Castanet

This intense grid...and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting - it really does nothing to the screen netting'

lol - really? That really is an absurd comparison. An airplane isn't a solid mass. I don't believe Frank Demartini was involved in the construction of the towers.

vinnied wrote:One more thing, this is the same van the bomb suits and explosive residue were found in

See, this is where false stories begin. That document does not say they found a bomb suit in the van. It says there were control swabs collected from the bomb suit and the gloves of Special Agent (his name is blanked out). Theses would be needed to ensure no cross contamination from the blanket sample they also took.

kompili wrote:

goatboy wrote:
Of course it would. Travelling at 600 mph, how long do you think it takes to travel 159 ft, the total length of a 767( it's actually a shorter length than that as there is nothing to explode until you reach the wings, which is where the fuel tanks are)? Answer, quicker than the ability to ignite the fuel and cause an explosion.

But yet at the Pentagon the wings folded up and went into the hole, here the whole plane went inside, wings and all. And the towers were build to keep planes from doing this. I find it kind of strange.

Again, with some common sense applied, Pentagon built with reinforced ( solid) concrete. WTC built with a frame work of steel girders surrounded with glass. Which one is going to resist a direct impact better? And you find it strange there would be a difference? The towers weren't built to stop a plane from entering them but to survive the impact of a 707 at landing speed.

zyzzx wrote:

peaceseeker wrote:Exactly, averagejoe. Further, Frank A. deMartini (Manager, WTC Construction & Project Management) believes the buildings 'probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door. This intense grid...and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting - it really does nothing to the screen netting'.

Exactly, peaseseeker. Further, once you add in 20,000 US Gallons of jet fuel and light that pencil on fire the intense grid of mosquito netting the structure tends to weaken and fail.

Apparently this theory was proven to be effective in bringing down two buildings on the same day.

You note only two buildings...what about WTC7? It wasn't hit with a plane, suffered minimal damage (much less than surrounding buildings' 4, 6 and 6), had fires on a few floors but still managed to fall neatly into its own footprint.



The majority of fuel (kerosene) burned upon impact and the resulting fires were never hot enough to weaken steel. The fires were being starved of oxygen, evident from the dark plumes of smoke coming from the buildings.

As can be seen in the below photograph, this person was able to stand at the point of impact without fear of being burned.




Extra! Extra! Read all about it!

No need for the use of controlled demolition to demolish old buildings anymore. Fires will do the trick...no problemo.

You note only two buildings...what about WTC7? It wasn't hit with a plane, suffered minimal damage (much less than surrounding buildings' 4, 6 and 6), had fires on a few floors but still managed to fall neatly into its own footprint.

You keep saying it as if repeating it will make it true. WTC7 had major damage and did not fall directly into its footprint.

As can be seen in the below photograph, this person was able to stand at the point of impact without fear of being burned.

This is one of the most ridiculous statements so far. You have no idea what was happening behind, above or below her.

Fancy wrote:
You keep saying it as if repeating it will make it true. WTC7 had major damage and did not fall directly into its footprint.

What a troll. Look at the aerial view of WTC # 7. It didn't even land on the buildings on any side of it. Give your head a shake.

Fancy wrote:This is one of the most ridiculous statements so far. You have no idea what was happening behind, above or below her.

Of course she was scared of what was happening. Peaceseeker said she was not afraid of being burnt where she was standing.
Quit changing the subject or twisting things. You said you spent the whole summer researching 9/11? I think you only learnt how to twist things.

It's sad how these CTs get debunked then just repeat the same things again.

Black smoke does NOT necessarily mean the fire was starved of oxygen. There are other reasons why there would be black smoke, notably stuff made from petrochemicals is burning. We went through this, they ignored it.

Nebula wrote:It's sad how these CTs get debunked then just repeat the same things again.

Black smoke does NOT necessarily mean the fire was starved of oxygen. There are other reasons why there would be black smoke, notably stuff made from petrochemicals is burning. We went through this, they ignored it.

Yes it is sad that debunkers can't see thru the propaganda. Very sad indeed.

WTC7 did some major damage to surrounding buildings when it collapsed. I haven't changed the subject - I only comment on what's been said especially if it is incorrect.

Talk about changing the subject....try using the right thread. This is the thread for discussion on WTC7:

viewtopic.php?f=52&t=22316

Fancy wrote:WTC7 did some major damage to surrounding buildings when it collapsed. I haven't changed the subject - I only comment on what's been said especially if it is incorrect.

Talk about changing the subject....try using the right thread. This is the thread for discussion on WTC7:

viewtopic.php?f=52&t=22316

Your such a spin doctor. Why do you troll on here.

^^ off topic

The fires were being starved of oxygen, evident from the dark plumes of smoke coming from the buildings.

This was discussed much earlier and obviously incorrect. Please refer back to page 80.

Fancy wrote:^^ off topic

The fires were being starved of oxygen, evident from the dark plumes of smoke coming from the buildings.

This was discussed much earlier and obviously incorrect. Please refer back to page 80.

Who said it was incorrect, the conspirators, or the media, or both. I guess you people will believe anything if is spun right.

kompili wrote:Who said it was incorrect, the conspirators, or the media, or both. I guess you people will believe anything if is spun right.

Like I said - go back to page 80.