Ground Zero Building Catches Fire, Doesn't Collapse

[KeepOurFreedoms]

Ground Zero Building Catches Fire, Doesn't Collapse

Prisonplanet.com
Sunday Aug 19, 2007


The 40 story Deutsche Bank building next to the ground zero site in New York, where the world trade center once stood, caught fire yesterday and burned intensely for seven hours without collapsing

This represents another modern day miracle in light of the commonly accepted premise that since 9/11, all steel buildings that suffer limited fire damage implode within two hours. This building had even suffered structural damage on 9/11 and had been partially dismantled.

The raging fire, which killed two firefighters, was finally declared under control late saturday afternoon, a full seven hours after it had begun to burn.

On 9/11 the south tower of the WTC burned for just 56 minutes before collapsing, while the north tower lasted around an hour and 45 minutes. According to the official transcripts of the firefighter tapes, fires in both towers were almost out immediately before the collapses.

The saving grace that could have prevented Deutsche Bank from imploding may have been the fact that it was not hit by a plane, as the twin towers were on 9/11.

However, the absence of a jet strike wasn't enough to prevent WTC 7 from crumbling into its own footprint within 7 seconds later that fateful afternoon.

Hundreds of buildings worldwide suffered major fires that gutted the entire facade of their structure before 9/11 and did not collapse, but since the twin towers behaved differently, rather than consider an alternative explanation for the collapse of the towers, experts simply decided to reverse the fundamental precepts of all known physics to make it easier for everyone to understand.

Since that time, it has been commonly accepted that limited fires in tall buildings are 99% certain to cause an almost instantaneous collapse.

More pictures and an AP report on the latest blaze follow.




Firefighters Die in Blaze by Ground Zero

VERENA DOBNIK / AP

NEW YORK - A seven-alarm fire ripped through an abandoned skyscraper next to ground zero in Lower Manhattan Saturday, killing two firefighters who were responding to the blaze.



Officers at the scene were preventing nearby residents from returning to their homes, telling them that authorities were concerned the former Deutsche Bank office building, vacant since the 2001 terrorist attacks turned it into a toxic nightmare, could fall. Mayor Michael Bloomberg said that fear turned out to be unfounded.

The plume of gray smoke that trailed above the site of the World Trade Center raised concerns that toxic substances in the building could be spreading.

Bloomberg sought to reassure residents that the chemicals in the building likely did not present a significant health risk, saying air-quality tests so far showed no danger.

"Having said that, we are extremely careful. We don't want to prejudge anything," the mayor added. Tests were to continue overnight, he said.

One of the firefighters killed was identified as Joseph Graffagnino, 34, of Brooklyn. He was a member of Ladder 5, which lost 11 members on Sept. 11, 2001.



"Today's events really are another cruel blow to our city and to our fire department," Bloomberg said. He said the fire had "expanded our loss."

Also killed was Robert Beddia, 53, of Staten Island. Bloomberg said both firefighters had become trapped, inhaled a great deal of smoke and gone into cardiac arrest.

Five or six other firefighters were taken to a hospital but were expected to be released, Bloomberg said. No civilians were hurt.



Construction crews had already dismantled 14 of the building's 40 stories -- reaching the 26th floor on Tuesday. Some firefighters used stairs to reach the burning upper floors of the building, just steps from where 343 firefighters lost their lives in the 2001 terror attacks.

The cause of the fire was not immediately known. Smoke pouring from the burning building was visible from midtown Manhattan and the New Jersey side of the Hudson River. Fire officials declared the blaze under control late Saturday.



The acrid smell of smoke, which hung over the neighborhood for days after Sept. 11, returned to lower Manhattan along with the wail of emergency vehicles. More than five dozen fire vehicles, with more than 270 firefighters, responded to the blaze as pieces of burning debris fell from the building to the streets.

Residents said they weren't allowed home even to rescue their pets.

"We heard this crackling," said Elizabeth Hughes, who saw the fire start from her rooftop deck across from the tower. "And then a huge fire that went up three floors fast. It was massive. ... Oh my God! I can't even go in and get my cats."

