|
Post by FZ on Aug 12, 2011 7:03:07 GMT -6
F12, now, how can you say in an explosion, it's impossible for debris to fly up?
Now that indian lake place was like 2 miles away, I think a little less. AFAIK, the corner stated no human remains were found there. Same for the one spot 8 miles away, where I thought only small, light debris (paper etc) was found.
Building on what Ironeagle mentioned, I'm thinking, if the explosion was as violent as he speculates, I cant imagine how high small debris might get shot up and possibly carried by wind.
|
|
|
Post by endless1summer on Aug 12, 2011 9:24:30 GMT -6
I think these quotes sum up this thread............. F12: The only reason the debri was scattered over an 8 mile area, was because the plane was shot down. Butters- "In a straight line, Indian Lake is just over a mile from the crash site. The road between the two locations takes a roundabout route of 6.9 miles—accounting for the erroneous reports." Ironeagle The Direct line of FLight for that lake is LESS than 2 miles and light Debris will make that flight easy in light Winds. I've noticed that F12's posts are much like the roundabout road. While the replies are in a direct line. I'm thinking that if this were 1951 and we had the internet and Streatoronline, F12 the truther would here posting about a government cover up over Pearl Harbor.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2011 9:42:57 GMT -6
I think these quotes sum up this thread............. F12: The only reason the debri was scattered over an 8 mile area, was because the plane was shot down. Butters- "In a straight line, Indian Lake is just over a mile from the crash site. The road between the two locations takes a roundabout route of 6.9 miles—accounting for the erroneous reports." Ironeagle The Direct line of FLight for that lake is LESS than 2 miles and light Debris will make that flight easy in light Winds. I've noticed that F12's posts are much like the roundabout road. While the replies are in a direct line. I'm thinking that if this were 1951 and we had the internet and Streatoronline, F12 the truther would here posting about a government cover up over Pearl Harbor. I highly doubt freedom would have that response to Pearl Habor, but I do believe he'd have a few things to say about what happened in Roswell.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2011 16:25:25 GMT -6
I think these quotes sum up this thread............. F12: The only reason the debri was scattered over an 8 mile area, was because the plane was shot down. Butters- "In a straight line, Indian Lake is just over a mile from the crash site. The road between the two locations takes a roundabout route of 6.9 miles—accounting for the erroneous reports." Ironeagle The Direct line of FLight for that lake is LESS than 2 miles and light Debris will make that flight easy in light Winds. I've noticed that F12's posts are much like the roundabout road. While the replies are in a direct line. I'm thinking that if this were 1951 and we had the internet and Streatoronline, F12 the truther would here posting about a government cover up over Pearl Harbor. if you really want to go there en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_Harbor_advance-knowledge_conspiracy_theory
|
|
|
Post by freedom12 on Aug 12, 2011 20:29:32 GMT -6
I'll issue you a challenge Butters, or anyone else. POST a picture of the field where the plane crashed PRIOR to Sept 11, 2001. You're in for a surprise guys!! Shanksville field to clarify.
|
|
|
Post by freedom12 on Aug 12, 2011 20:47:20 GMT -6
Converted 6 more people to the truth this week.
Endlessummer-First of all, thanks for joining us or maybe you've been following along the whole time. I apologize for the disorganized context of my arguements, as I am not always the best at formatting my thoughts in a shortened format. But I'm glad my fellow SOer's can participate in a relatively civil thread. I explained 9/11 to a close family friend earlier this week. He immigrated to this country when he was 11 from Italy and worked at Owens-Il for most of his life. He's a very patriotic man and started getting mad at me when I broached this subject. 3 hours later, he started crying as he came to a realization the he had been deceived by our government about 9/11. Poor guy didn't even know about WTC 7 collapsing and thought I was lying til I showed him a video of it collapsing. He, like many, see's what the horrible leaders of our country are doing to this once great country. Corporations, greed, and crooked politicians, who most think lie and deceive us on a regular basis, but somehow many think they wouldn't lie about 9/11. Why not? They've lied about everything else.
