Russian Skyscraper Fire vs. 9/11

[Seven Copper Coins]

What about all the phone calls from hijacked passengers on the doomed planes to loved ones describing the box cutters. Were these faked by the Hierarchy?

Because the hierarchy can wipe out entire Towns at will, control the media, etc.

I like the nice little "out" the foil people use though, the hierarchy "allows" heated discussions and conspiracy theorists to exist so as not to make it obvious how powerful they are....LOL.

[daddy8ball]

Because the hierarchy can wipe out entire Towns at will, control the media, etc.

I like the nice little "out" the foil people use though, the hierarchy "allows" heated discussions and conspiracy theorists to exist so as not to make it obvious how powerful they are....LOL.

The underlying argument of the conspiracy theorists was that 9-11 was perpetrated by the U.S. to start a war. They point to Iraq and oil.

What they don't explains is that if the U.S. provided the funds, logistics, and plannings to conduct the 9-11 operation (and pulled it off without a hitch )...why didn't the U.S. simply plant a cache of VX nerve gas in the Iraqi desert? That would be a trivial operation that even the most rookie operative could pull off.

[Seven Copper Coins]

The underlying argument of the conspiracy theorists was that 9-11 was perpetrated by the U.S. to start a war. They point to Iraq and oil.

What they don't explains is that if the U.S. provided the funds, logistics, and plannings to conduct the 9-11 operation (and pulled it off without a hitch )...why didn't the U.S. simply plant a cache of VX nerve gas in the Iraqi desert? That would be a trivial operation that even the most rookie operative could pull off.

There are so many gigantic leaps of logic, and just ignoring facts and common sense it's pointless to argue.

[daddy8ball]

There are so many gigantic leaps of logic, and just ignoring facts and common sense it's pointless to argue.

Old Indian proverb: You cannot wake a man who is pretending to sleep.

[Radical Plato]

There are so many gigantic leaps of logic, and just ignoring facts and common sense it's pointless to argue.

I agree, the Final Reports from the NIST Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster just make so many gigantic leaps of logic, and just ignoring facts and common sense, but I still don't think it is pointless to argue.

[Radical Plato]

The underlying argument of the conspiracy theorists was that 9-11 was perpetrated by the U.S. to start a war. They point to Iraq and oil.

What they don't explains is that if the U.S. provided the funds, logistics, and plannings to conduct the 9-11 operation (and pulled it off without a hitch )...why didn't the U.S. simply plant a cache of VX nerve gas in the Iraqi desert? That would be a trivial operation that even the most rookie operative could pull off.

Why would they bother, they simply had to tell the people there were weapons of mass destruction and the people believed it.  Modern Governments only need to create the illusion of something, the reality doesn't matter.

[Ropo]

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.

Show me explosion, don't just talk about them. Tell me which explosive they use, because none of them works in fire. How hard this is to understand? No one in this world and it's forums has been able to do those two things, so why don't you want to be first? Instead of that crap what you are feeding to us, why don't you do so?  BECAUSE YOU CAN'T, IT IS SO SIMPLE. You can't show any explosions, because there isn't any. There is only that bullshit and eye witnesses who see this and that and hear anything they want. Where is all physical evidence about the explosions? There has been 15 pages of this conversation, and you have been able to name 0 explosive, 0 evidence, and do you know what that means? You are full of shit.  

Why don't you pull your head out from your ass and try to understand this: These conversations has been around from the 9/11, and during these years, there is no one who has been able to prove not one thing about the conspiracy. All there is, is empty claims which these bastards try to prove with counterfeited evidence. Stupid narrated videos, where some moron tells you what you have to see in it, and they make sure that you see only what they want you to see, like collapse of the WTC7. There is more than 5 seconds missing in that foil hat version, just because they want to show you that "free fall". If we add that 5 seconds in that "free fall", what happens? We see slowest "free fall" of the history of the mankind, and more than that, we see how the front side of the building goes down long before the "free fall" starts. Just as it has been written down in that scary "official truth". So why they show you this video, which has been manipulated to show only what they try to lie to you? Why? And how dork you have to be to not understand that they lie to YOU?

[tommywishbone]

Yeah, because the Towers falling down like Tiiiimmmber...and leveling entire city blocks would've been "ho hum". Gotcha.

     Ya, 10 million ton, 1,000 foot tall buildings fall over all the time. Zero impact on viewers and local folk.   I would rather watch a cat parade filled with really average cats.

[Ropo]

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.

