Last edited by RicardoBlanco (2007-03-04 01:26:53)
Director.SmilingBuddha wrote:
How the hell did you host a 1-hour documentary on Youtube? I thought the max. limit for time was 6x shorter...
Hmm, so your debate winning tactic is the "straw man" approach?RicardoBlanco wrote:
This was a recent BBC Documentary analysing the most prominent 9/11 conspiracies. It's worth the watch and shows how stupid some of these 'theories' are. If you can't be arsed to argue the obvious with the conspiracy theorists just point them here...
designdynamics.org/dictionary.html wrote:
The arguer makes up a proposition never offered by her opponent (usually weaker than the true proposition) and then attacks it as if his opponent had offered that proposition. This is most common on Internet chat sites.
HunterOfSkulls wrote:
If you really want to get them going, point out how steel support beams don't have to melt in order to fail. That always pisses them off.
That seems to be about all anyone does on this site.UON wrote:
Hmm, so your debate winning tactic is the "straw man" approach?
That could of been where it was welded as well. The black by the edges is melted steel, like when you cut steel with a torch, it's slag. Jet fuel definately burns hot enough to distort, and weaken metal.BN wrote:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGE … _small.jpgHunterOfSkulls wrote:
If you really want to get them going, point out how steel support beams don't have to melt in order to fail. That always pisses them off.
I am no expert but that looks cut to me.
There are plenty of good unanswered questions along with a lot of shite as well.
I'm not trying to win a debate. This documentary interviews the creator of 'Loose Change' and shows him to be the whiny/bored/deluded teenager he is. As soon as he's presented with the real explanations for what happened, the ones supported by fact, he crumbles. I respect the hard work he put into his little film but come on kids, it's rubbish.UON wrote:
Hmm, so your debate winning tactic is the "straw man" approach?RicardoBlanco wrote:
This was a recent BBC Documentary analysing the most prominent 9/11 conspiracies. It's worth the watch and shows how stupid some of these 'theories' are. If you can't be arsed to argue the obvious with the conspiracy theorists just point them here...designdynamics.org/dictionary.html wrote:
The arguer makes up a proposition never offered by her opponent (usually weaker than the true proposition) and then attacks it as if his opponent had offered that proposition. This is most common on Internet chat sites.
No, you're not an expert, so why not let the structural engineers decide.BN wrote:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGE … _small.jpgHunterOfSkulls wrote:
If you really want to get them going, point out how steel support beams don't have to melt in order to fail. That always pisses them off.
I am no expert but that looks cut to me.
There are plenty of good unanswered questions along with a lot of shite as well.
Not when it all burns at once in a giant fireball.psychotoxic187 wrote:
Jet fuel definately burns hot enough to distort, and weaken metal.
Yes it does. As well as all the material inside the building that caught fire from the jet fuel fire. The jet fuel acted as a catalyst.jonsimon wrote:
Not when it all burns at once in a giant fireball.psychotoxic187 wrote:
Jet fuel definately burns hot enough to distort, and weaken metal.
Dude, to burn anything you need heat and time. If any kind of starter burns all at once, you don't develop a fire. You can wave wood through a fire without it catching, and anyone who has made a campfire knows that the conditions required are very specific. Nearly all the limited supply of fuel burst into flames at the same time, it just isn't physically possible that flames took that building down. (Esspecially since tenfold larger blazes have burned for hours, one even a day long, and the worst damage was the partial collapse of a few floors at the top.)psychotoxic187 wrote:
Yes it does. As well as all the material inside the building that caught fire from the jet fuel fire. The jet fuel acted as a catalyst.jonsimon wrote:
Not when it all burns at once in a giant fireball.psychotoxic187 wrote:
Jet fuel definately burns hot enough to distort, and weaken metal.
Yes, all the stuff in the building caught fire. It will burn from an explosion. Look at the story here of Faulk corporation. Propane blew apart buildings with nothing standing left. The impact alone from the jet would of weakened the structural integrity, then all it takes is one suppost beam to fail, and the rest will follow. If one floor fails, and crashes down, the lower floors will not be able to sustain further pressure from the crashing down.jonsimon wrote:
Dude, to burn anything you need heat and time. If any kind of starter burns all at once, you don't develop a fire. You can wave wood through a fire without it catching, and anyone who has made a campfire knows that the conditions required are very specific. Nearly all the limited supply of fuel burst into flames at the same time, it just isn't physically possible that flames took that building down. (Esspecially since tenfold larger blazes have burned for hours, one even a day long, and the worst damage was the partial collapse of a few floors at the top.)psychotoxic187 wrote:
Yes it does. As well as all the material inside the building that caught fire from the jet fuel fire. The jet fuel acted as a catalyst.jonsimon wrote:
Not when it all burns at once in a giant fireball.
Bottom line, those two planes could not have taken down those buildings, so something else had to.
