Do you believe the official 911 story?

[SAYIT]

As often and thoroughly as the out-of-context Palmer quotes have been exposed, I'm more tham a little surprised you would still trot them out. I guess you're just desperate. Now for the rest of the story:

USATODAY.com - Machinery saved people in WTC

South tower is WTC 2.

so firemen made it to the 78 th floor as i stated and your initial claim was the floors below had suffered structural damage from fires now you change to the floors above.

I did not say the floors below the impact zone had collapsed, Princess, just that they were not necessarily structurally intact. Why is it you always must lie to make your case? Can it be the truth just doesn't get it done?

 

[eots]

I did not say the floors below the impact zone had collapsed, Princess, just that they were not necessarily structurally intact. Why is it you always must lie to make your case? Can it be the truth just doesn't get it done?

if there where no fires why would they not be ?

 

[candycorn]

I see I missed nothing during my weekend trip to the coast...

But here's an update.

To date, the 9/11 Commission Report remains bulletproof. Not one conspiracy whackjob can quote one major inaccuracy in the text of the report. I hear that the first draft was written on Kevlar.

To date, not one conspiracy whackjob can account for the downed lightpoles outside of the Pentagon or the massive generator that was knocked off of it's moorings without admitting that AA77 crashed into the building--all you get from these idiots is "I don't know what happened" despite wreckage, passenger DNA, flight path tracking, and eye witnesses. This, in and of itself, should broadcast loud and clear that these fuck-ups are here to do one thing, make asses of themselves and get the attention on the Internet that they can't garner in real life; outside of dousing themselves with gasoline and setting themselves on fire. Even then, it seems, few may care.

As for NYC...jet engines from the planes they deny hit the buildings flew for blocks after they collided with the buildings. Despite this textbook case of inertia, not one of the supposed planted charges was knocked out of place, disabled, or set off by the impact of the planes. When this unassailable fact is brought up, the fallback position quickly becomes "thermite". Consider 50-60 thousand people and first responders were in and around the twin towers. Not one died due to inhalation of "thermite"...not one was burned to death by the falling molten liquid hot magma that would have been generated. And, oh yeah, not one shred of a paper trail exists to the formation of this substance.

WTC7, the cause celeb of the whackjobs, had four major seismic events take place across the street from it. Eighteen floors at a corner of the building were blown away by the collapse of the tower(s) across the street. It collapsed the same day as the twin towers on national television. It had been reported earlier that day by FDNY persons on the scene that the building was listing to the side and that it was going to collapse. Yet amazingly, the whackjobs think there were explosives set in the building--they never say quite why of course because that would involve taking a stand.

Those are the facts, now back to the lies...cue Eots.

 

[editec]

How long did it take the top masthead of each building (starting at over 1700 feet) to reach the rubble?

What is the OFFICIAL timing of that collapse?

Citing that number from the offical report is what we need, not some interpretation from some unknown commentor on some site that nobody have any reason to trust.

How LONG did the collapse take?

If its only ten seconds then something is NOT right.

In fact it takes longer than 10 seconds for something to drop 1700 feet with no resistence other than the air.

This far nobody has come here citing from the offical report.

Why so much trouble proving what the official report says, gang?

 

[Gamolon]

How long did it take the top masthead of each building (starting at over 1700 feet) to reach the rubble?

What is the OFFICIAL timing of that collapse?

Citing that number from the offical report is what we need, not some interpretation from some unknown commentor on some site that nobody have any reason to trust.

How LONG did the collapse take?

If its only ten seconds then something is NOT right.

In fact it takes longer than 10 seconds for something to drop 1700 feet with no resistence other than the air.

This far nobody has come here citing from the offical report.

Why so much trouble proving what the official report says, gang?

Who is having a hard time. There were parts of the core left standing 15 to 25 seconds AFTER collapse initiation.

This blows your 10 second collapse time claim out of the water.

FAQs - NIST WTC Towers Investigation

From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.

 

[Gamolon]

How long did it take the top masthead of each building (starting at over 1700 feet) to reach the rubble?

Why do you insist on posting incorrect information?

WTC1 had the antenna, which was 1727 feet high. The roof of WTC1 was 1368 feet high. The roof of WTC2 was 1362 feet high.

 

[editec]

How long did it take the top masthead of each building (starting at over 1700 feet) to reach the rubble?

What is the OFFICIAL timing of that collapse?

Citing that number from the offical report is what we need, not some interpretation from some unknown commentor on some site that nobody have any reason to trust.

How LONG did the collapse take?

If its only ten seconds then something is NOT right.

In fact it takes longer than 10 seconds for something to drop 1700 feet with no resistence other than the air.

This far nobody has come here citing from the offical report.

Why so much trouble proving what the official report says, gang?

Who is having a hard time. There were parts of the core left standing 15 to 25 seconds AFTER collapse initiation.

This blows your 10 second collapse time claim out of the water.

FAQs - NIST WTC Towers Investigation

From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.

Interesting

I find THIS on the site

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2.

Now go do the math and see how long it would take a free falling object to fall from 1760 feet.

