Russian Skyscraper Fire vs. 9/11

[Ropo]

LOL, so far no skyscraper has ever collapsed due to fire (making one think it is highly unlikely), and then 3 buildings collapse on the same day from fire.  Even all these years after, many buildings have burnt for way longer and still haven't collapsed.  I'm beginning to think that skyscrapers collapsing due to fire looks impossible, surely your intelligent enough to realise that.

And there we see your stupidity once again. You are saying that what we hasn't see yet, is impossible and can't be happen. How about the first wheel, first train, first gun, first flight before they happen. Nobody knows about them, before they see it in their own eyes. So what is first terrorist act with the passanger jets nothing more than another thing what we see first time. And those buildings didn't collapse by the fire, or by the aeroplanes hitting them, or any other single reason. They collapsed because of the chain of happenings, which create circumstances where collapsion was inevitable.

[Radical Plato]

Evidence? There is none, so it is bullshit.

I provided the Interview with Scott Forbes who tells the story of the Power Down.  And why would someone lie about their experience, educated people, smart people 'Why would they make up things', is it to annoy the no tin hats.  His testimony is evidence and there are hundreds of witnesses whose testimony goes against the official report,  it' an insult to call so many people tin hats, these are people that were there, escaped the building, know what they seen and heard.  The fact is, you are someone who sees things in extremes, in black and white, that even if the Government came out and said they did it but they had good cause too, you still wouldn't believe it.  Some people are like this, they are so convinced of being RIGHT even when shown otherwise you still wouldn't believe it. 

Tell me, do you believe in Creationism, the virgin birth, miracles and that woman was created from the rib of man?

[Ropo]

Once again you provide lots of mis-information.  If you are talking people of the world then less than 50% of people buy the official story.  The rest of the people think that either the USA, Israel or some other group are responsible and 25% simply don't know.  And their is a group called 'Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth' that has the support of over 1,600 architectural and engineering professionals, hardly people wearing tin hats.  When you suggest that only fringe dwellers living in their Mums basement support a conspiracy theory, it makes you look silly, as we all know their are highly educated people, people far more educated than you could ever dream of, who don't buy into the Governments official version of what happened that day.  

Hani Hanjour, the Pilot who we are told flew the plain into the Pentagon, his Instructor had this to say about him '"His English was horrible, and his mechanical skills were even worse. It was like he had hardly even ever driven a car. I'm still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon. He could not fly at all." and yet he supposedly pulled of maneourveres that many experienced pilots have come out and said they themselves could not perform.  Those crazy tin hats.

Have you explain to us what explosives they used in the WTC inferno? Didin't think so, because you can't, but you should realize that this piece of information is needed to prove if foil hats theory about the conspiracy is true or false. You see, everything is based on that controlled demolition, which is completely impossible task, and which hasen't any evidense  what so ever. And if the base of your stupid claims is missing, they hasn't any value at all.

[Radical Plato]

I am not angry because people don't believe the "official story". I am angry about the imbeciles who believes every fucking foil hat  idiots theory without any thinking, because that my friend, is sign of the stupidity larger than life. I hate stupid and stupidity, not the people. For example, you are willing to believe that there were explosions in the WTC towers, but you are not willing to prove there was. I see with my own eyes that there isn't anything even tiny bit reminiscent of the explosions, so it is your task to prove there was. First of all, name the explosives which you can burn in the furnace up to hour, and they go off like planned. You can't so you rather write how ropo do this and that and how stupid he is. In the international language of the internet conversations, you seem to have use all your arguments and there fore you cant do anything but try to bully non believers.

'imbeciles who believes every fucking foil hat  idiots theory without any thinking', who are you talking about, friends and family, please explain.  People are simply questioning suspicious events and want a more thorough investigation into what happened.  This is to be expected, thousands of people were murdered, people want an intellectually satisfying explanation.  I am not willing to believe anything, I have said all along I find the whole event suspicious, it seems the only one who has come to some type of conviction is you, which, in an event like this, I don't believe is a sign of intelligence.  As for evidence, the official report provided very little of it, that's the whole reason people question their story, when challenged it simply crumbles to pieces, just like the powerful core of the WTC.  

