1)FIRE is used to melt steel 2)No reason to check,since they had around 120 tons of jet aircraft fly into them 3) the buildings DID withstand the impacts,but their structural integrity was compromised 4)explosives WERE used in 1994,so the terrorist learned from their mistakes,besides....bomb sniffing dogs at the WTC towers 5)In fact one of them DIED in the collapse,his name was Sirius 6) there was NO 'free fall' View attachment 37680
1. Fire alone is not used to melt steel. Otherwise all building fires would result in collapse. 2. When professionals investigate things the right way, they look at all possibilities. They don't just think of one scenario and not check anything else. They didn't know the reason for the collapse until they started their investigation so how could they not think of explosives in the buildings? Especially when eye witnesses and firefighters said they heard explosions. Like Soupnazi, you would make a poor detective. 3. Perhaps a few floors, but a few damaged floors don't cause a 110 story skyscraper to turn to dust. 4&5. Wrong again. Bomb sniffing dogs were removed days before the attack. http://www.newsday.com/911-annivers...-security-alert-had-just-been-lifted-1.790662 While Sirius died when the building collapsed, he was a dog fixed in one location, checking cars coming in. His job wasn't to wander the building. 6. http://www1.ae911truth.org/news-sec...-and-building-7-on-911-by-david-chandler.html
They do not check anyone and never have the meds claim that one is an expert is what they base there expertise on. It is you missing the point. No one ever claimed fire melted steel hence it is irrelevant. Detectives do not check for everything they follow evidence. The evidence proves that that plane crashes and fire brought down the buildings. There was no.free call period.
1)what melted steel before there were steel framed buildings? 2) professionals also don't waste time on spurious investigations,when it was evident the cause of the collapse 3)It was more than just the floors that were damaged,the basic structures were. 4)Bomb sniffing dogs were NOT removed Sirius died where his handler was on duty,and the rest of the dogs were on different shifts 6)6 feet of building 7 was technically in 'free fall' that's it
When the towers were bombed in 93 the detectives did not look into all possibilities they followed the evidence. Same with 911. By your logic. Plane hit the towers in 93 and the investigation ignored it. It is you who clearly would never make a decent detective. There was no evidence of explosives nor would there be. Planes hit the buildings severing and weakening the supports. Followed by massive hot fired which ruined the integrity of the remaining structures. That was obvious and explosives were not needed nor present. Like all idiotic twoofers you attempt to isolate one cause of the collapse and say it would not happen You ignore that it was a combination of causes working together.Explosives were not a consideration for many reasons. They were not needed and any such explosives used to cuse the collapse would have been massive and impossible to hide. Hearing explosives is normal in any large building fire and irrelevant. Molten steel is irrelevant and yes fire can melt it.
1. You tell me. I'm willing to bet steel is usually melted in a controlled environment with intense heat reaching approximately 2500 degree Fahrenheit. Can't happen in an open office fire where black smoke is present. 2. Were all these people lying? http://youtu.be/c2cViy34b1A 3. No they were not. Flat out lie. 4. Read the Newsday article. It states dogs were removed. You're right about where Sirius died but again, he wasn't patrolling the towers. When the first explosion happened, his handler left him there thinking he'd be safe where he was. 5. I challenge you to count the numbers of "ums" when these guys answer questions. http://youtu.be/RXZnvn7O2NY
Then explain this. Surely investigators would have followed up on these claims. http://youtu.be/c2cViy34b1A Also, an uncontrolled, open fire with black smoke cannot and has not ever melted steel.