By late Saturday evening, nearby residents who had been evacuated were told they could return.

The 1.4-million square foot office tower was contaminated with toxic dust and debris after the World Trade Center's south tower collapsed into it. Bloomberg said the chemicals in the building did not present a significant health risk.

Efforts to dismantle it were halted by a labor dispute last year, along with the ongoing search for the remains of attack victims.

City officials announced in June they had completed recovery efforts at the structure. More than 700 human remains were found at the site.

Errol Cockfield, a spokesman for the Empire State Development Corp., which is overseeing redevelopment at ground zero, said authorities were investigating whether the smoke at the scene could pose any environmental danger.

[SW85]

So? As I have said before, no building collapsed on 9/11 due solely to fire, either.

[USMC the Almighty]

McCormick Place Exhibition Center, Chicago, 1967

[Castle]

Oh I do love these ridiculous attempts to revisit the "inside job" theories of 9/11.
Lets do something crazy and consider this for a moment. Is it possible that the Deutsche Bank building might have at least suffered more extensive damage had a 155 ft projectile filled with over 3000 gallons of jet fuel traveling at over 400 mph slammed directly into it? Say maybe a Boeing 757?

More food for thought. Take a rock the size of a building and drop it off a cliff. You will have extensive damage to the immediate area. Take that same rock and propel it through the earths atmosphere at a few thousand mph and you have a catastrophe on impact.

Lets pretend that you aren't politically motivated to deny this. Can you see how absurd your comments then become?

-Castle

[KeepOurFreedoms]

Oh I do love these ridiculous attempts to revisit the "inside job" theories of 9/11.
Lets do something crazy and consider this for a moment. Is it possible that the Deutsche Bank building might have at least suffered more extensive damage had a 155 ft projectile filled with over 3000 gallons of jet fuel traveling at over 400 mph slammed directly into it? Say maybe a Boeing 757?

More food for thought. Take a rock the size of a building and drop it off a cliff. You will have extensive damage to the immediate area. Take that same rock and propel it through the earths atmosphere at a few thousand mph and you have a catastrophe on impact.

Lets pretend that you aren't politically motivated to deny this. Can you see how absurd your comments then become?

-Castle

Let's pretend you actually care about the USA and what happens to it.

[Castle]

Let's pretend you actually care about the USA and what happens to it.
I applaud the method with which you completely dodge my entire post. Your skillful use of misdirection is almost commendable.

As it failed miserably, I'll give you another shot.


-Castle

[KeepOurFreedoms]

I applaud the method with which you completely dodge my entire post. Your skillful use of misdirection is almost commendable.

As it failed miserably, I'll give you another shot.


-Castle

If you insist. "burned intensely for seven hours without collapsing"
Here is the deal bubba. The plane hit the building, a huge fire ball went up consuming the jet fuel. What was left to burn down a 110 floor building? And then the building collapses into its own footprint after only 56 minutes. That is just crazy talk. Go look at the videos of the buildings. There are charges going off to make make building collapse....why else all the pulverized cement?

[steveox]

Maybe 9-11 attacks was a conspricy by the government so George Bush can give a reason to attack Afgainstan and IRAQ. Just like Oswald didnt kill JFK the CIA killed JFK.

[Castle]

If you insist. "burned intensely for seven hours without collapsing"
Here is the deal bubba. The plane hit the building, a huge fire ball went up consuming the jet fuel. What was left to burn down a 110 floor building? And then the building collapses into its own footprint after only 56 minutes. That is just crazy talk. Go look at the videos of the buildings. There are charges going off to make make building collapse....why else all the pulverized cement?

Ah yes, once again the conspiracy theorists conveniently discard all other factors of the impact in an effort to float their agenda.

Facts and professional opinions generally make more sense to me.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

The intro to this article:
Three and a half years later, not everyone is convinced we know the truth. Go to Google.com, type in the search phrase "World Trade Center conspiracy" and you'll get links to an estimated 628,000 Web sites. More than 3000 books on 9/11 have been published; many of them reject the official consensus that hijackers associated with Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda flew passenger planes into U.S. landmarks.

