[RenegadeRick]

From the Pentagon flight they have identified people through fingerprints and DNA, but how come there can be any fingerprints left while the two Rolls Royce engines, that the plane carried, of 6tons each completely melted? 12 tons of metal vaporized and fingers didn't..

Also, in one documentary I saw there was an open book lying on a chair that was just centimiters away from falling into the mess made by the "plane". How come that didn't burn any of its pages?

This is answerered by JRogers below, but I will summarize. Things like fire and high speed collisions are extremely powerful, and yet highly random things. Just because something was vaporized does not mean everything would be.

The abovetopsecret link I provided shows photos of engine parts at the Pentagon, that you claim were vaporized.

Historical knowledge is not sought through pure analytical reasoning. That is what conspiracy theorists do- they suggest the reasonability of certain events or actions by claiming an amount of reasonability without corresponding evidence. Case in point: are you a scientist? Do you know how human bodies, fingerprints, etc. react in a plane crash? How much do you know about the physics of intentional plane crashes at incredibly high speed? It may be reasonable to assume that all would be incinerated, but is there a truly scientific (ie based on experiment or practical observation from similar events) way of determining that this should be the case? Reality often does not fall as we think it might based on our pure reasoning.

Your description of the scientific method is dead-on. Reasoning does not lead to proof. It leads to a hypothesis, which must be tested.

I disagree with your assessment of conspiracy theorists. Just because something is reasonable or probable, or improbable, etc. does not constitute proof. You paint conspiracy theorists with the same broad brush that the media does, and you may as well be calling them . If one bases a theory upon "reasonableness" it proves nothing.

However, if you base a theory upon evidence, this evidence must be addressed. I have presented credible evidence of molten steel, and the official hypothesis is disproved by this evidence. A new hypothesis must be considered and tested to reach a proof. This is exactly what Dr. Jones has done, and his paper is ignored or ridiculed. Neither method is a valid way to test his hypothesis.

Furthermore, if we assume that this was a conspiracy of sorts and that this cannot be proven, it would require a large machinery of effort and planning (ie, the conspirators are intelligent and thorough). If what you suggest in your questions is true, we also have to assume that they are unaware of apparently easily grasped facts- that DNA would be destroyed, etc. Unless we add further layers of conspiracy on this (making the entire thing less plausible) then we have to accept that the conspirators are both incredibly intelligent and incredibly stupid.

Mere assumptions. This entire paragraph lacks a single fact. No evidence, no hypothesis, nothing. It sounds something like this:

That is what JRogers does- he suggests the reasonability of certain events or actions by claiming an amount of reasonability without corresponding evidence.

 

[JRogers]

This is answerered by JRogers below, but I will summarize. Things like fire and high speed collisions are extremely powerful, and yet highly random things. Just because something was vaporized does not mean everything would be.

The abovetopsecret link I provided shows photos of engine parts at the Pentagon, that you claim were vaporized.



Your description of the scientific method is dead-on. Reasoning does not lead to proof. It leads to a hypothesis, which must be tested.

I disagree with your assessment of conspiracy theorists. Just because something is reasonable or probable, or improbable, etc. does not constitute proof. You paint conspiracy theorists with the same broad brush that the media does, and you may as well be calling them . If one bases a theory upon "reasonableness" it proves nothing.

However, if you base a theory upon evidence, this evidence must be addressed. I have presented credible evidence of molten steel, and the official hypothesis is disproved by this evidence. A new hypothesis must be considered and tested to reach a proof. This is exactly what Dr. Jones has done, and his paper is ignored or ridiculed. Neither method is a valid way to test his hypothesis.


Mere assumptions. This entire paragraph lacks a single fact. No evidence, no hypothesis, nothing. It sounds something like this:

Perhaps...but I believe the "official" story because it sounds, to me, utterly reasonable in its basic facts. In the absence of convincing arguments to the opposite effect, I am unable to accept what others have proposed. Yes, certain parts of the story seem questionable, but I would not want to throw out the whole thing because of that. I have yet to hear a reasonable, coherent alternative that explains things better than the current official account. Other theories draw on scant evidence and conjecture (eyewitness accounts of all types of events conflict and how many high speed large plane crashes of this sort do we really have for comparison?) and, most damningly to me, seem to unnecessarily add complexity to the entire situation by creating an implausible web of conspiracy and forcing the actors in that conspiracy to no longer act, in short, like human beings. Conspiracies are easier to formulate and substantiate looking at the individual parts while ignoring the whole. That is what is often done here and, as a result, the overarching theories seem entirely contrived.

