37 FACTS that contradict the "official" BS story

That was below the impacted zone. Heat RISES and the core created a chimney effect which directed a good deal of the heat directly to core columns that had been stripped of insulation and misaligned by impact..

DOOD this is hilarious!

There was NO CHIMNEY hole in the top of the wtc LMAO

you guys keep taking this farther over the top every time I drop by!


Speculative. Nobody came down from above the hottest areas to confirm that.

Really? Citation please

Did you notice that it got hot enough that people jumped out of windows rather than be roasted?

Yeh they jumped at 70 miles per hour! LOL






On the up-wind side, where cooler air was entering the building. This does not take a lot of thought to understand.

sure it does when all the windows were blown out unless dark star had that vacuum cleaner running in that imaginary core chimney?

I have seen accounts of water running down the stairs, but no descriptions of how well the sprinklers were working above the impact zone.

They were working well enough that wtc2 had virtually no fire left and water was pouring down the stairs as people escaped to safety, (and spare me the pictures and edits of the initial fire pretended be there when it was demolished)

Even if any of them worked, there is only a limited amount of water in the system and there was no source of resupply. Do learn how these things work before you comment on them.

Really? You are seriously going to claim that the survivors describing their experience had time to devise and conspire a lie that that the sprinklers working? and somehow manufacture pictures of the same?

 

*Banging head on desk at koko's raging stupidity*

 

[video=youtube;ZmG4R6yOCt4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmG4R6yOCt4[/video]

 

Which is EXACTLY what he wants. You just gave him the only thing that he desires. A truthers goal is NOT to progress the conversation, it's to bog it down with bull(*)(*)(*)(*) and idiocy until people just walk away. I figured that out awhile ago. You can post anything, any fact that you could possibly come up with that is backed up by science, and he will dismiss it, while calling you a moron. It's ridiculous, if everyone of the debunkers just ignored him and quit feeding him he'd go away. It's just childish.

 

No. Just a lot of broken windows and stairwell doors left open by people trying to escape. You guys keep taking this farther over the top every time I drop by!

You don't get to ask me to provide a specimen of unicorn poo. You need to cite someone who actually saw the sprinklers working.

That does not even look like a human body.

Yes. That contributed to the chimney effect. A child should be able to grasp this, unless he got dropped on his head.

There was fire. Only a moron could look at the photos and conclude that the fire was out or anywhere near burning out.

Name those who saw the sprinklers working.

Water running down the stair means nothing. The impact would have severed the water supply to all the restrooms, which, in case you are too lazy to look at a floor plan, were located near the stairwells. That water running down the stairs means BOO.

 

Usually, they just sit there mentally wanking off and claiming that the grown-ups could not stand up to their logic. I see in a lot of twoofer sites claims by this sort of troll who claim to have shut down the "gubmint shills" with their irrefutable "logic."

 

useless chatter is your turf, facts are my turf.

well you came to more incorrect conclusions which is what everyone has come to expect.

 

some logic is irrefutable and the only ones I have ever seen promoting 2 + 2 = 5 are statist troughers. Their constant barage of bull(*)(*)(*)(*) has no bounds.

 

No. Just a lot of broken windows and stairwell doors left open by people trying to escape.

You guys keep taking this farther over the top every time I drop by!

But the outside of the building is not the core and there is no place to exhaust that gale of rising inferno heat you claimed would be sucked into the core but thats beside the point!

you know, no need to be a rocket scientist to figger out that a chimney has to have a outside vent LMAO

and if that were in fact the case then there would also be all that kool air being drawn up with the alleged massive heat cooling the (*)(*)(*)(*) back down. As the resident fire chief expert you claimed to be why dont know that.

You don't get to ask me to provide a specimen of unicorn poo. You need to cite someone who actually saw the sprinklers working.

You already have provided enough of that for one day thanks anyway

That does not even look like a human body.

Maybe it was a cow in disguise?