Healthy skepticism, it seems, has curdled into paranoia. Wild conspiracy tales are peddled daily on the Internet, talk radio and in other media. Blurry photos, quotes taken out of context and sketchy eyewitness accounts have inspired a slew of elaborate theories: The Pentagon was struck by a missile; the World Trade Center was razed by demolition-style bombs; Flight 93 was shot down by a mysterious white jet. As outlandish as these claims may sound, they are increasingly accepted abroad and among extremists here in the United States.

To investigate 16 of the most prevalent claims made by conspiracy theorists, POPULAR MECHANICS assembled a team of nine researchers and reporters who, together with PM editors, consulted more than 70 professionals in fields that form the core content of this magazine, including aviation, engineering and the military.

In the end, we were able to debunk each of these assertions with hard evidence and a healthy dose of common sense. We learned that a few theories are based on something as innocent as a reporting error on that chaotic day. Others are the byproducts of cynical imaginations that aim to inject suspicion and animosity into public debate. Only by confronting such poisonous claims with irrefutable facts can we understand what really happened on a day that is forever seared into world history.

-Castle

[Castle]

Almost forgot, the portion of this article that specifically addresses and debunks your wild assertion is here.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=4

-Castle

[SW85]

What was left to burn down a 110 floor building?

110 floors filled with combustible materials -- drapes, rugs, furniture, office equipment, and countless reams of paper.

FYI, experts (that is, people with relevant education, not dumpy unemployable basement-dwellers like you) say that the jet fuel burned for 10 minutes; it was not consumed instantly in a single fireball. And it was sprayed through the whole interior of the building through utility shafts.

Go look at the videos of the buildings. There are charges going off to make make building collapse....why else all the pulverized cement?

What's your proof that there are charges going off to "make make building collapse"?

And anyone with a hammer drill can pulverize cement.

EDIT: This nonsense ought to be shunted into the conspiracy theory board where it belongs.

[KeepOurFreedoms]

Maybe 9-11 attacks was a conspricy by the government so George Bush can give a reason to attack Afgainstan and IRAQ. Just like Oswald didnt kill JFK the CIA killed JFK.

Maybe it was an inside job so the government could gain more control over the people.

Where was Bush Sr. when JFK was killed?

[KeepOurFreedoms]

Ah yes, once again the conspiracy theorists conveniently discard all other factors of the impact in an effort to float their agenda.

Facts and professional opinions generally make more sense to me.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

The intro to this article:


-Castle

Popular Mechancis has been debunked. Anyone else you want to quote? or will you just keep your head burried?

[KeepOurFreedoms]

110 floors filled with combustible materials -- drapes, rugs, furniture, office equipment, and countless reams of paper.

FYI, experts (that is, people with relevant education, not dumpy unemployable basement-dwellers like you) say that the jet fuel burned for 10 minutes; it was not consumed instantly in a single fireball. And it was sprayed through the whole interior of the building through utility shafts.



What's your proof that there are charges going off to "make make building collapse"?

And anyone with a hammer drill can pulverize cement.

EDIT: This nonsense ought to be shunted into the conspiracy theory board where it belongs.

Seems you have to resort to name calling "dumpy unemployable basement-dwellers like you" because you can't prove any of your theories.

[USMC the Almighty]

Popular Mechancis has been debunked. Anyone else you want to quote? or will you just keep your head burried?

Since you apparently have the power to just declare science "debunked", here are some other links for you:

http://houseofpolitics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=789

In addition, since this is clearly a discussion on the 9/11 conspiracy theories and that was the intent of the opening post all along, I have moved this to the proper forum.

[Castle]

Popular Mechancis has been debunked. Anyone else you want to quote? or will you just keep your head burried?
Of course I would respond the same way if I were unable to grasp the mechanics of a fuel laden aircraft slamming into a tall building. Or maybe you simply refuse to. I suspect the latter.

Please explain in detail how this scenario was debunked. While your at it, tell me how exactly this is not (at the very least) MUCH more reasonable than your umm ...... errr... theory?

FACT: Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report.

Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air — along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse — was ejected with enormous energy. "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."

Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."

Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years."