You ask questions like "  name the explosives which you can burn in the furnace up to hour", for starters their was no furnace and the fire burned for a very short time, perhaps those explosives didn't survive, perhaps they didn't need to, and I don't pretend to know all the answers, I am not a demolition expert, but I know when something is fishy.  And yet you can't explain "How the WTC buildings is the first high-rise before and since to have collapsed from fire" other than to say "Their is a first for everything".  You answer important questions with retard clichés and expect to be taken seriously.

[pedro01]

What about the support beans destroyed when the planes hit?

Hi Jack, I hate to tell you that the whole beanstalk theory has been debunked

[Ropo]

I provided the Interview with Scott Forbes who tells the story of the Power Down.  And why would someone lie about their experience, educated people, smart people 'Why would they make up things', is it to annoy the no tin hats.  His testimony is evidence and there are hundreds of witnesses whose testimony goes against the official report,  it' an insult to call so many people tin hats, these are people that were there, escaped the building, know what they seen and heard.  The fact is, you are someone who sees things in extremes, in black and white, that even if the Government came out and said they did it but they had good cause too, you still wouldn't believe it.  Some people are like this, they are so convinced of being RIGHT even when shown otherwise you still wouldn't believe it. 

Tell me, do you believe in Creationism, the virgin birth, miracles and that woman was created from the rib of man?

You mean this pile of bullshit what they are taking about in this site? http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_power_down.html Instead of that bullshit, why don't you tell us how they were able to cut 56 massive core columns in complete silence, without any shock wave, without breaking any windows, without any marks of the explosions what so ever, and how the hell they calculated where the plane hits, how it is going to break down without hitting the explosives, detonation cords etc. and how those explosives survive up to full hour in that fire? And by the way, what kind of detonation cord they could use, because the cord used in controlled demolitions is plastic tube filled with explosive mass. In real life, when they make these controlled demolitions, they use hundred of miles of that cord. That is quite a mass highly explosive material in the place which is going to have plane crashing in it.

[Ropo]

'imbeciles who believes every fucking foil hat  idiots theory without any thinking', who are you talking about, friends and family, please explain.  People are simply questioning suspicious events and want a more thorough investigation into what happened.  This is to be expected, thousands of people were murdered, people want an intellectually satisfying explanation.  I am not willing to believe anything, I have said all along I find the whole event suspicious, it seems the only one who has come to some type of conviction is you, which, in an event like this, I don't believe is a sign of intelligence.  As for evidence, the official report provided very little of it, that's the whole reason people question their story, when challenged it simply crumbles to pieces, just like the powerful core of the WTC.  

You ask questions like "  name the explosives which you can burn in the furnace up to hour", for starters their was no furnace and the fire burned for a very short time, perhaps those explosives didn't survive, perhaps they didn't need to, and I don't pretend to know all the answers, I am not a demolition expert, but I know when something is fishy.  And yet you can't explain "How the WTC buildings is the first high-rise before and since to have collapsed from fire" other than to say "Their is a first for everything".  You answer important questions with retard clichés and expect to be taken seriously.

I mean you and your kind, those drooling idiots from the bottom mud of the gene pool. Now you are saying that there wasn't fire at all? So what make all that smoke, flames and shit what we see in the videos? In fact there was a fire, very big one, bigger than your imagination can comprehend. There was at  least seven floors at fire, each floor has 4000 square meters, so that adds up to 28 000 square meters on fire. While we know as an fact that each office square meter includes 420MJ of fire load (eu fire standard), that will be 117 600 000 MJ (Mega Joules) and that is a lot of energy. So instead arguing millions of eyewitnesses, all the videos and material, why don't you go and find some evidence about the explosions?

