Explosives Used on 911 - Here's All the Evidence Needed

[WilbyInebriated]

You dismiss the other fires with this "different standards" bit, but you do not elaborate.  How exactly are these standards different, and how would those standards lead to a different result?

Sure, skyscrapers are built to hold many floors, but this is also an added risk.  A beam can be forced to support quite a bit more weight than in a shorter building.

And keep in mind, fire is a chaotic thing, and buildings, even steel skyscrapers, can be built differently.  In WTC 7, the fire weakened a key piece in a certain way that did not occur in the Chinese example.

My point is, you guys asked for evidence of steel structures being destroyed by fire, and I gave it to you.  The buildings I presented were serious buildings, not metal shacks.  They were not skyscrapers, but that does not mean that a skyscraper could not suffer the same fate.  Now you are dancing around trying to say, well, that was not a 47 footer.  Yea, and it wasn't in New York on a sunny day in September either, but so what?  Steel can fail under fire, that's the point.

thats fucking funny, weren't you the one who said...

Who cares about other buildings?  Examine this building.

who's fucking dancing around?
so which is it oh mental midget? you can't have both...
i thought the point was that you had some intricate plan about not posting here anymore?

[utilitarian]

indeed you do...

sure i reassessed, in light of the 'evidence' you presented. see the above comment. your evidence does nothing to promote your opinion, in fact, it degrades it.

Yea, I do, but you know what, at least I argue the evidence, instead of calling my opponents idiots, dimwits, and telling them to "fuck off."

You are no one to talk.  If you are going to go ad hominem, from what I remember, you are some loser living in Fargo in a run-down apartment, with no car. I bet I pay twice as much in taxes as you earn.  And you cannot even string a proper English sentence together, so I suspect you finished high school, max.  And now you pretend to be a fire expert, based on some ramblings you read on truther websites.

You wanted examples of steel buildings collapsing, and I gave them to you.  If you have the technical expertise to explain why similar results could not happen in a skyscraper, go to town.  Otherwise, you my friend, can go "fuck off."

And this next part goes to all of you truthers.  All of you give me the unfortunate impression of someone who has not read any criticisms of your positions.  Every single thing you trot out has been debated quite heavily, and evidence falls on the other side of your position.  But you would never know it if you stick to sites like this.

[WilbyInebriated]

Yea, I do, but you know what, at least I argue the evidence, instead of calling my opponents idiots, dimwits, and telling them to "fuck off."

You are no one to talk.  If you are going to go ad hominem, from what I remember, you are some loser living in Fargo in a run-down apartment, with no car. I bet I pay twice as much in taxes as you earn.  And you cannot even string a proper English sentence together, so I suspect you finished high school, max.  And now you pretend to be a fire expert, based on some ramblings you read on truther websites.

You wanted examples of steel buildings collapsing, and I gave them to you.  If you have the technical expertise to explain why similar results could not happen in a skyscraper, go to town.  Otherwise, you my friend, can go "fuck off."

And this next part goes to all of you truthers.  All of you give me the unfortunate impression of someone who has not read any criticisms of your positions.  Every single thing you trot out has been debated quite heavily, and evidence falls on the other side of your position.  But you would never know it if you stick to sites like this.

you argue the party line, nothing more. 'deaf and blind and dumb and born to follow'
wow you paid a lot in taxes, more proof of what a dipshit you are... suspicion, assumptions, conjecture oh my!
from what i remember about you, you're the guy that chants mantras like 'extraordinary claims require extra ordinary proofs'. then when YOU make claims, like that one where you claimed to know just how to close loop it and i asked you for some technical data, you know, normal things that would go along with a claim like number of rollers, type of material, etc. you cried that such qualifications did not apply to you and you went back to chanting your mantra.
oh my, bad sentence structure... actually it's an old habit i picked up to piss off my father who is an english professor.
want to point out where i didn't string a 'proper' english sentence together?
i don't read truther websites either for the record, knew the official story was bullshit the moment they showed the 'terrorist passport' they found at ground zero. i'm only posting here cause i don't like you.
i suspect you are about 60 years old, totally disconnected from the society around you today. a republican who makes less than a million a year and still thinks his party gives a fuck about him, and still entrenched in your daydreams of 1960's nationalism. or a plant.
you and i are not friends, i think you would have gotten the hint... now fuck off.

sites like this? i do believe he just dissed you stephan...

when all this comes out you're going to be the same dipshit parroting the next lie, which will be "they lied to us to protect us."