-Castle

[KeepOurFreedoms]

Since you apparently have the power to just declare science "debunked", here are some other links for you:

http://houseofpolitics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=789

In addition, since this is clearly a discussion on the 9/11 conspiracy theories and that was the intent of the opening post all along, I have moved this to the proper forum.

Now you claim you can read minds. I do believe you love to abuse your "power".

[KeepOurFreedoms]

Of course I would respond the same way if I were unable to grasp the mechanics of a fuel laden aircraft slamming into a tall building. Or maybe you simply refuse to. I suspect the latter.

Please explain in detail how this scenario was debunked. While your at it, tell me how exactly this is not (at the very least) MUCH more reasonable than your umm ...... errr... theory?
-Castle

Here ya go bubba. Let me do your research for you.

Read this: http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/reply_to_popular_mechanics.htm

I'm pretty sure you'll make up some excuse to keep on believing the governments theory, even though they have no proof of their claims.

[SW85]

Seems you have to resort to name calling "dumpy unemployable basement-dwellers like you" because you can't prove any of your theories.

Don't play this stupid game, guy, just answer my point -- what is your proof that charges went off, with your experience, training, and education in the field of demolitions amounting to approximately ****o?

[KeepOurFreedoms]

Don't play this stupid game, guy, just answer my point -- what is your proof that charges went off, with your experience, training, and education in the field of demolitions amounting to approximately ****o?

Listen girl. Go see if you can find the videos that were made that day. You can see them for yourself.

[steveox]

Maybe it was an inside job so the government could gain more control over the people.

Where was Bush Sr. when JFK was killed?

He was in the Military.

[Castle]

Here ya go bubba. Let me do your research for you.

Read this: http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/reply_to_popular_mechanics.htm

I'm pretty sure you'll make up some excuse to keep on believing the governments theory, even though they have no proof of their claims.

I'll leave the excuses to you as you obviously need them more than I do.
Peter Meyer constructed this fantasy huh?
a small blurb from his bio:
Perceiving a tendency toward the rise of a repressive and totalitarian government, the effects of what some now identify as a criminal secret junta at the heart of the US Government, he left the US in 1994, one year after the Waco Massacre, in search of a better life and greater liberty, which he subsequently found. He has never gone back, and never will go back so long as the US remains a cryptofascist state, intent upon imposing a materialist-corporate-capitalist hegemony upon the entire planet and intent upon continuing to wage its dirty war against innocent people disguised by the lies of the so-called War on Drugs.
Naaaaaah....this guy has no axe to grind with the US right?! It appears that his conspiracy obsessions impaired his better judgment long before 9/11.

.....next

-Castle

[r0beph]

Ya know, I never heard my buddy in brooklyn mention a conspiracy, could be she saw the second plane fly into the building and remembers quite clearly it was NOT a drone, missile, or venutian space ship.

[KeepOurFreedoms]

He was in the Military.

You must be joking.

[KeepOurFreedoms]

I'll leave the excuses to you as you obviously need them more than I do.
Peter Meyer constructed this fantasy huh?
a small blurb from his bio:

Naaaaaah....this guy has no axe to grind with the US right?! It appears that his conspiracy obsessions impaired his better judgment long before 9/11.

.....next

-Castle

I don't have or need any excuses about 9/11. Our government is corrupt and untrustworthy. Do you trust your government?

I'm guessing you must be pretty young to be so naive.

[KeepOurFreedoms]

Ya know, I never heard my buddy in brooklyn mention a conspiracy, could be she saw the second plane fly into the building and remembers quite clearly it was NOT a drone, missile, or venutian space ship.

What's your point? Some people say they saw a passenger plane some said it didn't look anything like a passanger plane.

[Castle]

I don't have or need any excuses about 9/11. Our government is corrupt and untrustworthy. Do you trust your government?
What a ridiculous statement. The government is made up of people that are as corrupt and untrustworthy as ANYONE else. I trust when I have reason to and question when something does not add up. You and Mr. Meyer see a monster in every closet.

I'm guessing you must be pretty young to be so naive.
Actually, no. I'm just not paranoid. Age has little to do with it.

