Something is Happening of Historic Proportions

[IsolatedSaint]

Originally Posted by Michael Phelps

Baloney. The reason you haven't cited proof of your conspiracy theory is that you have none.

If you did, you wouldn't worry about who is supposed to show theirs first, you'd be producing it to back your claim.

Again, all you have is theory and supposition.

Granted, none of us know the real story, but we are not the ones questioning the official report.

Now, under those circumstances, the challenger must present his or her proof that the official story is incorrect.

No, the burden of proof is on the mainstream media who's habit it is to perpetuate the lies that there new world order slave masters tell them to perpetuate. 800 degrees F jet fuel cannot cause steel to melt which in turn would cause the towers to collapse.....common sense.........you know somehow I think you know better.
The reason why 9-11 is a big issue is because it's been used as a pretext to take away liberties under the guise of being safe from Al Queda.

[MikeinAR]

Originally Posted by IsolatedSaint

No, the burden of proof is on the mainstream media who's habit it is to perpetuate the lies that there new world order slave masters tell them to perpetuate. 800 degrees F jet fuel cannot cause steel to melt which in turn would cause the towers to collapse.....common sense.........you know somehow I think you know better.
The reason why 9-11 is a big issue is because it's been used as a pretext to take away liberties under the guise of being safe.

The obvious fallacy in your argument on the steel melting is that there was NO need for steel to melt. The only need was for the steel to get hot enough to lose it's structural integrity which could have easily happend between 800 and 1500 degrees where jet fuel can burn. It would have only taken that type of heat in a few different spots before certain components of the buidling gave way which then would have started a domino effect of structural failures.

Given the heat AND the impact of a jetliner smashing into the building that most certainly would have caused a buidling to collapse.

[Michael Phelps]

Originally Posted by IsolatedSaint

No, the burden of proof is on the mainstream media who's habit it is to perpetuate the lies that there new world order slave masters tell them to perpetuate. 800 degrees F jet fuel cannot cause steel to melt which in turn would cause the towers to collapse.....common sense.........you know somehow I think you know better.

I think this is the way you can support your strawman theories.

Let me tell you the facts, here, ok?

Jet fuel burns at 800-1500F, steel melts at 2750F. However, for the buildings to collapse, the steel didn't need to MELT, just lose its structural integrity. I work for one of the largest Engineering and Construction Companies in the world, we have over 56,000 employees, and among them, hundreds of structrual engineers. I've discussed this very issue with them, NONE of them believe your conspiracy theories.

Next point, it wasn't just the jet fuel burning in the building, as soon as the jet hit the building and the fuel began to spread, everything else in the building that was combustible began to burn with it. No one knows the exact temperature of the fire inside during its peak. Some have estimated it over 1800F in "hot pockets".

The jet fuel itself only burned for about 10 minutes and when it died out the towers were still standing, but the ensuing inferno burned and created the heat transfer that eventually burned the insulation from the steel beams, and compromised their structural integrity.

Next argument?

[IsolatedSaint]

Originally Posted by MikeinAR

The obvious fallacy in your argument on the steel melting is that there was NO need for steel to melt. The only need was for the steel to get hot enough to lose it's structural integrity which could have easily happend between 800 and 1500 degrees where jet fuel can burn. It would have only taken that type of heat in a few different spots before certain components of the buidling gave way which then would have started a domino effect of structural failures.

Given the heat AND the impact of a jetliner smashing into the building that most certainly would have caused a buidling to collapse.

It has to be continuos heat at @5000 degrees F for at least 30 minutes for what your describing to happen. Steel doesn't begin to melt at those lower temperatures.

Controlled demolition is the strongest possibility(seeing how beautifully symetrical the buildings fell). Too perfect the way those buildings fell. And what about WTC7.

[Michael Phelps]

Originally Posted by IsolatedSaint

It has to be continuos heat at @5000 degrees F for at least 30 minutes for what your describing to happen. Steel doesn't begin to melt at those lower temperatures.

Controlled demolition is the strongest possibility(seeing how beautifully symetrical the buildings fell). Too perfect the way those buildings fell. And what about WTC7.

Wrong.

Steel loses 50% of it strenght at 1100F, and about 90% at 1800F. Within minutes.

[IsolatedSaint]

Originally Posted by Michael Phelps

I think this is the way you can support your strawman theories.

Let me tell you the facts, here, ok?

Jet fuel burns at 800-1500F, steel melts at 2750F. However, for the buildings to collapse, the steel didn't need to MELT, just lose its structural integrity. I work for one of the largest Engineering and Construction Companies in the world, we have over 56,000 employees, and among them, hundreds of structrual engineers. I've discussed this very issue with them, NONE of them believe your conspiracy theories.

Next point, it wasn't just the jet fuel burning in the building, as soon as the jet hit the building and the fuel began to spread, everything else in the building that was combustible began to burn with it. No one knows the exact temperature of the fire inside during its peak. Some have estimated it over 1800F in "hot pockets".

The jet fuel itself only burned for about 10 minutes and when it died out the towers were still standing, but the ensuing inferno burned and created the heat transfer that eventually burned the insulation from the steel beams, and compromised their structural integrity.

Next argument?