Dear child, do you even know what the fact is? Look it out from the dictionary. Now you are saying that dimensions, which are common knowledge, is falce, and calculation about the energy of the fire isn't the fact. Well, that is based to the EU building standard, which is just about the same that it is in USA, and with it these buildings are build. There is average fire load of the office building, and that has been base  of the calculations everywhere where they want to know details of the fire. There is lots and lots of video and photo evidence about the fire, but nothing to prove you claims. Therefore you are full of shit, and I know this game. Where is the evidence about he explosions? Try to focus to that? That is more than enough for your capasity.

[epic_alien]

one simple question in relation to 9/11.

 have you seen a a video of the plane that supposedly hit  the pentagon?

have you?

if you have then id say yes, the official story is all good to go. no more need for questions

[Tapeworm]

[tommywishbone]

one simple question in relation to 9/11.

 have you seen a a video of the plane that supposedly hit  the pentagon?

have you?

if you have then id say yes, the official story is all good to go. no more need for questions

I haven't seen a video of the Titanic sinking either and I'm pretty sure it sank. . . OR DID IT?

[Ropo]

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

If I am desperate, why I am not he one who link these ridiculous videos and shit? Because I know what I am talking about. So you claim that there were 56 bath tubs full of thermite in that basing fire for an hour before they were detonated? You have to understand that amount of the thermite grows when size of the steel grows. I have calculated that also, and to cut one of the four side of the column so big, you need somewhat 400lb of thermite per long side, 200lb for the short one. That is a lot. Most of the column were in the elevator shaft, so how exactly those bath tub's and the elevators would be fitted in the elevator shaft which has no spare space at all. You foil hats and your theory, it works only if we ignore all facts of the matter.

And about the thermite itself, it is suitable for work like this? No, it isn't, because it is working form is liquid which can travel only to direction of gravity. They use it welding railroads, and there is very few other common use to it, because it isn't very efficient. Foil hats love it, but in the true life it is hardly used. And it ignates by fire.

So in you theory there is 56 bath tubs full of thermite in that inferno up to one hour, and that is it. So, where is the light, made by the liquid which is in temperature of 2800°C, where is the sparkles of the burning steel and any sign of temperatures so high?

You like the videos? Here is one for you. Start from 3:42:

There is half a metric ton of the stuff trying to burn one little car in half.

[epic_alien]

I haven't seen a video of the Titanic sinking either and I'm pretty sure it sank. . . OR DID IT?

well considering the amount of cameras in the areas and many angles of them. why havent you seen a video?

[jwb]

Christ that didn't even burn the pillars in the roof!

[Ropo]

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.  

So, for you tiny B-25 is just same that 767 with empty weight of 82,380 kilos ? Add the fuel, luggage and passengers and you are over 100 metric tons.  B-25 weight is 9580 kilos, so it is less than 10% from 767. And how about speed? Little twin engine in fog vs. 767 with suicide pilot? All your arguments underlines only one truth, and do you know what it is? You are out of your league. You are just too ignorant fool to this conversation.

There is estimates about the amount of fuel, and with your estimate that flight could not fly at it's destination at all. I find that fun, because there is always enough fuel + reserve for waiting for landing. One of the most reasonable estimate is 40 tons of jet fuel, so the impact weight would be as high as 130 metric tons. If we add speed of 800 kilometers per hour, what is the energy in that impact? It was measured by the seismograph, and it was 0.92  magnitudes. That is a lot in situation like this. Fllying object hit the bulding at the force of 0.92 magnitude? You can't even understand how great burst of energy that is. Just think about it? 130 tons with the speed of 800kmh stops in the lenght of the 61 meters. Any one with the normal brains can see that it is more than enough to break the building.

[Ropo]

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

We know that the media from the foil hat idiots will lie, because that is all they do. What is amazing is that there is people who is willing to believe that crap without any thinking at all.

[Radical Plato]

So, for you tiny B-25 is just same that 767 with empty weight of 82,380 kilos ? Add the fuel, luggage and passengers and you are over 100 metric tons.  B-25 weight is 9580 kilos, so it is less than 10% from 767. And how about speed? Little twin engine in fog vs. 767 with suicide pilot? All your arguments underlines only one truth, and do you know what it is? You are out of your league. You are just too ignorant fool to this conversation.

There is estimates about the amount of fuel, and with your estimate that flight could not fly at it's destination at all. I find that fun, because there is always enough fuel + reserve for waiting for landing. One of the most reasonable estimate is 40 tons of jet fuel, so the impact weight would be as high as 130 metric tons. If we add speed of 800 kilometers per hour, what is the energy in that impact? It was measured by the seismograph, and it was 0.92  magnitudes. That is a lot in situation like this. Fllying object hit the bulding at the force of 0.92 magnitude? You can't even understand how great burst of energy that is. Just think about it? 130 tons with the speed of 800kmh stops in the lenght of the 61 meters. Any one with the normal brains can see that it is more than enough to break the building.

