The Story of 9/11

ginjawarrior · May 9, 2012

NoDrama said:
Outer support beams failed from the heat? Yet a woman is able to stand right next to said trusses and support beams? Rethink hypothesis please.

the women was standing at the entry point the plane debris and fuel ended up on oppostite side of the building due to the speed they were traveling at impact

next ?

NoDrama · May 9, 2012

ginjawarrior said:
ahh nodrama how i missed your brand of dishonesty

when exactly should the WTC 1 or 2 have fallen then? after wtc7?

tbh you seen these pictures more than enough to know this by now im just posting this so everyone else can see you lie

Lie? Still waiting for you to prove that WTC#7 failed because one of the towers fell onto it.

doc111 · May 9, 2012

ginjawarrior said:
hey doc fancy meeting you here hows it going?

lol!

I'm doing great, how about you?

OGEvilgenius · May 9, 2012

kelly4 said:
Thank you for defending my point!
Once the top of that building started coming down, nothing was stopping it.
I appreciate the support.

How does what I wrote there support anything you said? I'd love to hear you explain this - especially since you cannot as it does not support what you are claiming, as I don't think you even understand what you are claiming and instead are just saying 'look, i saw it, I was told it happened like that and I believe it so fuck you asshole'.

NoDrama · May 9, 2012

ginjawarrior said:
the women was standing at the entry point the plane debris and fuel ended up on oppostite side of the building due to the speed they were traveling at impact

next ?

Really? So it was the OTHER side of the building that failed? Not the part with the "Massive" hole in it? Your defense gets more and more contradictory as we go along here. SO the plane causing a hole DID NOT add to the damage, it was clearly the other side which did not sustain the damage. Ok got it. :dunce:

ginjawarrior · May 9, 2012

NoDrama said:
Lie? Still waiting for you to prove that WTC#7 failed because one of the towers fell onto it.

no i just proved that "a fucking skyscraper hit it" and as such made your "no plane hit it" image to not just dishonest but redundent
as everyone knows a "falling fucking skyscraper" is much worse than a piddly little "plane"

OGEvilgenius · May 9, 2012

ginjawarrior said:
no i just proved that "a fucking skyscraper hit it" and as such made your "no plane hit it" image to not just dishonest but redundent
as everyone knows a "falling fucking skyscraper" is much worse than a piddly little "plane"

I think you mean to say, some pieces of a skyscraper hit a small percentage of the building as most of the skyscraper ended up falling into itself inexplicably (that is, if you want to be honest.. and I assume you do given how you have taken to calling NoDrama a liar, although you have yet to illustrate said lies).

doc111 · May 9, 2012

Deputy Chief Peter Hayden
Division 1 - 33 years

...also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_damage.html

NoDrama · May 9, 2012

ginjawarrior said:
no i just proved that "a fucking skyscraper hit it" and as such made your "no plane hit it" image to not just dishonest but redundent
as everyone knows a "falling fucking skyscraper" is much worse than a piddly little "plane"

You proved nothing. What you proved was that a building hit by a skyscraper can stand for hours and hours afterwards, indicating that it was not the skyscraper that made it fall. If a much bigger and stronger building can be taken down by a "piddly little plane" but a smaller structure can last 9 times longer when hit by a building? So was the plane impacting the WTC towers "piddly" if they were then how can you believe that they alone could take down the towers? Do you see how you contradict yourself? Makes me think that you are pretty goddamned ignorant and have no business trying to argue a point in which the next post you will disavow. You can't claim that massive planes with huge amounts of fuel can take down one building, but then claim that they are piddly and insignificant compared to debris on another building.

ginjawarrior · May 9, 2012

OGEvilgenius said:
I think you mean to say, some pieces of a skyscraper hit a small percentage of the building as most of the skyscraper ended up falling into itself inexplicably (that is, if you want to be honest.. and I assume you do given how you have taken to calling NoDrama a liar, although you have yet to illustrate said lies).

no i mean the skyscrapers that didnt fall perfectly into their own base throwing debris out hundreds of meters to the side laying waste to everything close to them

you really believe it all fell into a neat little pile?

NoDrama · May 9, 2012

ginjawarrior said:
no i mean the skyscrapers that didnt fall perfectly into their own base throwing debris out hundreds of meters to the side laying waste to everything close to them

you really believe it all fell into a neat little pile?

Pretty neat little pile there. Notice all the buildings nearby that didn't get laid to waste. Do you see them?

ginjawarrior · May 9, 2012

NoDrama said:
You proved nothing. What you proved was that a building hit by a skyscraper can stand for hours and hours afterwards, indicating that it was not the skyscraper that made it fall. If a much bigger and stronger building can be taken down by a "piddly little plane" but a smaller structure can last 9 times longer when hit by a building? So was the plane impacting the WTC towers "piddly" if they were then how can you believe that they alone could take down the towers? Do you see how you contradict yourself? Makes me think that you are pretty goddamned ignorant and have no business trying to argue a point in which the next post you will disavow. You can't claim that massive planes with huge amounts of fuel can take down one building, but then claim that they are piddly and insignificant compared to debris on another building.

sigh honesty nodrama honesty?

NoDrama said:
I saw a cute couple kissing in the Park. How many people am I talking about?