Yes. That contributed to the chimney effect. A child should be able to grasp this, unless he got dropped on his head.

yes thats how they did it! operation vacusuck played a major role in the chimney effect



There was fire. Only a moron could look at the photos and conclude that the fire was out or anywhere near burning out.

There was water automatically putting out the fire too, just as it was designed to do!

Name those who saw the sprinklers working.

For one; The guy who was on the gurney being wheeled into the ambulance, same one who described the perimeter blasting exactly as the FIREMEN did. Your supposed brothers who you now are calling liars.

Water running down the stair means nothing. The impact would have severed the water supply to all the restrooms, which, in case you are too lazy to look at a floor plan, were located near the stairwells. That water running down the stairs means BOO.

Would have it? You know this for a fact? Every civilian is lying in your mind huh?

Yeh water running down the stairs means boo hoo hoo for your story! LMAO

- - - Updated - - -

75 years after the fact, after a clay mud hole is filled in you want to pretend it compares with 93?

go ahead take your best shot

 

You have no idea how air conditioning works, have you? It would only be a strong draft in the actual core area. The rising hot air is constricted, thus must move faster through the spaces in the core and stairs. But then, on the upper floors, with so many windows broken out, it would spread out and slow down.

Come on, now. This is grade school level stuff.

Not a bit of it. That fresh air would be adding oxygen to the Class A fires, thus increasing the core temperatures. Fire Science 101.

You don't get to ask me to provide a specimen of unicorn poo. You need to cite someone who actually saw the sprinklers working.

More likely a bit of fabric or insulation from one of the systems on the mechanical floor. It was clearly not a body, nor was it propelled out the window by any kind of explosive charge. An explosive charge blows solid object out ahead of the dust. The dust content of this ejected whatever was already thing out when the rag appeared. A child should be able to grasp this, unless he got dropped on his head.

Citation needed.

This is not a citation. I have no bloody clue who you are talking about. A link might help us figure out what you are misinterpreting here.

I know for a fact that an incident had occurred which did structural damage to the part of the building most filled with water lines of some sort or another, including restrooms. There is no way you blast out sheetrock walls without damaging the plumbing. Any construction worker could tell you that.

[

It proves that airplanes going nose down into terrain that is not too solid leaves an airplane-shaped hole in the ground with most of the wreckage stuffed down into the hole, just like 93 did.

 

You have no idea how air conditioning works, have you? It would only be a strong draft in the actual core area. The rising hot air is constricted, thus must move faster through the spaces in the core and stairs. But then, on the upper floors, with so many windows broken out, it would spread out and slow down.


Come on, now. This is grade school level stuff.

Yes it is so how did you manage to mess up so badly?

Not a bit of it. That fresh air would be adding oxygen to the Class A fires, thus increasing the core temperatures. Fire Science 101.

But your 2nd grade chimney explanation is pure loonacy in the most kind words I can think of.

You don't get to ask me to provide a specimen of unicorn poo.

I have been asking you not to post unicorn poo but it seems its the best you got so not much I can do about that.

You need to cite someone who actually saw the sprinklers working.

I thought I told you it was that dood on the gurney.

More likely a bit of fabric or insulation from one of the systems on the mechanical floor. It was clearly not a body, nor was it propelled out the window by any kind of explosive charge. An explosive charge blows solid object out ahead of the dust. The dust content of this ejected whatever was already thing out when the rag appeared. A child should be able to grasp this, unless he got dropped on his head.

A person being blown out of the building.

This is not a citation. I have no bloody clue who you are talking about. A link might help us figure out what you are misinterpreting here.

misinterpreting = no trougher spin

I know for a fact that an incident had occurred which did structural damage to the part of the building most filled with water lines of some sort or another, including restrooms. There is no way you blast out sheetrock walls without damaging the plumbing. Any construction worker could tell you that.

No you dont, you never inspected the damn place so please spare us the blatant lies already.

[It proves that airplanes going nose down into terrain that is not too solid leaves an airplane-shaped hole in the ground with most of the wreckage stuffed down into the hole, just like 93 did.

no it does not, more spin, that field was a mud hole that filled in around the plane. I swear you people would say any damn thing without regard to how ridiculous it is.