Last edited by psychotoxic187 (2007-03-04 07:32:11)
Propane blew apart skyscrapers? Because your average 4 story building is drastically different from a skyscraper. Skyscrapers are better imagined upside-down. They are suspended by the foundation, the only way to knock down a skyscraper the way the towers fell is to attack the foundation. Did the planes hit the bottom of the buildings or the top? The top. They couldn't have knocked down those buildings. For another analogy, think of the towers as two trees. If you take to the top of a tree with an axe, it will never fall. Chop away at the bottom and it falls. Not exactly the same as a skyscraper, but it gets the point across.psychotoxic187 wrote:
Yes, all the stuff in the building caught fire. It will burn from an explosion. Look at the story here of Faulk corporation. Propane blew apart buildings with nothing standing left. The impact alone from the jet would of weakened the structural integrity, then all it takes is one suppost beam to fail, and the rest will follow. If one floor fails, and crashes down, the lower floors will not be able to sustain further pressure from the crashing down.jonsimon wrote:
Dude, to burn anything you need heat and time. If any kind of starter burns all at once, you don't develop a fire. You can wave wood through a fire without it catching, and anyone who has made a campfire knows that the conditions required are very specific. Nearly all the limited supply of fuel burst into flames at the same time, it just isn't physically possible that flames took that building down. (Esspecially since tenfold larger blazes have burned for hours, one even a day long, and the worst damage was the partial collapse of a few floors at the top.)psychotoxic187 wrote:
Yes it does. As well as all the material inside the building that caught fire from the jet fuel fire. The jet fuel acted as a catalyst.
Bottom line, those two planes could not have taken down those buildings, so something else had to.
Not true at all. With the force of floors falling from above, and a fire burning. The floors below it will have a hard time staying intact, and not collapsing. It's simple gravity. Steel changes drastically under fire, and stress. Steel is in no way the same as a tree, neither is a skyscraper. All buildings are supported by the foundation as well, so not sure what you mean here. My point was, propane blew, started the building on fire, and destroyed it. It was still a steel erected building.jonsimon wrote:
Propane blew apart skyscrapers? Because your average 4 story building is drastically different from a skyscraper. Skyscrapers are better imagined upside-down. They are suspended by the foundation, the only way to knock down a skyscraper the way the towers fell is to attack the foundation. Did the planes hit the bottom of the buildings or the top? The top. They couldn't have knocked down those buildings. For another analogy, think of the towers as two trees. If you take to the top of a tree with an axe, it will never fall. Chop away at the bottom and it falls. Not exactly the same as a skyscraper, but it gets the point across.psychotoxic187 wrote:
Yes, all the stuff in the building caught fire. It will burn from an explosion. Look at the story here of Faulk corporation. Propane blew apart buildings with nothing standing left. The impact alone from the jet would of weakened the structural integrity, then all it takes is one suppost beam to fail, and the rest will follow. If one floor fails, and crashes down, the lower floors will not be able to sustain further pressure from the crashing down.jonsimon wrote:
Dude, to burn anything you need heat and time. If any kind of starter burns all at once, you don't develop a fire. You can wave wood through a fire without it catching, and anyone who has made a campfire knows that the conditions required are very specific. Nearly all the limited supply of fuel burst into flames at the same time, it just isn't physically possible that flames took that building down. (Esspecially since tenfold larger blazes have burned for hours, one even a day long, and the worst damage was the partial collapse of a few floors at the top.)
Bottom line, those two planes could not have taken down those buildings, so something else had to.
Isn't this where people then argue the free fall speed. If that's the case how is this accounted for?psychotoxic187 wrote:
Not true at all. With the force of floors falling from above, and a fire burning. The floors below it will have a hard time staying intact, and not collapsing. It's simple gravity. Steel changes drastically under fire, and stress. Steel is in no way the same as a tree, neither is a skyscraper. All buildings are supported by the foundation as well, so not sure what you mean here. My point was, propane blew, started the building on fire, and destroyed it. It was still a steel erected building.jonsimon wrote:
Propane blew apart skyscrapers? Because your average 4 story building is drastically different from a skyscraper. Skyscrapers are better imagined upside-down. They are suspended by the foundation, the only way to knock down a skyscraper the way the towers fell is to attack the foundation. Did the planes hit the bottom of the buildings or the top? The top. They couldn't have knocked down those buildings. For another analogy, think of the towers as two trees. If you take to the top of a tree with an axe, it will never fall. Chop away at the bottom and it falls. Not exactly the same as a skyscraper, but it gets the point across.psychotoxic187 wrote:
Yes, all the stuff in the building caught fire. It will burn from an explosion. Look at the story here of Faulk corporation. Propane blew apart buildings with nothing standing left. The impact alone from the jet would of weakened the structural integrity, then all it takes is one suppost beam to fail, and the rest will follow. If one floor fails, and crashes down, the lower floors will not be able to sustain further pressure from the crashing down.
Yes. Watch youtube instead.LawJik wrote:
dont base your debating on things you heard in passing by on Fox News.
