Originally posted by KharmaDog
And it all comes back to evidence put forth on a conspiracey site. This is a circular arguement that you are just not getting.
of course of course
question you still havent answered
can i ask you to explain why NORAD was ordered to stand-down during the morning of 9/11, the first time in its 50 odd years of existance.
whats right is right
Deano, we will never agree on this. On the off chance that you can produce ONE credible piece of evidence, you will dance around and scream that you were right.
But what you have to do is produce much credible evidence. Not coincidences. Not heresay. But lots of facts from credible sources.
As for NORAD. If you paid any attention, you would have read on any number of occasions that I thought the Bush administration was complicit. By that I meant that I think that they knew something might happen, and they let it happen in order to forward their agenda. However I don't believe that they knew what was going to happen, and when it did happen (at the scale that it did) they probably responded with the "HOLY F*CK< we didn't expect this" response.
I don't believe the towers were demolished with explosives, I don't believe the government planned it. I don't believe in the illuminati, the n.w.o. or lizardman and shapeshifters ruling the earth.
It is people like you that make ridiculous conspiracy theories or support the ridiculous that will make it so that the potentially true injustices will never be taken seriously.
Originally posted by KharmaDog
Deano, we will never agree on this. On the off chance that you can produce ONE credible piece of evidence, you will dance around and scream that you were right.But what you have to do is produce much credible evidence. Not coincidences. Not heresay. But lots of facts from credible sources.
As for NORAD. If you paid any attention, you would have read on any number of occasions that I thought the Bush administration was complicit. By that I meant that I think that they knew something might happen, and they let it happen in order to forward their agenda. However I don't believe that they knew what was going to happen, and when it did happen (at the scale that it did) they probably responded with the "HOLY F*CK< we didn't expect this" response.
I don't believe the towers were demolished with explosives, I don't believe the government planned it. I don't believe in the illuminati, the n.w.o. or lizardman and shapeshifters ruling the earth.
It is people like you that make ridiculous conspiracy theories or support the ridiculous that will make it so that the potentially true injustices will never be taken seriously.
your choice, your opinion..which is ridiculous in my opinion
but there you go
after all whats posted you still fail to see the light 🙁
I don't believe the towers were demolished with explosives
FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F).
That fact coupled with multiple demolition experts who say the only way the buildings could of collapsed the way they did is by cutting charges being placed on the support struts and the BOTTOM of the structure.
That would explain why public and news reporters eye witnesses saw and heard multiple explsoions at the base of the structure and it also explains why the firemen felt, seen and heard multiple explsoions go off at the base of the the structure also
what more do u want?
http://prisonplanet.com/articles/june2005/270605insidejob.htm
Former MI5 agent David Shayler, who previously blew the whistle on the British government paying Al Qaeda $200,000 to carry out political assassinations, has gone on the record with his conviction that 9/11 was an inside job meant to bring about a permanent state of emergency in America and pave the way for the invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq and ultimately Iran and Syria.
Originally posted by PVS
😂 i thought you gave up deano!! 😂i can tell you're getting all bent out of shape.
the multiple consecutive posts with no responses is a dead give away 😛
no response because you dont know what to say 😉
because you know its true
you tell me to post evidence..i do and then no one replys because it hurts
plain and simple truth hurts
Originally posted by Deano
FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F).That fact coupled with multiple demolition experts who say the only way the buildings could of collapsed the way they did is by cutting charges being placed on the support struts and the BOTTOM of the structure.
That would explain why public and news reporters eye witnesses saw and heard multiple explsoions at the base of the structure and it also explains why the firemen felt, seen and heard multiple explsoions go off at the base of the the structure also
what more do u want?
It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425°C and loses about half of its strength at 650°C.
A.E. Cote, ed., Fire Protection Handbook 17th Edition (Quincy, MA: National Fire Protection Association, 1992), pp. 6-62 to 6-70.
Did you get your information from prisonplanet.com?
Oh look, an objective, reputable source disagrees with you.