 

[Dartman]

Also, in one documentary I saw there was an open book lying on a chair that was just centimiters away from falling into the mess made by the "plane". How come that didn't burn any of its pages?

It was the Bible. :biggrin:

 

[OrthoPT]

Perhaps...but I believe the "official" story because it sounds, to me, utterly reasonable in its basic facts. In the absence of convincing arguments to the opposite effect, I am unable to accept what others have proposed. Yes, certain parts of the story seem questionable, but I would not want to throw out the whole thing because of that. I have yet to hear a reasonable, coherent alternative that explains things better than the current official account. Other theories draw on scant evidence and conjecture (eyewitness accounts of all types of events conflict and how many high speed large plane crashes of this sort do we really have for comparison?) and, most damningly to me, seem to unnecessarily add complexity to the entire situation by creating an implausible web of conspiracy and forcing the actors in that conspiracy to no longer act, in short, like human beings. Conspiracies are easier to formulate and substantiate looking at the individual parts while ignoring the whole. That is what is often done here and, as a result, the overarching theories seem entirely contrived.

Well said.

 

[RenegadeRick]

Perhaps...but I believe the "official" story because it sounds, to me, utterly reasonable in its basic facts.

Well said.

Not really.

Earlier, you said simply because something sounds reasonable, it does not make it a fact. Now you are attempting to formulate a proof based simply on it's utter reasonableness, and as you already recognize this does not constitute proof, you contradict yourself.

I do agree that simply because some part of a story is false, does not make the whole thing false, but it does require one to review the supporting evidence for each statement.

At least you mention facts. Pray tell of these utterly reasonable basic facts. Please present supporting evidence where possible. The evidence will support your hypothesis and I will be convinced by it.

Or you could simply base your proof on reasonableness and call me nutz. That is just as effective.

 

[3D.]

this book

 

[3D.]

Right, the plane, passengers, and full fuel load disappear... but 12' away a text book remains unscathed... didn't even fall of the stool

 

[MikeD]

Right, the plane, passengers, and full fuel load disappear... but 12' away a text book remains unscathed... didn't even fall of the stool

Something obviously catastrophic happened to make that mess. Whatever it was, it left that book on the stool in a seemingly odd/miraculous way while causing the immense destruction around it. The fact that it's still there does nothing towards proving the nature and origin of the catastrophic event.

Edit: Oh, and the plane didn't disappear; there were pieces of it everywhere. I really wonder who got that one started.

 

[Westy]

Something obviously catastrophic happened to make that mess. Whatever it was, it left that book on the stool in a seemingly odd/miraculous way while causing the immense destruction around it. The fact that it's still there does nothing towards proving the nature and origin of the catastrophic event.

Edit: Oh, and the plane didn't disappear; there were pieces of it everywhere. I really wonder who got that one started.

Books and stools are impervious to cruise missles. That or someone standing near it called force field right before the explosion. Too bad no one thought of the do over.

 

[MikeD]

Books and stools are impervious to cruise missles. That or someone standing near it called force field right before the explosion. Too bad no one thought of the do over.

This is why we monitor Iran's importation of stools and Webster's.

I have my eye on some traitors from Blaine, myself.

 

[3D.]

Something obviously catastrophic happened to make that mess. Whatever it was, it left that book on the stool in a seemingly odd/miraculous way while causing the immense destruction around it. The fact that it's still there does nothing towards proving the nature and origin of the catastrophic event.

Edit: Oh, and the plane didn't disappear; there were pieces of it everywhere. I really wonder who got that one started.

Actually, the building is in such disarray because of the (after the incident) collapse.

The impact damage did not look like this.