|
|
|
Post by freedom12 on Aug 12, 2011 22:17:13 GMT -6
I'll issue you a challenge Butters, or anyone else. POST a picture of the field where the plane crashed PRIOR to Sept 11, 2001. You're in for a surprise guys!! Shanksville field to clarify. Hint to above challenge: The "crater" was there prior to 9/11.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2011 5:58:01 GMT -6
Oh my dearest God...I can't believe you posted something so turgid and weird. Here is my last word on your crazymaking crap. It's time for a sabbatical. Let's take the bull by the horns, shall we? You posit a "truth" that is impossible and promote it with a zeal based in ignoring facts that don't agree with your fantasies.A thank you to Scientific American Magazine, a magazine f12 wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole.Conspiracy nut: [/b]These are the kind of people who believe in conspiracy theories with absolute faith, and it's a sort of religion, even though many (but not all) of them would claim to be skeptical of religion itself. The fact that many others buy the same baloney is certainly no surprise. For God's sake...America elected Obama to the presidency...this country's citizenry is capable of talking itself into believing anything![/color]If someone does listen to them, and does google "building seven", the first entries tend to always be conspiracy sites (or in some cases Wikipedia), and so the person almost never sees any evidence debunking conspiracy theories, only pseudoscience that helps perpetuate them. People who claim "research" is reading conspiracy sites are only seeing one -- extremely bias -- side of an entire issue and are only hurting themselves in the long run.Some people latch on to conspiracy theories like some people latch on to religion; nothing in the world can get them to see beyond a vast conspiracy involving thousands of people -[color=Blue] they simply believe it and will create any argument or scenario in their mind to help validate it.[/color]eople latch on to religion; nothing in the world can get them to see beyond a vast conspiracy involving thousands of people - [/size][/quote] "...as folk rock group Buffalo Springfield once sang: Paranoia strikes deep. Into your life it will creep ...
|
|
|
Post by freedom12 on Aug 13, 2011 13:03:38 GMT -6
Glad to see your still unable to psot your own thoughts as 95% is someones else's words.
No picture of the field in Shanksville Butters? What if I told you that the "supposed" crater/scar was already there before 9/11? What excuse would you come up with then?
Would I still be a "crazy liar" if you saw that the hole the plane "supposedly" nose-dived into was already there before?
|
|
|
Post by FZ on Aug 14, 2011 9:30:01 GMT -6
Glad to see your still unable to psot your own thoughts as 95% is someones else's words. No picture of the field in Shanksville Butters? What if I told you that the "supposed" crater/scar was already there before 9/11? What excuse would you come up with then?
Would I still be a "crazy liar" if you saw that the hole the plane "supposedly" nose-dived into was already there before?Just post it then. I've seen "before" pictures on some forum, quite some time ago tho.. If this was anything with merit, I think it would have been out there front and center. Maybe because after awhile all the theories tend to work against each other. Anyway I am noticing a pattern. F12, many pages back we're talking about WTC 7, and now he thread is made it all the way to flight 93. I find it interesting, that, to a point, there's at least a good explanation, or evidence, that (to some extent or another) gives credit to something other than the Truther line. Your responses seem to be one of 3 things. 1) Ignore the statement and switch the topic 2) Label the explanation an impossibility, or dismiss the evidence and switch topic. 3) Refute with another source...and when that is challenged use response 1 or 2. Here's my question: what drives you to not look at everything that is out there? The only things of merit seem to be what supports the Truther line of thought. If its challenged, expect response 1, 2, or 3. It's all Black and White. Personally, I like to look at as much as I can. That's why I stayed on target with my responses, not jumping from claim to claim. I think that way, you can really cut the chaff from the wheat and get to the "crux of the biscuit", you might say.
|
|
|
Post by ironeagle2006 on Aug 14, 2011 9:48:36 GMT -6
FZ you will notice one thing about anything with f12 if you call him out on anything about 9/11 He SWITCHES the TOPIC faster than PBAMA leaves Washington to go GOLFING or to go on VACATION anymore.
We hammered him on the size of the plane that hit WTC 1 and 2 now he is on Flight 93. Now he is on a supposed Crater that was there before the plane Crashed. If SO POST THE PIC FROM A RELIABLE SOURCE such as the USGS NEWSWEEK TIME not from any Truther Sites that have used so much Photshop that I am amazed Adobe does not have Stock in them.