-Castle

[SW85]

Listen girl. Go see if you can find the videos that were made that day. You can see them for yourself.

If I had seen them for myself, I wouldn't be arguing with you, would I?

Listen: you do not know what explosive charges look like. Neither do I. I have the vaguest conception of what one might look like, but I don't see it.

Quit being snarky and actually clarify what you're saying instead of repeating the tired old "look it up for yourself" meme.

[KeepOurFreedoms]

If I had seen them for myself, I wouldn't be arguing with you, would I?

Listen: you do not know what explosive charges look like. Neither do I. I have the vaguest conception of what one might look like, but I don't see it.

Quit being snarky and actually clarify what you're saying instead of repeating the tired old "look it up for yourself" meme.

You sure seem to think you know everything about me.

Do you own homework.

[r0beph]

What's your point? Some people say they saw a passenger plane some said it didn't look anything like a passanger plane.

The point is that it's just what it appears to be. It's not some crazy gov't conspiracy, it's not some concocted demolition job by super secret insiders. I simply do not believe even with all it's power that the government can keep something that extreme and exacting a secret. Sure the government has classified materials, top secret stuff...but most of that isn't related to the death of americans and the destruction of a building that represents one of america's larger financial triumphs. You're putting chips on it that the government can possibly find enough like minded individuals to plant explosives, hijack planes (or military fly missiles/drones) into the buildings and then blame it on some islamic guys who were taking flying lessons, who thus also must have been government agents since they were seen doing so by many civilian witnesses. The idea you put forward would require much more exacting precision and secrecy than is possible. Simple as that, Occam's Razor 1, you 0. It would require multiple branches to plan, military (who most of which are very very patriotic and would not see this as a very patriotic thing to do) , some arab guys who don't mind dying (and why would they for our country?) some guys to plant explosives who don't mind killing fellow americans, tons of people to plan it all out, and the ability to keep every last one of those mouths shut without even a .001% chance of them talking since that'd be the biggest blow to our nation's government ever seen... you'd have military unrest, the likelihood of civil conflict within our own borders, the military being made up of mostly red blooded american's who wish nothing more than to defend this country, not harm it, would turn against the government that did this to itself. The outcome were the reality of such a case were to surface would be so intense that we'd likely have serious problems here for decades to come, and I'm talking coups, civil attacks on government property, and other such ordeals. No I don't think the weight of that risk versus the reward from this are even something to consider it's outright insane as are you. This whole conspiracy debate that's been raging for ages about owl headed statues on some island in a lake, to chemtrails, to the WTC being destroyed by our very own people , it's all ludicrous, so many conspiracies, so much "evidence" by the purporters, yet absolutely no conclusive evidence beyond anecdotal observance of blurry tapes and assumptions based on nothing more than dissent. I don't like our government much in it's current state, I don't trust them a whole lot either, but I don't think they're so bold nor crazy to do something of this caliber. It was the act of some crazy jihadis, bin laden loves touting how he did it. Is he in on the game with the us government too? Mind you, we didn't need this to invade iraq, that was easy enough to do with just the WMD scare tactics bush used, afghanistan netted nothing from our invasion but more cost and lives, there is no sense as to why the hell they'd even want to do it. But you'll keep on keeping on assuming that Paul McCartney and Yoko Ono are working with bush to create a new CD with subliminal messages to make you go outside and inhale deeply as the planes fly over seeding you with the genetic material from protozoan dust found on mars to imbue us with sicknesses so that we can be better controlled and have to rely on the government for medical assistance...but hey, whatever floats you boat.

[SW85]

You sure seem to think you know everything about me.

Are you denying that you're not a demolitions expert?

I'm not going to "do my own homework." Unlike you, I'm a skeptic: it's your job to convince me. Telling me to look at a video to find what you describe as obvious proof of conspiracy, despite the fact I've seen many videos many times and seen no such proof, is not convincing me.

So, what are these explosions you're talking about? Surely you can manage something as simple as looking up a video on youtube, posting the link here, and giving me an actual timestamp (i.e., 3:14 or 1:48) where these explosions are evident.

