead of 2 engines on the 767's that hit the twin towers, and the towers would withstand speeds of up to 600 miles per hour, whereas the 767's were moving at the speed of 450.

This is idiotic on some many levels

1) 767 is about 15% bigger than 707 despite having only 2 engines. Jet technology had
progessed in 30 years when 767 was designed. Could get more thrust from only 2
engines

2) AA11 which hit North tower wa estimated traveling at 470 mph United 175 (South
tower) at 530 mph American 77 also about 530 mph into Pentagon , United 93
at Shanksville Pa 575 mph At those speed noty a lot of difference in impact forces

 

[George 152]

Hmm. Last weekend I went to a local airfield where they were flying gliders but I could not see them because they had no engines.

The towplanes and winches must have showed up well pulling all that empty cable around the sky

 

[NoahFence]

Here's a little known fact:

Saturn V Rocket = 5 Engines

Spruce Goose = 8 ENGINES!

So why didn't Howard Hughes fly himself to the moon?

 

[alienentity]

Most likely a drive by (or Schwinn by) troofing.


Hmmm....Joined in May..waits till now for a first post...sock maybe?

Schwinn by... snicker...

 

[carlitos]

38 (now 39) responses to this erroneous OP. By ozeco41's trolling ratio, this is quite a success.

 

[cjnewson88]

I'm surprise MM, Ibis and Clayton havn't been here already.. Don't they usually love jumping all over these old long-debunked claims of fantasy?? ('pull it' rings to mind..)