Print

[lordvader129]

QUOTE(Alex548 @ Jun 8 2006, 08:40 PM)

I actually found it to be a quite amusing.

Did you notice the join dates of all those idiots who were talking crap prior to Mr. Vader's comments?
They all thought they had the last word in this debate... and 8 hours after vader's post... none of them have come back to post a reply.

methinks idiots should be more like idiot, i kinda doubt multiple people happen to see this thread and join at the same time

but much like their conspiracy theory theres no evidence so im forced to not ban them (of course if i were to think like them theyd all be banned just for disagreeing with me, lol)

[CattyKid]

QUOTE(maltonbranch @ Jun 8 2006, 05:34 AM)

Where did the heat come from if you say thats what brought down the towers as it all burned off in a big ball of fire outside. where did this heat come from, as the periodic Stats its impossible. IMPOSSIBLE that jet fuel even if it didnt all burn off like it did could melt the steel.

This is the ONE thing I don't get.  Now, if there WERE in fact things like office supplies, computers, electrical wiring burning and jet fuel did not produce significant heat to melt steel, then where did this heat come from?  A burning piece of paper can't melt steel.  I doubt burning insulation on wiring could melt steel.  Computers, chairs (fabrics), cubicles (don't burn at too high a temp, right?)... them burning can melt steel?  Doesn't SOUND right, does it to any of you?

Now, what I would ask next is... IS there an explosive that can melt steel, since people claim this proves they were brought down by explosives?  If so, is it hot enough to flash-melt steel, since for example, a steel column would only be exposed to the heat from an explosion for a fraction of a second, right?

[lordvader129]

QUOTE(CattyKid @ Jun 8 2006, 10:56 PM)

This is the ONE thing I don't get. Now, if there WERE in fact things like office supplies, computers, electrical wiring burning and jet fuel did not produce significant heat to melt steel, then where did this heat come from? A burning piece of paper can't melt steel. I doubt burning insulation on wiring could melt steel. Computers, chairs (fabrics), cubicles (don't burn at too high a temp, right?)... them burning can melt steel? Doesn't SOUND right, does it to any of you?

Now, what I would ask next is... IS there an explosive that can melt steel, since people claim this proves they were brought down by explosives? If so, is it hot enough to flash-melt steel, since for example, a steel column would only be exposed to the heat from an explosion for a fraction of a second, right?

well for one thing the steel didnt melt, not before the towers collapsed at least, the fires softened the already dammaged steel structure to a point where they could not hold the weight of the upper part of the building

in demolition linear shaped charges, or cutting charges, like these are used


as the name implies, they dont melt anything, they cut it, they are fast burning and produce a very large blast wave which cuts the steel, resulting in this

BEFORE


AFTER



the melted steel was found weeks and even months after the towers fell, which theorists say is proof of very hot explosives used (thermite for example, even though thermite isnt an explosive, its more like a very hot napalm) however nothign could impart so much heat to the steel that it would still be melted months later (the steel along with the entire tower would have been vaporized by that much heat) so it means there must have been a constant heat source on the steel under the debris

over the course of weeks or months, even a wood fire can impart enough heat to melt steel (given the nice blanket of debris to prevent heat from escaping)

[Alex548]

QUOTE(lordvader129 @ Jun 8 2006, 06:49 PM)

methinks idiots should be more like idiot, i kinda doubt multiple people happen to see this thread and join at the same time

but much like their conspiracy theory theres no evidence so im forced to not ban them (of course if i were to think like them theyd all be banned just for disagreeing with me, lol)

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing you were. 1 idiot creating multiple accounts and making multiple BS posts.

[Aquarillis]

1. Claim: Charles Burlingame, an ex-Navy F4 pilot who worked in the Pentagon, participated in an exercise simulating crashing a 757 into a building in October 2000, before retiring to take a job at American Airlines,

[lordvader129]

Source?

[Chook]

they find DNA from 50,000 years ago.  Its fairly small compared to plane parts.  A severed thumb is more than enough to map the entire genome.

The fuel wouldn't burn completly because it reaches its UEL, where there is too much fuel and not enough oxygen for a flash explosion.

I have friends who think it was faked.  This I doubt.  I do give some likelyhood that the government didn't do everything to stop the events that they knew about.

[lordvader129]

QUOTE

QUOTE

Then what planes landed there, and why was there such suspicious activity in Cleaveland?

one of them was Delta 11, which was believed to have been hijacked (it wasnt) people referring to it as "the hijacked plane" could have led to confusion, ive never seen any records of "suspicious activity" other than what loose change provides

just want to make a corect here, Delta 1989 was the thought-to-be hijacked plane that landed in cleveland, American 11 was another thought-to-be hijacked plane (it didnt land in cleveland)

[lordvader129]

QUOTE

Why does the Commission not mention the bomb that was believed to have been aboard Delta 1989?
Why does the Commission not mention when it was known that Delta 1989 wasn’t hijacked?
Why does the Commission not mention the evacuation of Cleveland tower, airport and city?
Why does the Commission not explain the reason why Delta was believed to have been hijacked?

the 9/11 Commission investigated the hijackings and terror attacks of  9/11, Delta 1989 was neither hijacked no involved in any terrorist activity (this was clear once it landed) so it was not investigated

QUOTE

Why does the Commission not explain why FAA and NORAD seem to have worked perfectly for Delta but not for UA 93?

ever wonder why the terrorists deactivate the transponders? its because those broadcast identifying information about the plane, UA 93 was off course with no transponder, making it very difficult to track

Delta 1989 was on course (until it was asked to land in cleveland) and its transponder was on, making it easy to identify and track