[Crakee]

First of all,

I do NOT see anywhere that Keep Our freedoms has proclaimed that she has "PROOF" of anything? this is a common tact when it comes to "debates" in this area. the problem with your angle is that neither KOF or anyone else is telling you they have "PROOF" of anything

this is what they are TRYING to find the Truth or the "smoking gun" proof
and which i can assure you that when someone does finally come up with irrefutable undeniable proof..........they wont be wasting theyre time here bestowing it upon the like of us

what KOF has done is answer to some questions and provide some items that support her OPINION which last time i checked she is completly entitled to
as well are you entitled your opinion..............but to make the statement that she is bringing you "proof" of something is misleading and counter productive to a debate

[SW85]

I do NOT see anywhere that Keep Our freedoms has proclaimed that she has "PROOF" of anything? this is a common tact when it comes to "debates" in this area. the problem with your angle is that neither KOF or anyone else is telling you they have "PROOF" of anything

Wanna bet? He posted this:

Listen girl. Go see if you can find the videos that were made that day. You can see them for yourself.

It's at the end of page 2, of 4 pages -- not exactly buried. He wouldn't be telling me to look up videos myself if he weren't convinced it would lend some credibility to his point.

It's not like I'm asking for rigid mathematical proofs here (I've already made clear I don't expect anything nearly that strenuous from the 9/11 troofer crowd). All I'm asking for is some reason to believe what he's saying has any validity at all. He has not even lifted a finger to provide anything in that regard. The closest he can get to it is a casual mention of a video which, he claims, has everything I need to be convinced of a conspiracy -- even though I have seen numerous such videos of the collisions on 9/11 and remain skeptical as ever.

what KOF has done is answer to some questions and provide some items that support her OPINION which last time i checked she is completly entitled to

ZOMG, I could throttle you ditzy libertarian nutbags every time you trot out your First Amendment rights, as if it somehow legitimizes your douchebaggery.

Hey, you're entitled to be wrong, stupid, unpatriotic, and paranoid -- I have not once questioned that. All I've done is exercise my equal right to demand to be convinced.

And for the record, if KoF would do anything like answer some questions or provide some items that support his opinion, we could've settled this dispute pages ago. Instead he's repeating the silly old "look it up yourself" meme, which I have done, and remain unconvinced that his point has any value.

[Aristocrat]

Wanna bet? He posted this:

First of all lets get a few things straight in the conversation ok?
It isnt a "HE", Keep our Freedoms is a GAL and a Texan at that....... so your debating with a gal ,who in all probability is older than you as well.

It's at the end of page 2, of 4 pages -- not exactly buried. He wouldn't be telling me to look up videos myself if he weren't convinced it would lend some credibility to his point. just because she asked you to look up videos does NOT in any way shape or form, say that she has told you she had any "Proof"
what she asked you to do was to watch the videos so that you yourself could SEE what it is she is discussing......the fact that she asked you to look them up has no bearing at all on whether she has allegedly provided "Proof" this is a common dirty debate tactic .....[/color]

It's not like I'm asking for rigid mathematical proofs here (I've already made clear I don't expect anything nearly that strenuous from the 9/11 troofer crowd). All I'm asking for is some reason to believe what he's saying has any validity at all. He has not even lifted a finger to provide anything in that regard. The closest he can get to it is a casual mention of a video which, he claims, has everything I need to be convinced of a conspiracy -- even though I have seen numerous such videos of the collisions on 9/11 and remain skeptical as ever.

as i stated your welcomed to believe what you want............where you leave the common ground is when you then begin to assail others positions and not allow them the same freedom to theyre opinions....again a common debate tactic with beginners. because she decided to post her opinions on what happened that day, does not mean that she is required to "
Prove" Anything. what she has done is state her opinions and substantiate her opinions with material she finds relevant to her position. whether or not she went into any detalis has no bearing at all whatsoever

just as your entitled to think shes crazy or wrong or whatever........she in turn is entitled to her opinions and beliefs

ZOMG, I could throttle you ditzy libertarian nutbags every time you trot out your First Amendment rights, as if it somehow legitimizes your douchebaggery.