The heat in those buildings was probably the equivalent of a common house fire of about 700 degrees max. As I said, YOUR conspiracy theory just doesn't take into account why them buildings collapsed so perfectly and evenly and symetrically. And 1800F is still not 2750F and it has to be sustained heat to have an effect.
Boy, that last paragraph of yours about creating a heat transfer.....sir you are hopelessly deceived and reprobate concerning this subject so keep believing the lies that Boy George Bush and his new world order henchman at FoxNews O'reilly/hannity/limbaugh etc. Can't prove to you that 3+3=6. Keep believing the official story because that's what you want to believe.

Enjoy your new world order!!!

[Michael Phelps]

Originally Posted by IsolatedSaint

The heat in those buildings was probably the equivalent of a common house fire of about 700 degrees max. As I said, YOUR conspiracy theory just doesn't take into account why them buildings collapsed so perfectly and evenly and symetrically. And 1800F is still not 2750F and it has to be sustained heat to have an effect.
Boy, that last paragraph of yours about creating a heat transfer.....sir you are hopelessly deceived and reprobate concerning this subject so keep believing the lies that Boy George Bush and his new world order henchman at FoxNews O'reilly/hannity/limbaugh etc. Can't prove to you that 3+3=6. Keep believing the official story because that's what you want to believe.

Enjoy your new world order!!!

Lol, well, I think you've made your motives crystal clear.

Condescension is a common ploy exercised by the uninformed, and if you don't want to discuss the issue intelligently, I'll honor your wishes and concede.

Any time you'd like to discuss the physics of steel stress and fatigue, and the design by the architect to allow the building to implode upon itself in the event that it needed to be demolished, we can talk again.

Until then, keep your tin foil cap on so the aliens can't intercept your thoughts!

(Sorry, I know that last statement was childish, but I couldn't resist)

[tstew]

Originally Posted by Michael Phelps

Amen, TS..........I couldn't agree more.

I'm one of those who felt that invading Iraq was the right thing to do, even after no WMD's were found. My gut feeling is that far worse things could have, and would have happened, in the international political arena without that action. However, I am not in favor of how things are being handled now.

And, I'm with you on the bail out packages.

I come from a GM family, but I'm not happy at all about the shape GM has allowed their business to get into. I think there is a carelessness, if not arrogance, on the behalf of a corporation who will spend like a drunken sailor, all the while thinking "The government will bail us out - they can't afford NOT to!".

I realize that if GM files bankruptcy, over 2.5mm jobs will be affected, not only direct hires, but all ancillary jobs connected. Support businesses will go under, hundreds and thousands of homes will be foreclosed on, it will be a nightmare.

But, I'm still not happy about just handing over billions to CEOs and CFOs who are living like princes.

Just my ramblings on a Sunday afternoon............

The worse thing you can do in a war is mix in politicians and image consultants at the top.

[HeavenlyOne]

Originally Posted by IsolatedSaint

Yes....you are right about the men with the real power above Bush.....I never said that Bush planned/did 9-11......I just know it wasn't 17 men with box-cutters that hi-jacked them planes.....you know, the official mainstream media story.
The reason why we haven't sited any of the so-called proof that you demand is because the mainstream media hasn't sited any proof for what there saying concerning 9-11.....you see the burden is always on us(well at least me and HappyTown) to prove the official story wrong , when the burden should be on the mainstream media to furnish proof that what they say is true.

The mainstream media is always presumed to be right!!! The mainstream media posts sayings and histrionics such as, "We are at war with Al Qaueda, we're fighting the war on terror".
And your an intelligent enough person to do a google search on 9-11 being an inside job. Some of this is just common sense. EX: planes when they fly off course aren't just allowed to stay that way without being intercepted(unless there allowed to ON PURPOSE).

Ah....it's getting clearer now.

You know, I wondered why all those people had to die in those planes. Now I know.

It's because they were privy to the situation and the conspiracy that Bush concocted! Oh yeah, this is exactly what happened!

See, so many people on those planes called relatives and operators to report what was supposedly happening. They spoke of the pilots and flight attendants getting murdered by foreigners with box cutters while screams were heard in the background.

Even the military guys on the plane that went down in Pennsylvania were in on it! With so many people involved, it was clear that they went on those planes knowing full well they'd be giving their lives, and even the lives of their children, for their country!

Amazing that only 4 planes were involved. Is that the best Bush could do? Surely he could have gotten more people to sacrifice themselves in the name of proving a point.

Wait...the point that Bush was making on 9-11....anyone know what that was? I have yet to hear the reasoning behind Bush's conspiracy.

[HeavenlyOne]

Originally Posted by IsolatedSaint

No, the burden of proof is on the mainstream media who's habit it is to perpetuate the lies that there new world order slave masters tell them to perpetuate. 800 degrees F jet fuel cannot cause steel to melt which in turn would cause the towers to collapse.....common sense.........you know somehow I think you know better.
The reason why 9-11 is a big issue is because it's been used as a pretext to take away liberties under the guise of being safe from Al Queda.

IS the issue and point that's being missed is why??? What that day, why those towers, why the Pentagon, and why kill all those people and blame foreigners for it?

And since the towers were bombed back in 1993, who's fault was that, considering Clinton was in office? The Muslim men named as being responsible, I suppose they were made up too, huh?