Fandom Forums - View Single Post - The 9/11 Conspiracy
View Single Post
Old 10-21-2009, 04:14 PM   #134
Miburo
Deos Fortioribus Adesse
 
Miburo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Valhalla
Posts: 3,546
Thanks: 34,399
Thanked 17,679 Times in 5,440 Posts
Miburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond repute
Re: The 9/11 Conspiracy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gansta_Ninja View Post
It’s your argument that is flawed; you can't just simply negate my statement without producing any facts . The director of the original investigation (W. GEN CORLEY) revealed that it was the fire that followed the crash brought the two towers down.
I did produce facts. Like the fact that your argument sucks since the premise doesn't support the conclusion. Like Mal said, you never showed that it would be impossible for a building to collapse without having all the steel in the building melt. If you think about it, it's actually a ridiculously stupid thing to even suggest.



Quote:
As I said earlier, uncontrolled open fires like those of the WTC can’t generate enough heat to melt the steel trusses, frames and beams. Let me cite one very simply example for you; Gas Stove versus Steel Pot. You can cook all day without melting your steel pot even under the intense heat generated from the Gas stove. Where its controlled flame is far greater than those of the WTC.
Like I said earlier, it doesn't matter since steel melting =/= structural failure.

Quote:
This is not the first time the world saw a skyscraper inferno. The Madrid Skyscraper fire (Windsor Building), the 32 storey building that burnt for 10 hours. http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHART...fire_2005.html
This was the same level of fire can be seen at the WTC, but the building withstood the 10 hour blazing inferno. So what the hell happened at WTC??
I think that perhaps the differences in building size and structure might have been a factor. And the fact that the Windsor Building wasn't hit by MASSIVE FUCKING PLANES could have played a role as well.

Quote:
Here’s a question for you, of which I hope you can shed some light.

1.) The North tower was hit first, then why did the South Tower was the first to collapse
Seriously? Wow.

Like Mal suggested, it's probably because the damage they suffered wasn't identical. Therefore the conditions weren't identical. Etc. Or it could be proof of a MASSIVE CONSPIRACY LOLOLOLOL...if you topped your pizza with paint chips when you were a kid, of course.
Miburo is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Miburo For This Useful Post:
Azumi (10-21-2009), Mal (10-21-2009), mewmew (10-21-2009), zer0systm (10-22-2009)