[utilitarian]

wow you paid a lot in taxes, more proof of what dipshit you are... suspicion, assumptions, conjecture oh my!
from what i remember about you, you're the guy that chants mantras like 'extraordinary claims require extra ordinary proofs'. then when YOU make claims, like that one where you claimed to know just how to close loop it and i asked you for some technical data, you know, normal things that would go along with a claim like number of rollers, type of material, etc. you cried that such qualifications did not apply to you and you went back to chanting your mantra.
oh my, bad sentence structure... actually it's an old habit i picked up to piss off my father who is an english professor.
i suspect you are about 60 years old, totally disconnected from the society around you today. a republican who makes less than a million a year and still thinks his party gives a fuck about him, and still entrenched in your daydreams of 1960's nationalism. or a plant.
you and i are not friends, i think you would have gotten the hint by now... now fuck off.

I am 40 and an independent, somewhat libertarian.  I finished undergrad and grad school.  As a business owner, I am certainly sympathetic to some fiscally conservative doctrines, but not all of them.  I just think that 9/11 conspiracy theories are bullshit, and I don't believe in perpetual motion until I see it.  That doesn't make me a Republican.

You do not have to aplogize for your sentence structure.  Write how you like.  But saying you do it on purpose is a cop out.  You write in a lazy, easy style favored by 9th graders, and I bet you could not write in the correct manner if you tried.  And I am sorry to say, but your writing does expose your low level of education.  But hey, Bill Gates dropped out of college, so who cares, right?  I am sure you are doing fine.

And yes, extraordinary claims do require extraordinary proof.  But I am not asking for that here.  I only ask for that when someone claims to violate the known laws of physics.  This is a preponderance of the evidence thing, and I think the preponderance is on the official story, more or less as told by the media.

And I take it, no, you cannot explain why the factors that lead to the fire-caused collapse of the steel buildings I cited could not have been present in the WTC 7 collapse?  All I have to say is, well, the NIST concluded fire caused the WTC7 collapse, and there is a precedent for fire causing steel buildings to collapse, so I do not see a huge problem.  Until you can point out what exactly the problem is, you can fuck off.

[WilbyInebriated]

I am 40 and an independent, somewhat libertarian.  I finished undergrad and grad school.  As a business owner, I am certainly sympathetic to some fiscally conservative doctrines, but not all of them.  I just think that 9/11 conspiracy theories are bullshit, and I don't believe in perpetual motion until I see it.  That doesn't make me a Republican.

You do not have to aplogize for your sentence structure.  Write how you like.  But saying you do it on purpose is a cop out.  You write in a lazy, easy style favored by 9th graders, and I bet you could not write in the correct manner if you tried.  And I am sorry to say, but your writing does expose your low level of education.  But hey, Bill Gates dropped out of college, so who cares, right?  I am sure you are doing fine.

And yes, extraordinary claims do require extraordinary proof.  But I am not asking for that here.  I only ask for that when someone claims to violate the known laws of physics.  This is a preponderance of the evidence thing, and I think the preponderance is on the official story, more or less as told by the media.

And I take it, no, you cannot explain why the factors that lead to the fire-caused collapse of the steel buildings I cited could not have been present in the WTC 7 collapse?  All I have to say is, well, the NIST concluded fire caused the WTC7 collapse, and there is a precedent for fire causing steel buildings to collapse, so I do not see a huge problem.  Until you can point out what exactly the problem is, you can fuck off.

i don't care what you did on who, you're still a dipshit... it was meant to demonstrate to you how far off your own suspicions were. you went to grad school and you're still not intelligent...
what? capitalize proper nouns and the start of a sentence? i don't capitalize proper nouns or 'i' because i think it's vain and shows hubris. if you can't tell where one sentence ends and the next starts by the punctuation then you're a dipshit...
no, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS EXTRAORDINARY PROOF. carl sagan should have been slapped silly for saying that. i should think someone who is lecturing someone else on english should realize this, or perhaps you meant grammar? which is traditionally syntax and morphology...

ahh but you try and misdirect again, those tactics might work with 9th graders not with me, your attempts at evoking emotional response are noted and laughed at.
which way was it? oh dancing mental midget. do we care about other buildings or not?