Where are the pieces? This topic has been argued many times.

There are VERY little available pictures of the so called pieces. One pic was of an engine that apparently didn't belong to that type of plane.

 

[MikeD]

Actually, the building is in such disarray because of the (after the incident) collapse.

This has to do with what...? That book still doesn't serve as any kind of vaild evidence as to what hit the building, even if you think the damage couldn't have been caused by a plane (which is pretty much anecdotal...)

Why aren't there more pictures of the plane wreckage? Probably because the photographers were focused on taking pictures of the damage and the rescue attempts! What photog in his right mind is going to show the editors some still lifes of debris instead of the drama??

 

[kidwoo]

What photog in his right mind is going to show the editors some still lifes of debris instead of the drama??

The one that works for the airline's insurance company?

 

[3D.]

What photog in his right mind is going to show the editors some still lifes of debris instead of the drama??

The one that works for the independent investigation crew that never truly existed

 

[3D.]

That book still doesn't serve as any kind of vaild evidence as to what hit the building,

Right, so where is the evidence, that should exist without a shadow of doubt, that there actually was an airliner that hit.

I'm not saying that I have an answer, but come on here... believing the official story and it's half-ass investigation is more of a reach, than believing some of the conspiracy theories.

 

[MikeD]

Right, so where is the evidence, that should exist without a shadow of doubt, that there actually was an airliner that hit.

I'm not saying that I have an answer, but come on here... believing the official story and it's half-ass investigation is more of a reach, than believing some of the conspiracy theories.

I thought we were talking about the book.

 

[Westy]

this book

If you look closely it is obviously the Necrinemicron and can't be destroyed by weopons of this world. It also explains how the pentagon has been keeping Cheney alive, actually animated would be a better description.

 

[MikeD]

ftw!!

 

[rockwool]

I'm not saying that I have an answer, but come on here... believing the official story and it's half-ass investigation is more of a reach, than believing some of the conspiracy theories.

That is what bothers me the most about 9/11. They haven't allowed an independent investigation. Inevitably that leads you to believe that they're hiding something. The Pentagon lawn was filled with sand and the WTC collumns was shiped of to Indonesia (or somewhere) to be sold as scrap. Why did they cover up the crime scenes?



This was a good site that Renegade presented: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/thermite.htm One thing that I noticed was this though: http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/images/4.jpg

There's a round circle in the concrete made by the right engine. If the hole to the left of it, which they're spraying water into, is the hole made by the main body of the plane, shouldn't the engine be more to the right?

In another link provided by Renegade there was a scale of the plane explaining that the main body was ~13ft wide and that the distance between the body and the engine was just about the same (sorry, can't find that page right now..). Looking at the picture that round circle is far to close to the main hole, isn't it?

 

[ire]

If you look closely it is obviously the Necrinemicron and can't be destroyed by weopons of this world. It also explains how the pentagon has been keeping Cheney alive, actually animated would be a better description.

LOL I knew that book had something to do with it, watch your fingers

 

[ohio]

this book

 

[MarinR00]

Please allow me the opportunity to re-post this. Danke.



Ahhh, you gotta love conspiracism.

Some key points:
“Events which seem to resist such interpretation—for example, because they are, in fact, unexplainable—may provoke the inquirer to look harder for a meaning, until one is reached that is capable of offering the inquirer the required emotional satisfaction.”

“At other times, the unfolding of complex sequences of events such as political phenomena are explainable, but not in simple terms. Conspiracy theories are often preferred by individuals as a way to understand what is happening around them without having to grasp the complexities of history and political interaction.”

“According to some psychologists, a person who believes in one conspiracy theory tends to believe in others; a person who does not believe in one conspiracy theory tends not to believe another.”

”Christopher Hitchens represents conspiracy theories as the 'exhaust fumes of democracy', the unavoidable result of a large amount of information circulating among a large number of people.”