 

A hit on an engine would in all probability take the wing off also or at least damage the flight control on that wing with, also, a big risk of inflaming the fuel in that wing tank.

 

Seems the sock hijacked this thread.

Figures.

 

do enlighten us how you hijack a thread with 37 general themes/points of argument.

 

A given volumn of air moves faster through a constricted area than through an open area. Scientific fact, not alterable by your jumping up and down and stamping your feet and yelling "WRONG!"

There were hundreds of people on gurneys and I do not remember reading a statement by any of them to the effect that they saw any sprinklers working. You are going to have to be more specific, or I shall have to consider you to be lying.

The object blown out of the mechanical floor was likely a bit of fabric or insulation from one of the systems on the mechanical floor. It was clearly not a body, nor was it propelled out the window by any kind of explosive charge. An explosive charge blows solid object out ahead of the dust. The dust content of this ejected whatever was already thing out when the rag appeared. It is up to you to show that it is a human body, because I see no features that identify it as such.

I know for a fact that an incident had occurred which did structural damage to the part of the building most filled with water lines of some sort or another, including restrooms. There is no way you blast out sheetrock walls without damaging the plumbing. Any construction worker could tell you that.

You need to learn something about geology and archaeology before you start lecturing other people on those matters. Normandy has always been a flat plain and that field was worked as a farm for decades, if nor centuries, before Klipsch dug a hole in it. It was always stiff clay. That is why all the components stayed aligned as they were when their forward motion stopped. Pay attention to what the eye witnesses told the archaeologists. Your failure to do so proves that you are not competent to dispute the facts stated.

 

A given volumn of air moves faster through a constricted area than through an open area. Scientific fact, not alterable by your jumping up and down and stamping your feet and yelling "WRONG!"

You got some seriously (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up fizics and rather than support your crazy notion you get even more vague.

There were hundreds of people on gurneys and I do not remember reading a statement by any of them to the effect that they saw any sprinklers working. You are going to have to be more specific, or I shall have to consider you to be lying.

Whatever, then you goog it if you want it.

The object blown out of the mechanical floor was likely a bit of fabric or insulation from one of the systems on the mechanical floor. It was clearly not a body, nor was it propelled out the window by any kind of explosive charge. An explosive charge blows solid object out ahead of the dust. The dust content of this ejected whatever was already thing out when the rag appeared. It is up to you to show that it is a human body, because I see no features that identify it as such.

The mechanical floor? When did I say mechanical floor?
No a body trying to hang on is not the first thing out the window.
That and as usual you are not paying attention or ignoring other details.
More of your typical backwards fizics.

I know for a fact that an incident had occurred which did structural damage to the part of the building most filled with water lines of some sort or another, including restrooms. There is no way you blast out sheetrock walls without damaging the plumbing. Any construction worker could tell you that.

Did you go in there and inspect the part you are talking about?
Yes = its a fact
No = it bull(*)(*)(*)(*)

Yes or no

You need to learn something about geology and archaeology before you start lecturing other people on those matters. Normandy has always been a flat plain and that field was worked as a farm for decades, if nor centuries, before Klipsch dug a hole in it. It was always stiff clay. That is why all the components stayed aligned as they were when their forward motion stopped. Pay attention to what the eye witnesses told the archaeologists. Your failure to do so proves that you are not competent to dispute the facts stated.

flat and farm and worked and components staying in line has nothing to do with it, as usual it looks like I know more about it then you do. archaeologists are not plane crash experts though they are far superior to anything I have seen out here so far.

 

There were hundreds of people on gurneys and I do not remember reading a statement by any of them to the effect that they saw any sprinklers working. You are going to have to be more specific, or I shall have to consider you to be lying.

