So again, are you conceding your first argument? @ TOL

This is not a rolling gang bang where you just continue to pile on bullshit on top of bullshit. I address each issue one at a time, then move on. If I am not discussing our specific argument then it is likely I am not talking to you.

__________________

listen to [9/11(was an inside joke)]
by star fucking hipsters

__________________
"When you smoke the Herb,It reveals you to yourself"

Check This Out: Fried's New & Improved Grooooooow![from start to finish DIY]

yep a measly 7 hours, we have multitudes of proof of buildings built less well burning for far longer and encompassing nearly 100% of the building in fire, so much that it makes the so called 12 stories ( 2 really) fire there look like a s'mores roast. I mean just look at your own fucking picture WH, are you totally blind? are you telling me that that little fire you have there caused a building to turn to dust? Your so full of shit Im surprised people can stand the stench you must give off. And the small facade damage on the corner would not affect the integrity of the building one bit, only a fool believes that steel buildings just fall into their own footprint from minor damage like that. They are designed to withstand a whole lot more than that.

Your little truck fire and bridge straw man argument of yours proves nothing, absolutely nothing. The differnces are staggering between a contained High Octane fuel fire that is concentrated vs. a low octane burst of fuel on a steel structure THOUSANDS of times larger than that tiny bridge section. not to mention it is covered in asbestos, the second best insulator known to mankind.

You think a trunk cable is made of a solid piece of metal? its more insulation than metal there buddy, your going to need miles of it to create a big enough mass of melted metal to come pouring out of a building like that. Cat V cable is 8 strands of 22 Gauge wire, thats a tiny amount bro, don't even try to make it part of your theory, it will be shot so full of holes so fast you'll wish you never brought it up. A bank of UPS's burn at the same temp as a battery would, which by the way is much less than the temp needed to cause the disintegration of steel. Because thats what were really talking about here, even if the fires had gotten hot enough to cause the steel to bend, we would see that bending, the building just disintegrates before your eyes. By all standards it defies so many laws of physics, gravity and common sense it makes one gasp. I can't tell you the exact temps, but I can tell you by the color of the smoke that they aren't anywhere close to the temps needed to casue steel to lose all structural properties instantaneously across 100 floors, floors hundreds of feet away from any damage at all, floors that were in absolutely pristine shape, in fact 90% of the building was undamaged, yet you believe a small section caused the whole of 3 buildings to instantaneously collapse straight down at nearly free fall speed and it was all caused by a plane crash and some fires?

How come the Empire State building did not collapse when a B52 bomber plowed into it? It caught fire you know? I mean if you can use your truck and bridge straw man, then I will use the fact that the empire state building was hit by a plane and caught fire and did not fAll.

As far as your questions. I answered them all, but not to your side of the argument so you just keep saying I didn't answer them. Just like you don't answer any of my questions the way I would like, but I don't make up fairy tales like you do about them.

the military intervened in the pentagon event? Im pretty sure they did nothing until after the event happened, perhaps you can enlighten us with information not even the highest echelons of government was aware, please tell us how the Military was helping to stop these attacks?

__________________
It is far easier to ignorantly control others than it is to wisely control yourself.

What exactly would be the point of blowing up building 7?

__________________
If god dropped acid, would he see people?

The building had some importance. Were they trying to destroy something? I have no idea... That's why we are "truthers". We want answers.



The thing i love about wtc 7 is how building 1 and 2 fell... skipped wtc 6. then wtc 7 fell.

__________________
"The Cruelest Trick Came From The Talibans, Who Allowed Plenty Of Drugs And Then Banned Music."
"Rarely is the question asked: is our children learning"- G.W.B.

Poorly designed in this case, obviously. Again I ask... how hot does a bank of 50-200 UPS's burn?

You cant answer the questions. How did the trucks steel frame get reduced to nothing in a "normal" fire with no other combustible material? Those 6 beams holding that bridge up are the same size (different configuration) as the wtc, and designed specifically not to fail in those conditions.

All I have to demonstrate is that the adjoining struts joints failed under intense heat. Gravity handles the rest. Bolts had to stretch.

How about you not threaten to defeat my arguments and actually do so. I run cable almost every day in corporate environments. Let's take your 22 Gauge cat5. How many computers do you think exist on a single floor of the wtc? How many lines of the smallest wire? Let's be conservative... Lets say 300. How much copper is in a three foot section of a bundle of 300 cat5 cables? An ounce? A lb? 10? How many feet beyond 3 would be required to map the floor? The single floor?

How about electricity? That is GAW 6-8.

Ehhhhhhhnngh. Sorry. Try again... this time without a straw man. I never suggested disintegration.