Hey, you're entitled to be wrong, stupid, unpatriotic, and paranoid -- I have not once questioned that. All I've done is exercise my equal right to demand to be convinced.

ha you see my friend here is where much of your problems lie ...........first of all im NOT a Libretarian, Nor am i a Liberal, nor am i a conservative.........
Im not even a "Patriotic American" as you so lamely referred to..........
im far worse than all of that friend................

i am an "American Patriot"..........

a TRUE independent , a True Keeper of Freedoms.......i didnt refer to any first ammendmant rights, i referred to the common laws of civilized men. which entitle each and every man theyre own thoughts, and opinions as afforded by the laws of life.......


for the record I think your a brainwashed sheeople with no possibility of redemption, i also think your stupid as hell and dont have a clue. But until you decided to attack my position which you had no knowledge of i hadnt mentioned it .......i simply mentioned that all people are entitled theyre opinios whether right wrong left right whatever the case may be........something YOU are unwilling to grasp therefore it is YOU who is guilty of the douchebaggery my friend.......




Un patriotic? you dont know me? or the first thing about me?

you dont have a Clue as to the differences between a patriotic American, And an American Patriot



And for the record, if KoF would do anything like answer some questions or provide some items that support his opinion, we could've settled this dispute pages ago. Instead he's repeating the silly old "look it up yourself" meme, which I have done, and remain unconvinced that his point has any value.

good for you your entitled your opinion thanks for voicing it

[Plato232]

I'm not sure either way about 9/11. which always gets to me about debates like this. people are so polarized. You either certainly know it was the terrorists or vice versa the USA government. Noone can know either way as there is compelling evidence for both sides and neither side can fully dismiss the others 'evidence' anyway rant finished so heres my question. WHY IS THERE NO FOOTAGE OF THE ATTACK ON THE PENTAGON. Ok there is, so why is it all confiscated. if the government has nothing to hide and I am not saying they do so please don't attack me from either side of the debate. Why won't they release it and why was it confiscated in the first place?

[r0beph]

poopoopoopoo *cough* bull****youfailgeneralphysics

listen, you're a real bit of work, believing that crap. Jp-8, what airplanes run on, is kerosene based, with a bit of preignition/icing reduction etc. It burns around 800-1500F, steel reduces to 50% it's structural integrity at about 1100F . I don't see the problem here. Dry wall (not sure the temp it burns at, but it's not 1100F) Wood burns around 400-600 at most. Thus the strength of the steel will typically remain about the 50% mark. Then you must consider that the concrete itself is part of the structure and having steel as the skeletal system of the concrete shell, when this steel expands it'll crack the concrete, reducing the strength of the concrete, all this together is what causes collapse. Typical office structure fires simply won't collapse when the fuel is nothing but low temp burning wood/drywall. seriously, I know I'm not going to change your mind, but you're none the less silly, and felt I needed to remind you.


I see people of this crowd saying "I'm a patriot" and calling "US" sheeple who believe what we're told. It seems the inverse is true, you believe all this crap without so much as an ounce of empirical evidence, the evidence you thrust at us is evidence of speculation, not even evidence!....

[r0beph]

I'm not sure either way about 9/11. which always gets to me about debates like this. people are so polarized. You either certainly know it was the terrorists or vice versa the USA government. Noone can know either way as there is compelling evidence for both sides and neither side can fully dismiss the others 'evidence' anyway rant finished so heres my question. WHY IS THERE NO FOOTAGE OF THE ATTACK ON THE PENTAGON. Ok there is, so why is it all confiscated. if the government has nothing to hide and I am not saying they do so please don't attack me from either side of the debate. Why won't they release it and why was it confiscated in the first place?

It's not about Polarity, in the sense that I trust the government not to do that, it's more along the lines of the evidence that is given BY those 911 conspiracy guys, is easily disputable, although it borders religious zealousness in arguing with them, as any evidence that completely makes their conjecture wrong, is denied as "Government lies" or by trying to make up science to explain why that isn't valid, or by simple deus ex machina.

To answer your question, here http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12818225/
stuff such as this get the "It's doctored video!!" response from the conspiracy crowd, which is a real shoddy argument for something.