You are sending me after unicorn poo again. I categorically state that your witness does not exist and it is thus up to you to prove that he does. I am in no way obligated to prove a negative. Absence of evidence, in such cases as this is evidence of absence. Only you say that there is a witness. It is thus up to you to prove that there is. Until you do, we must assume that you are lying.

You showed us something being blown out of some sort of exhaust opening on the mechanical floor. That and as usual you are not paying attention or ignoring other details. More of your typical backwards fizics.

Hundreds of witnesses saw a few tons of frag pass through the area, and it was recorded by about a dozen video cameras. Nobody saw the sprinklers actually working above the 78th floor.

No, you know nothing about it. You didn't even listen to the eye witnesses.

Actually, half of that crew are experts on aircraft and I am professionally trained in aircraft accident investigations. It was part of my AFSC (57150)when I was active duty USAF. Now go watch the video, and you will see that the hole is exactly airplane-shaped. All eight guns were in the location and orientation that the narrative of the crash had already predicted, and the counter weight and tail wheel, from the far back end of the plane were in the hole on top of the wad of debris that had been the engine and cockpit.

Yes, an archaeologist is taught to interpret such things.

 

There were hundreds of people on gurneys and I do not remember reading a statement by any of them to the effect that they saw any sprinklers working. You are going to have to be more specific, or I shall have to consider you to be lying.

Like I said fine its irrelevant so if its not worth it to you it certainly is not worth it to me.

I got the pic thats all I need!



You are sending me after unicorn poo again. I categorically state that your witness does not exist and it is thus up to you to prove that he does. I am in no way obligated to prove a negative. Absence of evidence, in such cases as this is evidence of absence. Only you say that there is a witness. It is thus up to you to prove that there is. Until you do, we must assume that you are lying.

Like I said I dont give a (*)(*)(*)(*) its not needed to prove the point.

You showed us something being blown out of some sort of exhaust opening on the mechanical floor. That and as usual you are not paying attention or ignoring other details.

Really? Prove it

Hundreds of witnesses saw a few tons of frag pass through the area, and it was recorded by about a dozen video cameras. Nobody saw the sprinklers actually working above the 78th floor.

No, you know nothing about it. You didn't even listen to the eye witnesses.

Not real important, all I need is to look at the building, I leave witnesses for people who like to argue stupid (*)(*)(*)(*). Save material evidence for me, bs for you.

Actually, half of that crew are experts on aircraft and I am professionally trained in aircraft accident investigations. It was part of my AFSC (57150)when I was active duty USAF. Now go watch the video, and you will see that the hole is exactly airplane-shaped. All eight guns were in the location and orientation that the narrative of the crash had already predicted, and the counter weight and tail wheel, from the far back end of the plane were in the hole on top of the wad of debris that had been the engine and cockpit.

yeh so waht that does not mean it happened the way you paint. It happened the way I painted it. In fact its the only way it could have happened in the "real world".

Yes, an archaeologist is taught to interpret such things.

of course they and you are an expert that is wrong about 90% of everything you post....sheees

 

So the 76th? What about the floors above that? Are you really suggesting that what was on the 76th floor was reflective of what was happening in the whole building?

Thanks, I needed a good laugh.

 

Word salads, anomolies, and wishful thinking do not make 9/11 an inside job, no matter your desire to convince someone otherwise.

 

they dont make it osama bin laden and planes either, no matter your desire to convince someone otherwise.

 

What about the floors above?

Are you suggesting there was a massive raging inferno?

Dont make me laugh too hard until I finish my drink please/.

 

Anyone who believes otherwise is obviously beyond my convincing and should seek help.

- - - Updated - - -

Are you really suggesting there wasn't? Please don't make me laugh too hard until I finish mine.

 

Yeh if you are looking for people who do not know the facts and you can spoon feed the bassackwards fizikz to you are barking up the wrong tree. You are correct, anyone whos brain is firing on all 8 is beyond your convincing.

there wasnt what exactly?

 

Pictures of what? Looks like a normal flow from damaged plumbing and is clearly not from one of the burning floors.

You really need to get a grip on a concept in law called "evidence."