I wonder what the apologists for the official version of 9-11 have to say for the fact that the planes fires did not cause the apartment complex to collapse like the fairy tale version of the 9-11 report that the jets FIRES caused the towers collapse.what they have to say about this.I been trying to tell the apologists who blindly defend the 9-11 version that no plane in history has ever caused a tower to suddeny collapse.Heres the proof in the pudding.It was all over the front pages of the major news papers with pics of the building STILL standing.
see thats the difference between someone like me,ashtar or deano and this thread starter.I think its pretty obvious that this was hardly a conspiracy like 9-11 and I think Deano and ashtar would agree with me on this,that the pilot of the plane,a yankeee pitcher just lost control of the plane.
Gender: Male Location: Welfare Kingdom of California
What apologists Mr Parker? Those were muslims extremists who flew the planes into the buildings. The planes in 9/11 were much bigger than the one from yesterday's crash.
the ones who ignorantly think that the fires caused the towers to collapse and blindly defend the fairy tale version of the 9-11 commission.THOSE apologists.true that the planes that hit the towers were much bigger but as i said before,there have been other cases in the past as well where jets have slammed into buildings before,yet just like that apartment building didnt,THOSE buildings did not collapse either.the towers were the first ones in history to ever collapse due to fire.
Dude, remember the 9/11 thread, where your points failed, entirely
The Fire isn't what destroyed the buildings.....the already weakened supports from having a Plane flown through it, burned, they weakened more, then Gravity took it's course
2 Rooms does not cause a building's supports to weaken
yeah I remember,they didnt fail though,you just chose to ignore ashtar and my points that shot down that laughable explanation . ashtar and myself repeatedly proved YOUR points failed entirely. again as always you ignore points I bring up.like i said,the apologists at it again anyways Im not going to get into that with you,you dont want to know the truth.I finished that conversation with you a long time ago.
Yea, your explanation for everything, we're blind and don't want to accept the truth, this isn't a Movie......
Anycrap, if you payed attention to the last 10-15 pages of that thread, when we actually did bother to prove you wrong, we did, with ease. I proved that it was not explosives, I remember someone proved the Steel weakened enough for collapse, and a Plane could have taken those down.
Gender: Male Location: The sewers of the Big City!
Quote this someone, because no one proved that the steel was weakened enough to cause a collapse. I even asked several times for someone to calculate how much strength would the steel have to be weaken in order to collapse, I'm still waiting for an answer.
And the laughable thing is, the official stories don't even have a solid explanation as to how and why the towers fell. NIST say's "Truss failure theory" FEMA say's "Pancake Collapse" none of which have any science to back it up.
I know.I can concede that for the first time in his life,he actually made a good point.Too bad it wasnt a commercial airliner so he would have seen that the results would have been the same. what I am talking about and what my point was is that there has never been a case prior to 9-11 where a commerical airliner crashed into a building and made that building collapse freefall like the towers did.that in each case in the past when a commerical airliner crashed into a building,the buildings did NOT collapse freefall.THATS the point I was taliking about that Krieger ignored and ALWAYS ignored so on that point,he loses.I know this because I have been to 9-11 conferences and they were showing PICS.I REPEAT "PICS" fo commercial airliners that crashed into buildings,yet THOSE buildings did not collapse,yet for the first time in history,the towers did collapse .so except for this one time of course about that this building wasnt a commerical airliner which he wins on that one.THAT point he loses on as always.
__________________
Last edited by Mr Parker on Oct 13th, 2006 at 07:19 PM
Oh I wont be responding to kreiger anymore.I stopped debating him ages ago.Because like you said,nobody was ever able to disprove what you said in your first post that the fires were not intense enough to be able to cause them to weaken.
How long ago did you say that? You never lived up to it, and actually we did disprove anything, but your Reverse-Scientific Method theories disregard 99% of proof.
As to Ashtar, the Steel was at least, 50% Strength from fire alone, 1/4 of it was missing, and as seen in a video I provided, it fell on a slant downwards, from there the Floors could not hold it up, but oh well, dsregard our Logic
When in History has a Commercial Jet crashed intentionally at full speed directly into a building....oh that's right, never
Gender: Male Location: The sewers of the Big City!
The steel was at most 50%, the fires were not hot enough. I already provided proof with the smoke.
That's funny, according to you, a building which is designed to hold 5 times it's maximum weight capacity. Magically, collapsed under it's on weight. Unless there was a marching band and 20 grand piano's with elephants, I don't see how you can.
And of course no solid explanation on the structural behavor of the towers.
KMC Community Forums
Oct 11th, 2006 11:29 PM
ashtar and myself repeatedly proved YOUR points failed entirely. 
again as always you ignore points I bring up.like i said,the apologists at it again 
what I am talking about and what my point was is that there has never been a case prior to 9-11 where a commerical airliner crashed into a building and made that building collapse freefall like the towers did.that in each case in the past when a commerical airliner crashed into a building,the buildings did NOT collapse freefall.THATS the point I was taliking about that Krieger ignored and ALWAYS ignored so on that point,he loses.I know this because I have been to 9-11 conferences and they were showing PICS.I REPEAT "PICS" fo commercial airliners that crashed into buildings,yet THOSE buildings did not collapse,yet for the first time in history,the towers did collapse .so except for this one time of course about that this building wasnt a commerical airliner which he wins on that one.THAT point he loses on as always. 