[Radical Plato]

You mean this pile of bullshit what they are taking about in this site? http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_power_down.html Instead of that bullshit, why don't you tell us how they were able to cut 56 massive core columns in complete silence, without any shock wave, without breaking any windows, without any marks of the explosions what so ever, and how the hell they calculated where the plane hits, how it is going to break down without hitting the explosives, detonation cords etc. and how those explosives survive up to full hour in that fire? And by the way, what kind of detonation cord they could use, because the cord used in controlled demolitions is plastic tube filled with explosive mass. In real life, when they make these controlled demolitions, they use hundred of miles of that cord. That is quite a mass highly explosive material in the place which is going to have plane crashing in it.

The large amount of witness accounts of explosions is well documented, their are also witnesses who said their were explosions that created such shockwaves it smashed them into the ground, their are also reports of windows breaking.  It seems you don't believe any of the witnesses, in your angry mind they are just tin hats. 

As for the demolition, you and I are hardly experts so neither of us can answer the logistics involved in such a task, nor to the technology they may have to perform such a feat.  The fact remains, that no steel-framed skyscraper had ever totally collapsed of its own weight due to any cause or combination of causes -- be they bombings, severe fires, earthquakes, or hurricanes -- other than by controlled demolition.  To this day, the WTC is the only building to collapse the way buildings do when done by controlled demolition but is said to have been caused by fire.  This is an amazing coincidence.

[Twaddle]

Then how can you claim 100s saw the plane go into the Pentagon? Have you interviewed them? Seeing a plane fly overhead and seeing it hit the building are two separate things.

I didn't interview them, others did.  What is so hard to understand about this?  Hundred's of people saw a jumbo jet fly into the Pentagon that day.  I'm really confused on how people find this hard to believe?  These people have been interviewed, and gone on record stating this.  HTH.  

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/bart.html

[viking1]

I reckon my hijacked penis would collapse her twin tower.

[Radical Plato]

I mean you and your kind, those drooling idiots from the bottom mud of the gene pool. Now you are saying that there wasn't fire at all? So what make all that smoke, flames and shit what we see in the videos? In fact there was a fire, very big one, bigger than your imagination can comprehend. There was at  least seven floors at fire, each floor has 4000 square meters, so that adds up to 28 000 square meters on fire. While we know as an fact that each office square meter includes 420MJ of fire load (eu fire standard), that will be 117 600 000 MJ (Mega Joules) and that is a lot of energy. So instead arguing millions of eyewitnesses, all the videos and material, why don't you go and find some evidence about the explosions?

Absurdity at it's finest ^^^ just claims, no evidence

Given that the vast majority of the volatile jet fuel was consumed inside five minutes of each crash, the fires subsequently dwindled, limited to the fuels of conventional office fires. The fires in both Towers diminished steadily until the South Tower's collapse. Seconds before, the remaining pockets of fire were visible only to the firefighters and victims in the crash zone.

• Fires in the North Tower covered extensive regions, at least near the perimeter walls, of about three floors.
  
• Fires in the South Tower also extended over about three floors, but were more localized to one side of the building.
• The fires did not spread significantly beyond the impact region. With the exception of a region of fire about 10 floors above the crash zone in the North Tower, the fires remained around the impact zones.
• The fires did not cause parts of the building to glow. At temperatures above 700° C, steel glows red hot, a feature that is visible in daylight.
• Dark smoke implies the presence of soot, which is composed of uncombusted hydrocarbons. Soot is produced when a fire is oxygen-starved, or has just been extinguished. Soot also has a high thermal capacity and may act to rob a fire of heat by carrying it away.
• At least 18 survivors evacuated from above the crash zone of the South Tower through a stairwell that passed through the crash zone,  None of the survivors reported great heat around the crash zone.
• An audiotape of firefighter communications revealed that firefighters had reached the 78th floor sky lobby of the South Tower and were enacting a plan to evacuate people and put out the "two pockets of fire" they found, just before the Tower was destroyed.

[Radical Plato]

I didn't interview them, others did.  What is so hard to understand about this?  Hundred's of people saw a jumbo jet fly into the Pentagon that day.  I'm really confused on how people find this hard to believe?  These people have been interviewed, and gone on record stating this.  HTH.  

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/bart.html

I am a sceptic, but their are many who witnessed a plane hit the pentagon.