“In that context, a typical individual will tend to be more isolated from the kinds of peer networks that grant access to broad sources of information, and may instinctively distrust any statement or claim made by certain people, media, and other authority-bearing institutions. For some individuals, the consequence may be a tendency to attribute anything bad that happens to the distrusted authority. For example, some people attribute the September 11, 2001 attacks to a conspiracy involving the U.S. government (or disfavored politicians) instead of or along with Islamic terrorists associated with Al-Qaeda. Such charges may also be colored with political motivation. Similar charges (in some circles) were made that the Franklin D. Roosevelt administration was in some way culpable for the Attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941.”


I pulled this all from Wikipedia, for simplicity sake. I broke my rule about trusting on-line sources, but I do know this information can be found in physiology texts (most of which I was forced to read back at school).

And while this may not be at diplomatic, nor as formal as I like to be when discussing something like this, this site offers a very…. colorful view of the 9-11 conspiracy. I hope it works for you.

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse....i?u=911_morons

 

[bohorec]

Ahhh, you gotta love conspiracism.
Similar charges (in some circles) were made that the Franklin D. Roosevelt administration was in some way culpable for the Attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941.”

Hey man this is not conspiracism. Read few facts:

Was the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor truly a surprise attack?

Answer 1

Yes.

Answer 2

there was actually many hints that japan was planning hostilites against the unites states. Pearl Harbor was listed as one possible target and after examining intercepted messages, it becomes apparent that it was not a complete surprise

Answer 3

Actually No! Several chances were missed which should have sounded an alarm. The destroyer Ward fired the first shot of Americas' involvement in WWII when it fired on the conning tower of Japanese Midget Sub. The second round blew a hole through the conning tower and the sub was also depth charged. It has been discovered and has the hole in the conning tower, just as the gun crew on Ward has insisted it would have. This all happened about an hour before the first air raid.

Also the new radar station did call the communications center to report a very large formation of aircraft approaching. This was dismissed as a flight of B-17 bombers flying in on their way to Clark Field in the Phillipines. This was at least 30 minutes before the first air raid.

See the question; Was Admiral Kimmel responsible for the defeat at Pearl Harbor or were others?

Answer 4

No & yes.

The Americans were expecting an attack in the Philippines (and stationed troops appropriate to this conjecture), but on Yamamoto Isoroku's advice, Japan made the decision to attack Pearl Harbor where it would make the most damage in the least amount of time. The U.S. believed that Japan would never be so bold as to attack so close to its home base (Hawaii had not yet gained statehood) and was taken completely by surprise. The attack proved a long term strategic disaster that actually did relatively little lasting damage to the U.S. military and provoked the U.S. to retaliate with full commitment against Japan and its allies.

On Dec. 7th, 1941 the greatest disaster in the U.S. occurred. It was the deception and mis-guidance by the Government and Roosevelt. By over-looking the obvious facts of an attack by Japan on Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt was able to control both the political and economic systems of the U.S. Most of American society before the Pearl Harbor bombing believed in the idea of isolationism. Roosevelt knew this, and knew the only way in which U.S. would take arms and fight in Europe�s War was to be an overt action against the U.S. by a member of the Axis Power. Roosevelt also believed Hitler would not declare war on the U.S. unless he knew they were beatable. There are numerous accounts of actions by Roosevelt and his top armed forces advisors, which reveal they were not only aware of an attack by Japan, but also they were planning on it, and instigating that attack.

It's simple, 2 countries wanted to dominate the same part of the world and there is no conspiracy here. Japan made mistake, they attacked stronger country without proper weapons (longe range bombers, etc) and that's all.

But you have to admit that 9/11 isn't very clear and there are some strange facts. Well I don't care who did it, but it's not justified reason for attack on any country.

 

[RenegadeRick]

Ahhh, you gotta love conspiracism.

...

And while this may not be at diplomatic, nor as formal as I like to be when discussing something like this, this site offers a very…. colorful view of the 9-11 conspiracy. I hope it works for you.

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons

I found it funny, but it is exceptionally devoid of facts. MarinR00, since you are obviously not blocked from that site could you point out a single fact on that entire page besides the straw man about the melting point of steel?