If the ariels took 9 seconds or even 10 seconds to fall 1760' they somehow managed to fall faster than things fall on this earth.

Obviously that isn't possible.

So from what height were the "first panels" falling?

Perhaps THAT is the problem?

Perhaps the "first panels" started falling from a height of maybe 1000'?

10 seconds would be about the time a FREE FALLING object takes from that distance.

Buit STILL, the entire issue of the panels NOT FREE FALLING demands explanation, too.

Remember that they were NOT FREE FALLING objects\

They were falling and smashing through floors that were supposedly intact.

There was NO RESIDENCE whatever?!

 

[Gamolon]

How long did it take the top masthead of each building (starting at over 1700 feet) to reach the rubble?

What is the OFFICIAL timing of that collapse?

Citing that number from the offical report is what we need, not some interpretation from some unknown commentor on some site that nobody have any reason to trust.

How LONG did the collapse take?

If its only ten seconds then something is NOT right.

In fact it takes longer than 10 seconds for something to drop 1700 feet with no resistence other than the air.

This far nobody has come here citing from the offical report.

Why so much trouble proving what the official report says, gang?

Who is having a hard time. There were parts of the core left standing 15 to 25 seconds AFTER collapse initiation.

This blows your 10 second collapse time claim out of the water.

FAQs - NIST WTC Towers Investigation

Interesting

I find THIS on the site

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2.

Now go do the math and see how long it would take a free falling object to fall from 1760 feet.

*sigh*

You keep ignoring what I said. The 1760 feet height you keep quoting is the height of the antenna for WTC1. The roof heights of each building was about 1360 feet.

If the ariels took 9 seconds or even 10 seconds to fall 1760' they somehow managed to fall faster than things fall on this earth.

What the heck is an "ariel" by your definition and how does it relate to "exterior panels"? Do you know what the "exterior panels" were? They were the perimeter columns that made up the exterior facade of the twin towers.

Obviously that isn't possible.

It isn't possible in your eyes becuase you aren't comprehending what is being written.

So from what height were the "first panels" falling?

Perhaps THAT is the problem?

Perhaps the "first panels" started falling from a height of maybe 1000'?

10 seconds would be about the time a FREE FALLING object takes from that distance.

Buit STILL, the entire issue of the panels NOT FREE FALLING demands explanation, too.

What? That doesn't make sense.

Remember that they were NOT FREE FALLING objects\

They were falling and smashing through floors that were supposedly intact.

There was NO RESIDENCE whatever?!

How could the perimeter column panels fall through floors when they were OUTSIDE the floor area?

 

[Gamolon]

It’s not unreasonable to expect two small fires on a floor where only a wing tip entered. What was above those floors is the question not answered by the fireman’s quote.

^^^This.

Is eots trying to get people to believe the "minimized fire and damage" based on reports from BELOW the main impact points of the floors? The wingtip impacts are indicative of the where the fuselage impacted or the engines according to him?

I love it!

 

[candycorn]

What also isn't mentioned is that four+ floors of at least one of the towers was stil standing. So if you say the tower was 1,000 feet high and try to measure the free-fall speed, you have to account for the places that the terrorists apparently forgot to plant bombs in which makes sense...it's much easier to get to the top of the building than the bottom, right?

The conspiracy whackjobs failure in their "scientific" analysis is hilarious.

 

[Gamolon]

You are always one to mention "facts" without providing any of your own.
Evey body else is a "conspiracy theorist" but you somehow try to pretend you are not one even when you subscribe to the one that has the least chance of being at all plausible.Has anyone seriously taken a good hard look at what they are asked to believe regarding 9-11? I mean it is insane, and what's worse is that as dubious as it is, it still had to use tactics such as ignoring of evidence and witnesses, and had to change scientific data, and keep some secret.

Like your molten steel garbage?

THERE WERE NO TEMPERATURES HOT ENOUGH TO MELT STEEL. That is a fact.

I could not have been molten steel no matter what EYEWITNESSES say. Especially when your claim hits a brick wall like there not being temps hot enough.

You keep preaching your bullshit even though it's been proven to be impossible.

 

[Gamolon]

No evidence? You can clearly see the melted off stumps of the columns in many photos from ground zero. By the way the columns are melted off at an angle so as to facilitate the movement downward of the upper portion of the column, just as is done inCONTROLLED DEMOLITION!!!!!!

Wow!

Not THIS crap again!

Those cuts are made from torches! And you say you been in construction ow long? This "angled cut bullshit" was debunked long ago.

Notice the similarities between this (one of Terral's old photos):

And these cuts:

Oh yeah. Here's a photo of a worked actually caught CUTTING a column:

 

[Gamolon]

Explain the wreckage and the light poles...

If you cant explain how they got there then maybe you should listen to logic a little.

I assume you are talking about the light poles at the pentagon (my post was about building seven) and what wreckage are you talking about?
I can't tell you how the light poles were knocked down. Are you saying the only way they could have been knocked down was by an airplane?