You obviously missed the crucial part of the post - Any talk of planes is irrelevant, WTC 7 collapsed demolition style and was hit by no planes whatsoever.  Why anyone even talks about the planes is beyond me, it might have been relevant if WTC 7 hadn't have collapsed the way it did.  But WTC7 collapsed in identical fashion to the twin towers and it was never hit with a plane.  Also the rest of the WTC buildings were damaged worse than WTC7 and yet they never collapsed either.

[jwb]

You obviously missed the crucial part of the post - Any talk of planes is irrelevant, WTC 7 collapsed demolition style and was hit by no planes whatsoever.  Why anyone even talks about the planes is beyond me, it might have been relevant if WTC 7 hadn't have collapsed the way it did.  But WTC7 collapsed in identical fashion to the twin towers and it was never hit with a plane.  Also the rest of the WTC buildings were damaged worse than WTC7 and yet they never collapsed either.

WTC7 was hit by a 110 story building and burned for 8 hours.

It also had a subway station underneath it so it sat on crossmembers instead of being columned straight into the bedrock.

[Radical Plato]

I haven't seen a video of the Titanic sinking either and I'm pretty sure it sank. . . OR DID IT?

Is this enough proof?

[Radical Plato]

WTC7 was hit by a 110 story building and burned for 8 hours.

It also had a subway station underneath it so it sat on crossmembers instead of being columned straight into the bedrock.

HA HA HA HA HA - WTC7 was not hit by a 110 story building, unless you know something the rest of the world doesn't.  Talk about dramatic.  It was hit with some debris from the WTC, it actually was one of the least hardest hit building as it was so far away,  WTC7 was the only building with a World Trade Center address that stood on a different block from the rest of the complex.  The other WTC building were damaged far worse than WTC 7.

[Ropo]

well considering the amount of cameras in the areas and many angles of them. why havent you seen a video?

What cameras? Name one place on earth, where is military installation which has hundreds of outsiders cameras pointed at it? I bet you find it hard to find. And what would be the reason to point your camera that way? As a owner of the gas station you are more interest about pentagon, than you own fuel pumps and the morons operating them? This typical foil hat argument is based on simple stupidity, that everybody around the pentagon has pointed their cameras at the pentagon, not at their own business what so ever. What would be reason? Do they all know that one day there will be aeroplane hitting the building? And how ridiculous is that?

[epic_alien]

num nums, department of transportation has cameras on their roads, where this huge plane would have flown by before it hit, also there are many cctv cameras on the outside of the pentagon itself. are you that dumb?

[Ropo]

You obviously missed the crucial part of the post - Any talk of planes is irrelevant, WTC 7 collapsed demolition style and was hit by no planes whatsoever.  Why anyone even talks about the planes is beyond me, it might have been relevant if WTC 7 hadn't have collapsed the way it did.  But WTC7 collapsed in identical fashion to the twin towers and it was never hit with a plane.  Also the rest of the WTC buildings were damaged worse than WTC7 and yet they never collapsed either.

Are you really grazy? Only an true imbecile can be stupid like you are. There  is plenty of evidence that WTC 1 collapsed partly on the WTC7 and start fires in it. After burning hours, it's facade collapsed, and the back wall which is the king of the foil hat bullshit, followed. There isn't any mystic about the collapse of the WTC 7, and you see it if you look that material which is in this thread. Your believe is based on denial of the truth and facts, and that is revoltingly stupid.

[Radical Plato]

What cameras? Name one place on earth, where is military installation which has hundreds of outsiders cameras pointed at it? I bet you find it hard to find. And what would be the reason to point your camera that way? As a owner of the gas station you are more interest about pentagon, than you own fuel pumps and the morons operating them? This typical foil hat argument is based on simple stupidity, that everybody around the pentagon has pointed their cameras at the pentagon, not at their own business what so ever. What would be reason? Do they all know that one day there will be aeroplane hitting the building? And how ridiculous is that?

I think he is talking about the hundreds of cameras installed at the pentagon.  It’s one of the largest and most secure buildings in the world. It is the nerve centre for the U.S. military. It has hundreds of security cameras both inside and outside the building. But apparently you can fly an airliner into the side of it without being caught on tape. 

I am still ROFL about your comment "WTC7 was hit by a 110 story building" HA HA HA HA