You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
What really happened ....11 september
- Thread starter NickBarings
- Start date
Quote from Haroki:
Try watching it to the end next time...
So Haroki, ummmm, ALL the explosions heard by the firefighters and other witnesses were caused by the electric transformers exploding, is that correct?..... Is that what you are saying?
Further you are saying that the pancaking is responsible for explosions being heard from LOWER floors too right?
Just wanted to make sure my eyes read your statements right.
Quote from Maverick1:
So Haroki, ummmm, ALL the explosions heard by the firefighters and other witnesses were caused by the electric transformers exploding, is that correct?..... Is that what you are saying?
Further you are saying that the pancaking is responsible for explosions being heard from LOWER floors too right?
Just wanted to make sure my eyes read your statements right.
1- it's possible
2- no
What statements did I make?
Quote from Maverick1:
So Haroki, ummmm, ALL the explosions heard by the firefighters and other witnesses were caused by the electric transformers exploding, is that correct?..... Is that what you are saying?
Further you are saying that the pancaking is responsible for explosions being heard from LOWER floors too right?
Just wanted to make sure my eyes read your statements right.
yeah, that sums it up; all explosions obviously all generators blowing up. cuz by chance fire was always near generators.
roflmaopimp
Quote from Haroki:
But at least you're willing to admit that there were transformers in the buildings, and that transformers DO blow up in fires, right?
well, i knew that already; i certainly didnt need to see a picture of a transformer on fire to see it can happen. but attribute all explosions to generators going belly up is far fetched.
Quote from Haroki:
But at least you're willing to admit that there were transformers in the buildings, and that transformers DO blow up in fires, right?
Your logic and reasoning is very weak. You are building your argument on a logical fallacy. The existence and possibility of transformers blowing up in fires does not preclude the existence and possibility of explosives. That is an obvious either/or fallacy in reasoning.
Just because transformers may have blown up does not de facto imply that explosives were not used.
Further, probably the most troubling evidence suggesting the use of explosives is the near free fall speed of the towers, which should have taken much longer than 9 seconds to collapse if it was a structural failure. The reinforced HUGE 47 steel slabs in the middle/core represented tremendous resistance and were DESIGNED to support the buildings in the event of a fully loaded 707 crash into them. And yet they collapsed in under 10 seconds an hour after the fires burned? Other buildings in history have burned for 24 hours and still not collapsed, let alone collapsed at near free fall speed. And yet they tell you that jet fuel fire (not a plane crash) combined with curtains and carpets was responsible for compromising the structural integrity of those massive core steel slabs. Sorry, the towers did NOT have a hollow middle. They had exactly the opposite.
When one puts all these pieces of evidence together, the near free fall of the towers, the abundance of reports of explosions both BELOW and ABOVE, the pulverized dust and cloud, the squibs, the power down on 9/8 and 9/9, the shipment of all the steel and scrap metal to Asia to be melted allowing no testing to be done for explosive traces, the complaints of the relatives of the victims re the way the 9/11 commission investigation was handled ad nauseam, one really has no choice, if one is intellectually honest, to seriously question the official account of what really happened that day.
that's the problem u see, intellectual honesty is nowhere to be seen around here, especially if u are dealing with staunch neokons supporters.
Quote from Maverick1:
Your logic and reasoning is very weak. You are building your argument on a logical fallacy. The existence and possibility of transformers blowing up in fires does not preclude the existence and possibility of explosives. That is an obvious either/or fallacy in reasoning.
Just because transformers may have blown up does not de facto imply that explosives were not used.
Further, probably the most troubling evidence suggesting the use of explosives is the near free fall speed of the towers, which should have taken much longer than 9 seconds to collapse if it was a structural failure. The reinforced HUGE 47 steel slabs in the middle/core represented tremendous resistance and were designed to support the buildings in the event of a fully loaded 707 crash into them. And yet they collapsed only an hour after the fires burned? Other buildings in history have burned for 24 hours and still not collapsed, let alone collapsed at near free fall speed.
When one puts all these pieces of evidence together, the near free fall of the towers, the abundance of reports of explosions both BELOW and ABOVE, the pulverized dust and cloud, the squibs, the power down on 9/8 and 9/9, the shipment of all the steel and scrap metal to Asia to be melted allowing no testing to be done for explosive traces, the complaints of the relatives of the victims re the way the 9/11 commission investigation was handled ad nauseam, one really has no choice, if one is intellectually honest, to seriously question the official account of what really happened that day.