Lastly I gave evidence of a Bridge made out of Steel and Concrete Collapsing from Fire alone After 9/11 from a Gasoline Tanker Crash so do not tell me it could never happen. When a Freeway overpass than can and Did handle Millions of TONS of freight and car traffic collasped for years collasped from a fire alone since the steel was not Fireproofed and the Steel at the WTC had most of its Fireproofing Knocked off in the impacts from the Planes it does happen that heat weakens steel when not protected from the heat.
|
|
|
Post by FZ on Aug 14, 2011 14:54:54 GMT -6
I agree Ironeagle...anyone going thru this topic should be able to see this trend also .
My observation is, I think F12 is a sharp person, but really believes in this so much, it's hard to be objective. I wager we all do this to a certain extent from time to time.
But if it's a belief too tightly held, It can get to the point that it's impossible to even give opposing opinions or views any merit, or concede anything at all.
It becomes like a betrayal of sorts.
Back on to flight 93...I did a quick search and did see some disscussions about the "before" photo. They were some archive stuff from like 07. I don't think the idea there was a "crater" already there, gained much traction because, at least to me, it just didn't make sense how they were trying to sell it.
IDK. maybe F12 was looking at something different than I.
|
|
|
Post by freedom12 on Aug 14, 2011 15:46:29 GMT -6
I beleive I responded with the fires were not hot enough or big enough to even get the fires up to 800 degrees in most places, which will hardily weaken the twice fire-proofed steel.
I also mentioned WTC workers standing in the impact holes. Not one person touched this! I submit the well known pictures of these people standing in the impact holes means the"fires", could not be even warm enough to cause any harm to these folks, LET ALONE weaken steel.
Most or all the the jet fuel was burned off when the wings filled with fuel smacked the building causing the huge, unforgetable, fireballs.
We have FLIR footage( shows infra images with temp) of the towers also showing temps not that high.
We have a dead firemen's last radio communication's , seconds before the "collapse" He and another fireman he reached the impacted flors and reported only a couple small fires that they would only need two lines to knock it out.
|
|
|
Post by FZ on Aug 15, 2011 7:19:11 GMT -6
I beleive I responded with the fires were not hot enough or big enough to even get the fires up to 800 degrees in most places, which will hardily weaken the twice fire-proofed steel.
I also mentioned WTC workers standing in the impact holes. Not one person touched this! I submit the well known pictures of these people standing in the impact holes means the"fires", could not be even warm enough to cause any harm to these folks, LET ALONE weaken steel.
Most or all the the jet fuel was burned off when the wings filled with fuel smacked the building causing the huge, unforgetable, fireballs.
We have FLIR footage( shows infra images with temp) of the towers also showing temps not that high.
We have a dead firemen's last radio communication's , seconds before the "collapse" He and another fireman he reached the impacted flors and reported only a couple small fires that they would only need two lines to knock it out. I think this could be classified as a response no 1. I believe it was stated it was within reason that fires were hot enough, and widespread enough, (tho I think it might have been in regard to WTC 7 - but it's the same point here with WTC 1 or 2) to damage steel. Others made some good points also. Your response to it was a combination of your no. 1 and no. 3 responses: you claimed a source, which you didn't provide, but switched the subject anyway. I'll provide a link tho There is quite the study of the incident contained here www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/At a glance it wasn't hard to find some graphs detailing fires at around 500C or so - that's well hot enough to damage steel, AFAIK.
|
|
|
Post by freedom12 on Aug 15, 2011 16:49:27 GMT -6
NIST is the report I'm addressing in my counter-arguement!
NIST can make all the HYPOTHETICAL graphs and charts they like,but offer nothing to prove it got near that hot. I never claimed any source in my last post, but I will be happy to provide them.
They can't explain how humans are able to stand in the impact holes alive and well. Humans can't stand 200 C let alone anywhere near 500 C.
The Comission was provided the FLIR footage, but didn't include it in their report.
FZ, you're saying 500 C for the fire, which heats metal to what temp? That depends on how long the metal was heated, which is greatly disputed for WTC 1 & 2. OSer's will say the fires where raging, jet fuel going down elevator shafts 80 floors and blowing off elevator doors, huge marble slabs, 30-ton presses, breaking concrete,etc. Evidence shows almost all the jet fuel exploded on impact,sprinklers did activate,smoke changes color to to show the fires going out, and firemen reaching the impact floor and reporting only a few small fires.
When figuring the steel temp's, one must also factor in fireproofing done to the beams. The original job was supposedly shoddy, but the floors impacted had been fireproofed a SECOND time.
|
|