[quadzilla456]

Foil hat idiots playing with fire. Only imbecile can fell in that crap, and do you know why? What they are cutting there is something like 2% of the thickness of the real core column, and even that is too much to burn in one take, so they have done several takes to make the cut. In real life core colums were 18" x 35", and wall thickness was 4". Why they doesn't cut the real thing, but this tinfoil beam? Because they can't, because it is impossible. Because they will need few hundred kilos of thermite, ceramic  bathtub etc. to make it happen.

You are desperate. Just relax, take an antidepressant and a deep breath. You are out of control.

[quadzilla456]

Yes, and the narrator says there that it is confirmed that the plane was there for the security, not for the attac, so it has to be military plane, not the passenger jet. There is of course always the chance to beat all previous records of stupidity but what are the benefits of it?

Well, we know the media are lying whores don't we?

[pedro01]

That's not true, please provide evidence.  As far as I am aware No high Rise in the history of the world has ever collapsed due to fire, let alone pancake collapsed into it's own footprint.  The only documented cases of high-rise buildings undergoing complete collapse involved either controlled demolition or severe earthquakes. Of those, only controlled demolitions have caused such buildings to fall vertically into their footprints, leaving relatively small rubble piles, as was the case with WTC 1 and 2, and Building 7.  Nearly all building collapses not involving controlled demolition are partial rather than total.

The One Meridian Plaza Fire

The First Interstate Bank Fire

The 1 New York Plaza Fire

Caracas Tower Fire

The Windsor Building Fire

The Beijing Mandarin Oriental Hotel Fire

All these high rises were ravaged by fire for far longer than WTC and they never collapsed.  The total collapse of steel-framed buildings appears to be an extremely rare event, even when large earthquakes are involved. In the Kobe and Mexico City earthquakes, many such buildings were severely damaged, and some experienced partial collapse. A 21-story office building in Mexico City appears to be the only such structure that has suffered a collapse described as total as a result of a stress other than controlled demolition.



This is what building look like when they collapse due to earthquake.

OK - to turn that around....

If it was the conspiracy you say it was - where thousands of people were to be killed and billions lost....

Why have the buildings fall on their own their own footprints? Why not have them topple over & fuck up lots of other places?

[daddy8ball]

LOL, so far no skyscraper has ever collapsed due to fire (making one think it is highly unlikely), and then 3 buildings collapse on the same day from fire.  Even all these years after, many buildings have burnt for way longer and still haven't collapsed.  I'm beginning to think that skyscrapers collapsing due to fire looks impossible, surely your intelligent enough to realise that.

Besides the WTC, can you link us to other skyscrapers that were hit with a fully fueled jumbo jet and did not collapse? Thanks.

[Radical Plato]

Besides the WTC, can you link us to other skyscrapers that were hit with a fully fueled jumbo jet and did not collapse? Thanks.

For one, the planes were far from fully fuelled, The 767s used on September 11th were estimated to be carrying about 10,000 gallons of fuel each at the time of impact, only about 40% of the capacity.  Their are many incidents of small planes hitting buildings and the buildings not collapsing, the Empire State building was hit by a ten-ton, B-25 bomber, and oddly enough it still stands.  In 2005 Iranian Air Force C-130 crash occurred when an Iranian Air Force C-130E Hercules military transport aircraft, crashed into an apartment building in a residential area of Tehran, and oddly enough it still stands. 

And any talk of planes is irrelevant, WTC 7 collapsed demolition style and was hit by no planes whatsoever.  

[El Diablo Blanco]

Ropo, E-Kul, you can argue until you turn blue, but the truth lies in the sworn testimony of Bush and Cheney that Bush used his Presidential power to mark as never to be seen again classified.

[daddy8ball]

For one, the planes were far from fully fuelled, The 767s used on September 11th were estimated to be carrying about 10,000 gallons of fuel each at the time of impact, only about 40% of the capacity.  Their are many incidents of small planes hitting buildings and the buildings not collapsing, the Empire State building was hit by a ten-ton, B-25 bomber, and oddly enough it still stands.  And any talk of planes is irrelevant, WTC 7 collapsed demolition style and was hit by no planes whatsoever.  