PS. who said anything about the pentagon? I don't remember it being totally destroyed.?

ginjawarrior said:
nodrama for an example been posting this half truth for years now while completely ignoring the part where a fucking skyscraper hit it

so you wanna get good at this game follow his example. lie, twist, ignore, bring out ridiculous analogies and once you gone far enough you can go straight back to square one

its a merry old dance when you get good at it

NoDrama said:
You trying to convince us that one of the WTC towers fell onto #7, this is going to be fun to watch you try and prove that one. The fact that WTC towers fell 5 hours before WTC#7 did pretty much proves you wrong right there.

ginjawarrior said:
ahh nodrama how i missed your brand of dishonesty

when exactly should the WTC 1 or 2 have fallen then? after wtc7?

tbh you seen these pictures more than enough to know this by now im just posting this so everyone else can see you lie

NoDrama said:
Lie? Still waiting for you to prove that WTC#7 failed because one of the towers fell onto it.

ginjawarrior said:
no i just proved that "a fucking skyscraper hit it" and as such made your "no plane hit it" image to not just dishonest but redundent
as everyone knows a "falling fucking skyscraper" is much worse than a piddly little "plane"

doc111 · May 9, 2012

NoDrama said:
Pretty neat little pile there. Notice all the buildings nearby that didn't get laid to waste. Do you see them?

lol!

So, do you think that every building that was struck with debris should've collapsed, and in the same manner as bldg. 7? I can tell you that not every building was constructed the same way and some received large strikes from falling debris, some caught fire. Bldg. 7 had water pressure problems and fires that burned unchecked inside of that building, which ALSO sustained massive damage from falling chunks of skyscraper. No other buildings had all of the elements which caused bldg. 7 to collapse that day.

ginjawarrior · May 9, 2012

NoDrama said:
Pretty neat little pile there. Notice all the buildings nearby that didn't get laid to waste. Do you see them?

yeah compare that pile to the footprint of the WTC and you'll quickly show that they didnt fall onto their own fucking bases there a shit ton of debris well outside their base

ginjawarrior · May 9, 2012

doc111 said:
lol!

I'm doing great, how about you?

yeah not too bad plodding along and all.
even better now i got a bunch of people with no physics knowledge and a couple of core liars to argue with

kelly4 · May 9, 2012

OGEvilgenius said:
Two pool balls are close in mass. It's all relative. Two cars. If you take a gigantic run at my pickup with your midsize pickup I guarantee when you slam into it your speed will decrease dramatically. And if you only took a couple car lengths run, you'd end up at a rate of speed just that much slower (and in fact you might end up just being stopped outright if my truck was parked against a large building or wall... or a building parked on the earth).

Newtonian physics apply in all of these examples and the laws do not change.

Ecactly!
When the top 20 stories fell on the story below, that floor crumbled.
Now, when 21 stories fall on the story below, that floor crumbles.
Now, when 22 stories fall on the story below, that floor crumbles. Should I keep going for you?

Yes, you are correct. That large mass went into motion, and didn't stop until it hit the ground.
Once again........THANK YOU!

OGEvilgenius · May 9, 2012

kelly4 said:
Ecactly!
When the top 20 stories fell on the story below, that floor crumbled.
Now, when 21 stories fall on the story below, that floor crumbles.
Now, when 22 stories fall on the story below, that floor crumbles. Should I keep going for you?

Yes, you are correct. That large mass went into motion, and didn't stop until it hit the ground.
Once again........THANK YOU!

I'm about done arguing with you, as you clearly don't understand what it is you're even saying at this point.

But what you originally said is that a couple floors magically disappeared and the top building fell (your truck) without resistance for a couple stories which had huge amounts of energy that overwhelmed the rest of the building and caused it to turn into a pile of dust offering no resistance (the other truck).

I assure you, if you did either of the things in the example I provided, and I made my example pretty specific in relation to this, you would not be left with nothing. If you accelerated full speed into a parked truck a few car lengths from your truck, that parked truck would still be there, damaged, but still mostly in tact and resembling a truck. Not a pile of dust (which is what you appear to think should happen).

doc111 · May 9, 2012

ginjawarrior said:
yeah not too bad plodding along and all.
even better now i got a bunch of people with no physics knowledge and a couple of core liars to argue with

I always thought of the truthers as having "Wile E. Coyote" physics knowledge. :grin:

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

OGEvilgenius · May 9, 2012

doc111 said:
I always thought of the truthers as having "Wile E. Coyote" physics knowledge.

Still waiting for you to explain how the first law of thermodynamics got thrown out the window that day. Good luck with it, because there's no reasonable explanation you can come up with that doesn't involve carefully planned demolition.

doc111 · May 9, 2012

OGEvilgenius said:
I'm about done arguing with you, as you clearly don't understand what it is you're even saying at this point.

But what you originally said is that a couple floors magically disappeared and the top building fell (your truck) without resistance for a couple stories which had huge amounts of energy that overwhelmed the rest of the building and caused it to turn into a pile of dust offering no resistance (the other truck).

I assure you, if you did either of the things in the example I provided, and I made my example pretty specific in relation to this, you would not be left with nothing. If you accelerated full speed into a parked truck a few car lengths from your truck, that parked truck would still be there, damaged, but still mostly in tact and resembling a truck. Not a pile of dust (which is what you appear to think should happen).

You are comparing a truck with a jumbo jet? I'll give you a minute to think about WHY that is such an absurd comparison......... ;-)

LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!

Super Genius!!!!!!!! :mrgreen:

The Story of 9/11

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member