Fact: Firefighters said "it sounded like a battlezone... as if explosions were going off all around us." Pretty easy to twist those words around.
Still no names of firemen claiming to have seen a controlled demolition, Deano.
Originally posted by Deano
i can counter that link with this link http://www.prisonplanet.com/911.htmlGo to this webpage and then come back here and just try and attempt to give rational explanations or debunks to any of the stuff on that page, 🙂
Originally posted by Deano
FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F).That fact coupled with multiple demolition experts who say the only way the buildings could of collapsed the way they did is by cutting charges being placed on the support struts and the BOTTOM of the structure.
That would explain why public and news reporters eye witnesses saw and heard multiple explsoions at the base of the structure and it also explains why the firemen felt, seen and heard multiple explsoions go off at the base of the the structure also
what more do u want?
It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425°C and loses about half of its strength at 650°C.4 This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse. It was noted above that the wind load controlled the design allowables. The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the yield strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire.
The additional problem was distortion of the steel in the fire. The temperature of the fire was not uniform everywhere, and the temperature on the outside of the box columns was clearly lower than on the side facing the fire. The temperature along the 18 m long joists was certainly not uniform. Given the thermal expansion of steel, a 150°C temperature difference from one location to another will produce yield-level residual stresses. This produced distortions in the slender structural steel, which resulted in buckling failures. Thus, the failure of the steel was due to two factors: loss of strength due to the temperature of the fire, and loss of structural integrity due to distortion of the steel from the non-uniform temperatures in the fire.
A.E. Cote, ed., Fire Protection Handbook 17th Edition (Quincy, MA: National Fire Protection Association, 1992), pp. 6-62 to 6-70.
Oh look, an objective, reputable source disagrees with you.
Are all your sources going to come from conspiracy theory websites? Find one site not conspiracy linked that backs up your claims. And don't pull that "the information is taken from other sources," because the assholes never cite sources.
Fact: Firefighters said "it sounded like a battlezone... as if explosions were going off all around us." Pretty easy to twist those words around.
Still no names of firemen claiming to have seen a controlled demolition, Deano. And please explain the brother-in-law who saw no demolition crews around WTC 7 while he was patrolling.
Originally posted by Oswald Kenobi
[B] It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425°C and loses about half of its strength at 650°C.4 This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse. It was noted above that the wind load controlled the design allowables. The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the yield strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire.The additional problem was distortion of the steel in the fire. The temperature of the fire was not uniform everywhere, and the temperature on the outside of the box columns was clearly lower than on the side facing the fire. The temperature along the 18 m long joists was certainly not uniform. Given the thermal expansion of steel, a 150°C temperature difference from one location to another will produce yield-level residual stresses. This produced distortions in the slender structural steel, which resulted in buckling failures. Thus, the failure of the steel was due to two factors: loss of strength due to the temperature of the fire, and loss of structural integrity due to distortion of the steel from the non-uniform temperatures in the fire.
A.E. Cote, ed., Fire Protection Handbook 17th Edition (Quincy, MA: National Fire Protection Association, 1992), pp. 6-62 to 6-70.
Oh look, an objective, reputable source disagrees with you.
Are all your sources going to come from conspiracy theory websites? Find one site not conspiracy linked that backs up your claims. And don't pull that "the information is taken from other sources," because the assholes never cite sources.
Fact: Firefighters said "it sounded like a battlezone... as if explosions were going off all around us." Pretty easy to twist those words around.
Still no names of firemen claiming to have seen a controlled demolition, Deano. And please explain the brother-in-law who saw no demolition crews around WTC 7 while he was patrolling. [/B]
no names? back up a little bit..you will see i posted names
please dont make me post the link again
Originally posted by Deano
no names? back up a little bit..you will see i posted names
please dont make me post the link again
And still not addressing the issue of a cop not seeing demolition crews at the scene. It's easy to see that you conspiracy theorists like to pick and choose, and then bastardize all the information you come across.