Small planes are not jumbo jets. That's like equalizing a dog being run over by a skateboard and run over by a tank.

Also, I ask you this: The WTC was a target for terrorists in the mid 90's. The WTC was a known target. Why go to the trouble of having a controlled demolition? Why try to hide this within the framework of an aircraft impact?

If this was a conspiracy -- if this was all to frame Al Qaeda and start a war..why not simply blow up the fucking building in a non-controlled manner after the plane hit? Why try to hide it? You'd invoke MUCH more fear if after the plane hit, building just blew the fuck up every which way in an obvious manner.

Then Bush could've said ...  LOOK! See! The buildings were wired by Al Qaeda!

What does he have to gain by a controlled demolition?

[King Shizzo]

Small planes are not jumbo jets. That's like equalizing a dog being run over by a skateboard and run over by a tank.

Also, I ask you this: The WTC was a target for terrorists in the mid 90's. The WTC was a known target. Why go to the trouble of having a controlled demolition? Why try to hide this within the framework of an aircraft impact?

If this was a conspiracy -- if this was all to frame Al Qaeda and start a war..why not simply blow up the fucking building in a non-controlled manner after the plane hit? Why try to hide it? You'd invoke MUCH more fear if after the plane hit, building just blew the fuck up every which way in an obvious manner.

Then Bush could've said ...  LOOK! See! The buildings were wired by Al Qaeda!

What does he have to gain by a controlled demolition?

Hi Obama! Everything was a lie.

[Radical Plato]

Small planes are not jumbo jets. That's like equalizing a dog being run over by a skateboard and run over by a tank.

Also, I ask you this: The WTC was a target for terrorists in the mid 90's. The WTC was a known target. Why go to the trouble of having a controlled demolition? Why try to hide this within the framework of an aircraft impact?

If this was a conspiracy -- if this was all to frame Al Qaeda and start a war..why not simply blow up the fucking building in a non-controlled manner after the plane hit? Why try to hide it? You'd invoke MUCH more fear if after the plane hit, building just blew the fuck up every which way in an obvious manner.

Then Bush could've said ...  LOOK! See! The buildings were wired by Al Qaeda!

What does he have to gain by a controlled demolition?

Ah, because whoever did it doesn't want to be caught.  Proving how Al Qaeda got access to one of the most secure building in the Country would be a fair task, especially considering that the security company was ran by George Bush's brother.  I am not even sure who the conspirators may be, but the owner of the building made billions from it, not to mention ridded himself of some white elephants with some ongoing serious issues (like asbestos).  Also, someone got away with nearly 3/4 billion dollars in gold and silver that was stored under the WTC.  If they had of just used some crude bomb in the basement like previous attempts, it wouldn't have brought the building down.  Whoever planned this, wanted those buildings gone, that's why it was done the way it was. 

[daddy8ball]

Ah, because whoever did it doesn't want to be caught.  Proving how Al Qaeda got access to one of the most secure building in the Country would be a fair task, especially considering that the security company was ran by George Bush's brother.  I am not even sure who the conspirators may be, but the owner of the building made billions from it, not to mention ridded himself of some white elephants with some ongoing serious issues (like asbestos).  Also, someone got away with nearly 3/4 billion dollars in gold and silver that was stored under the WTC.  If they had of just used some crude bomb in the basement like previous attempts, it wouldn't have brought the building down.  Whoever planned this, wanted those buildings gone, that's why it was done the way it was.  

If they didn't want to be caught, doesn't a controlled demolition (as opposed to an uncontrolled, obvious demolition) scream "conspiracy"? If they didn't want to be caught, I would think they would simply have just blown the building up at it's base. Much simpler, much less risky -- and much more likely to be regarded as the work of amateurs and leave a cold trail. A controlled demolition screams -- "Hey! Look at me! I wired the building!".

Why would the conspirators do that?

