LordAndrew wrote:

Jet fuel can't melt steel beams.

As long as we're stating facts here.

Work will set you free, and Hitler did nothing wrong.

Ter13 wrote:

I knew it!

That movie scared the piss out of a young, innocent Kumo.

Ter13 wrote:

That movie scared the piss out of a young, innocent Kumo.

Your parents let you watch that movie as a child? Nobody should subject their children to Mel Gibson that young.

I think M. Shamallama was more detrimental to my development, honestly.

@Xooxer: You working on anything in DM anymore?

meanwhile at the white house

So here we are, coming up on 14 years, and you continue to counter with stupid pictures, comments, and videos, or attempt to derail the topic with questions that don't have anything to do with the subject.

Not one of you has proven to have any intellect when it comes to this topic. For some reason, you abandon reason in exchange for petty personal attacks and nonsense. You fall back to the official story, or what you believe is the official story, and become overtly hostile.

Meanwhile, your legs have all silently been removed. The official story isn't even officially supported anymore. Pancake collapse is out. There's nothing to explain the collapse now, except controlled demolition or an miracle from God.

You've had years to reconsider, or more appropriately, consider. So, what say you now?

Jet fuel never had to melt the steel beams. Raising steel's temperature enough, even well below the melting point, is enough to severely weaken its structural properties.

One of the best debunks of the 9/11 truther movement I've ever seen was by Cracked's David Wong, back when he still wrote his own site. It remains online:

http://www.cracked.com/article_15740_was-911-inside-job.html

Xooxer wrote:

Your article disproves what, exactly?

Molten steel was most certainly found in the rubble.

By whom, are you sure it's actually molten steel? There was heated bent steel, molten aluminum, and corroded steel.

What makes his math (which he never shares) more accurate than everyone elses?

Got me there, I could probably take 5 minutes to google it's accuracy, but I'm lazy, anyone who thinks this is a "gotcha" can google it themselves.

So.. because Ventura couldn't do something, nobody can? It's either explosives or it's thermate/mite? Why not both?

So.. You want to use thermite to keep it quiet, and then use explosives cuz... I dno, it needed to be a tiny bit flashy, right?

Compressed air is not possible 400 feet below the destruction wave and the debris free falling outside the collapse area, since this is no longer a closed system, and dust and debris don't fly through 40 floor of offices that fast.

I'm not really sure where your point is in this sentence, but it doesn't seem very well thought out.

It also doesn't explain the obvious wraps being blown out the windows when the squibs go off.

This was already debunked.

It never explained the micro sphericals, just dismissed them with thermite. It never explained the double-sided nature of the micro flakes.

This was already debunked.

There were most certainly reports of explosions in and under the building before and during collapse.

By whom? Claiming what "seems to sound like an explosion" is hardly a scientific statement. There are other issues with your statement, but the statement doesn't really play into the argument anyways.

Progressive collapse. So... it fell down, because it fell down? Miracle of God it is then.

No? It fell down because of structural failure, and then continued to fall because it started to fall...

Anyways, if this is your rebuttle I'm not gonna reply again, anyone can easily use google to answer any of these points (a bunch of which are debunked in the article) and any other apparent "evidence" you have (or "truthers" have) of it being an inside job.

Megablaze wrote:

Xooxer wrote:

Your article disproves what, exactly?

Molten steel was most certainly found in the rubble.

Then you live in a different universe than I. Welcome. Might want to get your history right.

So.. because Ventura couldn't do something, nobody can? It's either explosives or it's thermate/mite? Why not both?

So.. You want to use thermite to keep it quiet, and then use explosives cuz... I dno, it needed to be a tiny bit flashy, right?

You see what I mean? "I want"? I want answers that fit physical laws, not some straw man you decide to toss up to rip down. The explosives are evidenced by the explosions. The thermite is evidenced by the traces left in the debris, and the giant pool of molten metal that sat at the bottom of the rubble for weeks.

I'm not really sure where your point is in this sentence, but it doesn't seem very well thought out.

Those bursts of ejected matter are far below the wave of destruction above. They contain debris. Dust. Smoke. Large wrappings eject from some of them. How, if this matter is indeed from the collapsing building above, did it travel 400 feet down, faster than the free-falling debris, through 40 floors of still-intact office furniture, walls, floors and ceilings, to escape one window, in such a short amount of time? Conclusion, it is not from the wave of destruction above, but instead an isolated explosive event.

It also doesn't explain the obvious wraps being blown out the windows when the squibs go off.

This was already debunked.

Where?

It never explained the micro sphericals, just dismissed them with thermite. It never explained the double-sided nature of the micro flakes.

This was already debunked.

Where?

There were most certainly reports of explosions in and under the building before and during collapse.

By whom? Claiming what "seems to sound like an explosion" is hardly a scientific statement. There are other issues with your statement, but the statement doesn't really play into the argument anyways.

By survivors and first responders, firemen, police officers, people who worked in the towers, people who came out of them before they collapsed. The videos are all over the place.

Doesn't play? So, you just say my point is invalid? What basis do you have for dismissing these reports and testimonies? They're not scientific? What, would you like a controlled, double-blind catastrophe? We work with what we have. Dismissing these people because they don't fit some ideal notion of a scholar is ignorant.

Progressive collapse. So... it fell down, because it fell down? Miracle of God it is then.

No? It fell down because of structural failure, and then continued to fall because it started to fall...

What caused it to fail in the first place, then?

Anyways, if this is your rebuttle I'm not gonna reply again, anyone can easily use google to answer any of these points (a bunch of which are debunked in the article) and any other apparent "evidence" you have (or "truthers" have) of it being an inside job.

You've debunked nothing. You make straw men, and beat them up. Congrats. These questions still stand.