Perhaps you are talking about the scant wreckage at the pentagon. If you want to know what it looks like when an airliner really crashes into a building google ""Dana airlines crash in Lagos Nigeria June 4,2012" . You will see the wreckage of a md83 (comparable to a 757) which crashed into an apartment building. As would be expected the entire tail selection is clearly visible. The plane didn't punch all the way into the building even though it was a typical wood framed structure as opposed to the pentagon which was concrete and steel. Also a good portion of the fuselage is partially intact though severely burned after the planes fuel exploded.
The fact that there are elements which could have come from an airliner found at the pentagon only confirm that this deception was well planned.

Can you please tell us the difference between a pilot or pilots trying to save lives and land a plane with double engine failure as opposed to someone trying to slam a jet into the side of a building and how the damage would differ?

When you figure that out, come back and let us know.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I don't believe the "Official Story" it makes no sense whatsoever.

I think the KGB Wing of the CIA planned and executed the attack with the full cooperation of the US Government

 

[Freewill]

I don't believe the "Official Story" it makes no sense whatsoever.

I think the KGB Wing of the CIA planned and executed the attack with the full cooperation of the US Government

Finally a rational voice is heard.

 

[paulitician]

Check out the movie 'Harodim.' Pretty interesting. I'm not saying i agree with everything in it, but i definitely agree with some of it.

 

[eots]

You are always one to mention "facts" without providing any of your own.
Evey body else is a "conspiracy theorist" but you somehow try to pretend you are not one even when you subscribe to the one that has the least chance of being at all plausible.Has anyone seriously taken a good hard look at what they are asked to believe regarding 9-11? I mean it is insane, and what's worse is that as dubious as it is, it still had to use tactics such as ignoring of evidence and witnesses, and had to change scientific data, and keep some secret.

Like your molten steel garbage?

THERE WERE NO TEMPERATURES HOT ENOUGH TO MELT STEEL. That is a fact.

I could not have been molten steel no matter what EYEWITNESSES say. Especially when your claim hits a brick wall like there not being temps hot enough.

You keep preaching your bullshit even though it's been proven to be impossible.

NIST testing showed there was not temperatures hot enough to WEAKEN steel...that is a FACT

 

[daws101]

You are always one to mention "facts" without providing any of your own.
Evey body else is a "conspiracy theorist" but you somehow try to pretend you are not one even when you subscribe to the one that has the least chance of being at all plausible.Has anyone seriously taken a good hard look at what they are asked to believe regarding 9-11? I mean it is insane, and what's worse is that as dubious as it is, it still had to use tactics such as ignoring of evidence and witnesses, and had to change scientific data, and keep some secret.

Like your molten steel garbage?

THERE WERE NO TEMPERATURES HOT ENOUGH TO MELT STEEL. That is a fact.

I could not have been molten steel no matter what EYEWITNESSES say. Especially when your claim hits a brick wall like there not being temps hot enough.

You keep preaching your bullshit even though it's been proven to be impossible.

NIST testing showed there was not temperatures hot enough to WEAKEN steel...that is a FACT

so thermite is out ...must be space beams....

 

[SAYIT]

Who is having a hard time. There were parts of the core left standing 15 to 25 seconds AFTER collapse initiation.

This blows your 10 second collapse time claim out of the water.

FAQs - NIST WTC Towers Investigation

Interesting

I find THIS on the site




Now go do the math and see how long it would take a free falling object to fall from 1760 feet.

*sigh*

You keep ignoring what I said. The 1760 feet height you keep quoting is the height of the antenna for WTC1. The roof heights of each building was about 1360 feet.



What the heck is an "ariel" by your definition and how does it relate to "exterior panels"? Do you know what the "exterior panels" were? They were the perimeter columns that made up the exterior facade of the twin towers.

It isn't possible in your eyes becuase you aren't comprehending what is being written.

Buit STILL, the entire issue of the panels NOT FREE FALLING demands explanation, too.

What? That doesn't make sense.

Remember that they were NOT FREE FALLING objects\

They were falling and smashing through floors that were supposedly intact.

There was NO RESIDENCE whatever?!

How could the perimeter column panels fall through floors when they were OUTSIDE the floor area?

And he is required to continue ignoring facts like the actual height of the Towers lest his CT crash and burn.

 

[SAYIT]

You are always one to mention "facts" without providing any of your own.
Evey body else is a "conspiracy theorist" but you somehow try to pretend you are not one even when you subscribe to the one that has the least chance of being at all plausible.Has anyone seriously taken a good hard look at what they are asked to believe regarding 9-11? I mean it is insane, and what's worse is that as dubious as it is, it still had to use tactics such as ignoring of evidence and witnesses, and had to change scientific data, and keep some secret.

Like your molten steel garbage?

THERE WERE NO TEMPERATURES HOT ENOUGH TO MELT STEEL. That is a fact.

I could not have been molten steel no matter what EYEWITNESSES say. Especially when your claim hits a brick wall like there not being temps hot enough.

You keep preaching your bullshit even though it's been proven to be impossible.

NIST testing showed there was not temperatures hot enough to WEAKEN steel...that is a FACT

No ... like most of your CTBS that is just CTBS.
The fires were hot enough to weaken the columns and cause floors to sag, pulling perimeter columns inward and reducing their ability to support the mass of the building above
WTC Disaster Study