So the question is: Why have an obvious controlled demolition, when a flashier, UNCONTROLLED demolition would suit your purposes better?

It would
- Frame Al Qaeda
- Cause more destruction
- Be easier
- Cause more fear.

And yes, you can argue that a controlled demolition GUARANTEES that the building will fall, but give the right explosives at the base of ANY building...one can guarantee the building will fall.

The only way controlled demolitions are used anyway, is to minimize the footprint of the destruction. Why would they want to do that?

[Radical Plato]

If they didn't want to be caught, doesn't a controlled demolition (as opposed to an uncontrolled, obvious demolition) scream "conspiracy"? If they didn't want to be caught, I would think they would simply have just blown the building up at it's base. Much simpler, much less risky -- and much more likely to be regarded as the work of amateurs and leave a cold trail. A controlled demolition screams -- "Hey! Look at me! I wired the building!".

Why would the conspirators do that?

So the question is: Why have an obvious controlled demolition, when a flashier, UNCONTROLLED demolition would suit your purposes better?

It would
- Frame Al Qaeda
- Cause more destruction
- Be easier
- Cause more fear.

And yes, you can argue that a controlled demolition GUARANTEES that the building will fall, but give the right explosives at the base of ANY building...one can guarantee the building will fall.

The only way controlled demolitions are used anyway, is to minimize the footprint of the destruction. Why would they want to do that?

It is neither here nor there, whatever way they went about it, they can spin it any way they want, the people will simply believe want the Government tells them, they know this.  Even though 9/11 conspiracy is not a fringe group, it is a popular belief, it still doesn't matter, because they are the Government, they tell you what to believe.  And if you don't believe it, they will use propaganda until you do or they have marginalised and ridiculed those that don't believe them.  Even if everyone knows they are full of shit, what are the people going to do, nothing.  Western Governments know how powerless the people are, how apathetic they are and likely to do nothing, even in the face of overt corruption and on top of that they are easily manipulated by authority and propaganda. 

People don't realise how modern Governments have mastered modern Propaganda, they took Germany's NAZI propaganda model and beautifully refined it, they have found much more effective ways of controlling the population without having to gas masses of minorities.

[daddy8ball]

It is neither here nor there

Actually, it is here and it is there.

I just laid out a good case for an uncontrolled demolition. No matter who carried out the attack, there are advantages to BOTH sides using an uncontrolled demolition.

Bush - An uncontrolled, flashy explosion clearly frames Al Qaeda, causes more fear, and furthers whatever agenda he has.
Al Qaeda - An uncontrolled, flashy explosion causes more fear, more death, more destruction and sends a message it can access any American structure.

What is the advantage of a controlled demolition? Can you answer this question? Please don't address money, your propaganda theories, nazis, etc. Just answer this question:

What is the advantage of a controlled demolition?

[Radical Plato]

Actually, it is here and it is there.

I just laid out a good case for an uncontrolled demolition. No matter who carried out the attack, there are advantages to BOTH sides using an uncontrolled demolition.

Bush - An uncontrolled, flashy explosion clearly frames Al Qaeda, causes more fear, and furthers whatever agenda he has.
Al Qaeda - An uncontrolled, flashy explosion causes more fear, more death, more destruction and sends a message it can access any American structure.

What is the advantage of a controlled demolition? Can you answer this question? Please don't address money, your propaganda theories, nazis, etc. Just answer this question:

What is the advantage of a controlled demolition?

Your argument is non-sensical, why didn't they do a thousand different things?, why didn't they just Nuke Mainland America and blame the crazy Muslims.  Who knows why they chose to do it the way they did, maybe they like spectacle, maybe the just like demolishing things?  It doesn't matter, they did what they did.  Why did al-queda do what they did? Why did the target the WTC?  Why not the school that George Bush was visiting,  the school lies only slightly to the southwest of the final approach path to Sarasota-Bradenton Airport. A jetliner targeting the school and its occupants would need to divert from a normal flight path just a few seconds before impact, affording no opportunity for countermeasures.

In answer to your question:  Who the fuck knows and Who the fuck cares.