I just proved to you that they do and you're still going in circles. You contradicted yourself with the molten steel comment. In another post you said fire can melt steel. Molten steel was found that day and an open, uncontrolled fire with black smoke cannot do that. Here are some firefighters telling you what they saw. I have plenty of more evidence to show you if you don't believe them. http://youtu.be/cCdRA09pztM There was free fall. http://youtu.be/RXZnvn7O2NY
1)Ahhh,but no one officially SAID the steel was melted,All that was needed was a hot enough fire for the steel to lose its total structural rigidity, And 'black smoke'indicates a hydrocarbon fueled fire,VERY hot 2)They were using words that best described to them what they heard,Only you truthers are so literal 3)I can't see how you can honestly claim this,to claim that the jets did NOT compromise the structural integrity of the towers is ludicrous.. 4)No,the fact that sirius died in the collapse,proves that the dogs were NOT puled off duty,the newly hired head of WTC security wouldn't have allowed it,(he died in the collapse) 5)being a poor speaker means what again?..Should the NIST hired James Earl Jones to read the report,and answer questions?
1. http://youtu.be/cCdRA09pztM There was also molten steel flowing out of tower 2 minutes before collapse. 2. Haha, wow. You don't think firefighters know what explosions are? What was exploding in the manner in which these people described? And why wasn't this investigated? 3. A few floors were compromised. Not the entire building. When the south tower began to fall, you could see the top section tip over. How could it suddenly fall into its own footprint and take out the rest of the building so quickly and uniformly? Why was there outward projection of steel and why was steel found lodged into buildings across the street? Why are body parts found on the roof of the Deutsche Bank Building? 4. We don't know to what extent dogs were removed but we know at least some were based on that article and we know Sirius was not patrolling the buildings. The mere fact that dogs were removed days before is suspicious. 5. That's not poor speaking. That's trying to figure out a way to BS your way out of something. The difference is obvious.
No one said it melted steel which is why it is irrelevant. As is the silly video. - - - Updated - - - Yes dug up from under the rubble where the fire continued to burn for a long time without releasing heat into the air.
Here is the relevant footage: [video]https://youtu.be/TJJPYTVjxug[/video] How did you, or anyone else determine the composition of this material?
Top left is a fake. http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911...er_op=view_page&PAGE_id=50&MMN_position=79:79 A truther with the username 'Major Tom' investigated this pic and determined it was faked. - - - Updated - - - Their argument based upon colour is flawed. It could be copper, brass or aluminium with impurities. To state categorically it's steel based upon the colour is erroneous.
This thread on Metabunk examines the science of the colour claim: https://www.metabunk.org/molten-and-glowing-metal.t2029/
Is this molten steel as claimed, or just something burning? - - - Updated - - - Top right is a cut made by the clean-up crews.
1) there was molten SOMETHING coming out of the towers,to claim it was molten steel is conjecture,even an UNOFFICIAL claim by a firefighter 2)Never claimed they didn't know what explosions were,they were using the best words to describe what they heard. And nothing was exploding,just sounded that way 3)You just sestroyed your own comment,,the building did not 'fall in it's own footprint',it was a violent action with steel flying everywhere. And remains were found all over lower manhattan 4)the article was wrong,and officer lin had just came on duty with sirius when the attacks happened 5)Yes,it is poor speaking,ever hear Obama without a teleprompter? No attempt to BS the obvious
No, and please don't straw man. Nearly every truther attributes 9/11 to the government, and I'm asking why? It's not a gotcha moment, it is a point of logic. How did you arrive at such a conclusion? Why are you immediately suspicious of a pertinent question? And that is evidence of nothing. Yeah, that worked well didn't it? No, that one is pretty lame. So how did he plan the attack and get control of the emergency services? And awfully normal. I don't share your incredulity because this is normal practice. Remember the bombing of '93? That might be a reason to insure against terrorist attacks, don't you think? He had no authority to make such a call and 9/11 truth misinterprets the meaning. Why is his insurance case suspicious? No, that is pathetic. Try the NIST report.
Its easy, do you know how? Oh here is more relevant footage [video=youtube;06gXqP5vNdw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06gXqP5vNdw[/video]
are you kidding me? the main mod is so partisan draconian even posers left that board long time ago! lol