Straw man. We have already established that the buildings fell differently than you expected. You do not get to presume how it should have fallen. How was this steel structure supposed to fall due to fire alone?



Oh snap.
Concrete reinforced steel structure... architecture building at university in Deft Netherlands. Partially collapsed due to catastrophic fire (has a cement core). Wonder what would have happened if a jet slammed into it?

So explain this partial collapse.

Show me thermite evidence. Look at all that dust... wow.


"Normal fires do not cause steel structures to collapse."

Debunked.

Different design. No plane hit that architectural building and it partially collapsed. How is that possible?

Fairy tales? Such as?

I have asked you at least 20 times, how many people minimum would be required to pull off your conspiracy. You have argued that you can't possibly give an answer, and I have demonstrated that you can. I didn't ask how many, I asked how many minimum.

You said they were nowhere to be found. Some were found dead as the pentagon is a military target. You believe that the pentagon is either too stupid to be aware that they were part of the conspiracy, and those told to stand down are too stupid to figure out why, and keep going on record saying that no such order was given... so that THEY can be complicit in killing military officers.

They were in on it, or victims of it... either way... they were seen. Have you ever been to the pentagon?

__________________

Buckling before collapse



Pretty accurate fucking hit, to have used thermite to destroy the columns on the floor just below first, before taking the rest of the building... with perfectly timed thermite devices moving from the top down.


Call it a strawman... I want your theory.

__________________

http://www.ae911truth.org/



As your own eyes witness — WTC Building #7 (a 47-story high-rise not hit by an airplane) exhibits all the characteristics of a classic controlled demolition with explosives: (and some non-standard characteristics)
1. Rapid onset of “collapse”
2. Sounds of explosions at ground floor - a full second prior to collapse
3. Symmetrical “collapse” – through the path of greatest resistance – at free-fall acceleration
4. Imploded, collapsing completely, and landed mostly in its own footprint
5. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds
6. Several tons of molten metal reported by numerous highly-qualified witnesses
7. Chemical signature of Thermite (high tech incendiary) found in solidified molten metal, and dust samples by physics professor Steven Jones, PhD.
8. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples
9. Expert corroboration from the top European Controlled Demolition professional
10. Fore-knowledge of “collapse” by media, NYPD, FDNY
And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.
1. Slow onset with large visible deformations
2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires)
3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”.



As seen in this revealing photo, the Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all the characteristics of destruction by explosives: (and some non-standard characteristics)
1. Destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance at nearly free-fall acceleration
2. Improbable symmetry of debris distribution
3. Extremely rapid onset of destruction
4. Over 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes
5. Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally 600 ft at 60 mph
6. Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking
7. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds
8. 1200-foot-dia. debris field: no "pancaked" floors found
9. Isolated explosive ejections 20 – 40 stories below demolition front
10. Total building destruction: dismemberment of steel frame
11. Several tons of molten metal found under all 3 high-rises
12. Evidence of thermite incendiaries found by FEMA in steel samples
13. Evidence of explosives found in dust samples
14. No precedent for steel-framed high-rise collapse due to fire
And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.
1. Slow onset with large visible deformations
2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)
3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”

__________________

What do you not understand about what I have said? I mean... you quoted me... so it wasn't like you missed it. I said this is not just a roving youtube gangbang... it is a debate.

Are you afraid of going one argument at a time? Do you find safety in numbers?

DO YOU CONCEDE YOUR FIRST ARGUMENT?

If so, what, specifically, would you like to move to next? Because half of those 18 things I have destroyed in the last 3 pages since you came in. You have to actually address rebuttals, if you wish to have an argument. You can't just keep claiming your belief which has just been rebutted, as "fact", obscuring it in a flurry of OTHER bullshit.

Man up, and follow the rules of debate, or there is no point in wasting time with you. Any time I debunk something, you just move to something else you think is more winnable.

I have said I will address ANY FUCKING QUESTION, in order. I will absolutely admit when I am wrong, and have done so each time I have been since I came to this board, on any subject.

Why can you people not stay focused?


Your original claim was...

This was your original post. Your original argument was that 7 was the only building which sustained structural damage... and then asked me to support my claim that a really big building on fire fell on it... and I did.. and you have not contested anything that I have said. You just keep trying to make new points about single arguments I am having with other people.

Are you ready to concede this first argument before we move on?

__________________

They have already given you the answer, the building collapsed due to fire.
You guys are all hell bent on believing it was part of some nefarious plot, and throw all logic out the window. You aren't even sure why "they" would do such a thing, yet you are sure they did it for some reason. Surely if they were trying to hide something they could have done it without blowing up the building. I mean these are the same people who planted explosives in a secure building, but they can't hide something without completely demolishing the building?

__________________
If god dropped acid, would he see people?