For anyone interested in a point-by-point debunking of some of the most popular conspiracy theories out there (like the fact that steel melts at 1525° C, and although jet fuel burns only at 825° C, it doesn't have to burn hot enough to melt to cause the buildings to collapse, since steel loses 50% of its strength at 648 ° C)

Everyone knows that steel could not have melted in the conditions present that day. That is not the question. That is the straw man. The question is, "If there is no way that steel could have melted, then how could molten steel have been found in each of the three buildings that collapsed on 9-11?" This cannot be explained by the "official" story.

Your "key points" are chock full of opinion and lack supporting evidence, and not to nitpick you, but don't you mean that you read about these things in a psychology text?

Please come back with some facts. In this thread, I have been waiting since post #45 on 9/13 to hear some facts on this topic.

 

[MarinR00]

Do you honestly believe that I posted a Maddox X website as a serious attempt at debate?!? HA! You seem not to have read his other posts! I just wanted to lighten the mood in here. I didn’t express my views one way or the other. And I definitely never said I thought the US knew about Pearl Harbor! It was just a quote from someone else.

In any event, I am blocked from that site, I just remember back in the day he posted about 9-11. It’s a good site when you are bored, kinda offensive, but if you have a thick skin, you might get a chuckle out of it.

 

[bohorec]

And I definitely never said I thought the US knew about Pearl Harbor! It was just a quote from someone else.

.

I know what you said, but it wasn't complete surprise for FDR, since they expected Japan to attack...

 

[RenegadeRick]

Do you honestly believe that I posted a Maddox X website as a serious attempt at debate?!? HA! You seem not to have read his other posts! I just wanted to lighten the mood in here. I didn’t express my views one way or the other. And I definitely never said I thought the US knew about Pearl Harbor! It was just a quote from someone else.

In any event, I am blocked from that site, I just remember back in the day he posted about 9-11. It’s a good site when you are bored, kinda offensive, but if you have a thick skin, you might get a chuckle out of it.

I have found his site entertaining, but let me make sure I understand you correctly. You posted a link to a page you cannot read? It led me to question how you were able to provide an accurate link. Then GOOGLE occurred to me. Can you not read the google cache? http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:JNY4Osr2xNYJ:www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi%3Fu%3D911_morons+thebestpageintheuniverse+9-11+morons&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

I understand your unwillingness to defend his arguments on this subject. They are indefensible.

Nevertheless, I patiently await factual answers to my very pertinent and important questions on the matter.

 

[MarinR00]

Who's arguments??? Maddox's?!? HA! I wouldn’t even call them arguments! He just writes stuff to piss people off!

Its easy to provide an accurate link. Google ‘The Best Page in the Universe,” the second hit should be the 9-11 link. I just need to copy and past the link nicely provided by Google, you see? www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons. Too easy.

But alas, I still can’t access his site. (He actually posted a topic on how he hates the government from banning his site! Its called Websense-something.)


And bohorec, I absolutely agree with you. War was inevitable. We were already in a naval shooting war in the North Atlantic, we had the first peace-time draft and the weapons we won the war with, all started in the late 1930’s. (Especially the naval ships, Essex, Iowa, etc). I don’t think ANYONE who had half a brain was surprised, just outraged.

 

[RenegadeRick]

Its easy to provide an accurate link. Google ‘The Best Page in the Universe,” the second hit should be the 9-11 link. I just need to copy and past the link nicely provided by Google, you see? www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons. Too easy.

But alas, I still can’t access his site. (He actually posted a topic on how he hates the government from banning his site! Its called Websense-something.)

But can you access the google cache?

 

[MikeD]

I know what you said, but it wasn't complete surprise for FDR, since they expected Japan to attack...

I love Pearl Harbor conspiracy theorists. Let's say FDR did know/suspect something (entirely possible).

What the hell were we going to do about it??

We'd have had 2 options...wait to be attacked, or attack pre-emptively. (And with option 1, perhaps conveniently moved more of our ships, instead of only the untested and unconventional-at-the-time-for-decisive-sea-warfare aircraft carriers, so if we knew, I don't understand why we let ourselves get so pummeled despite it. Carriers turned out to be important, sure...perhaps only because they were what we were forced to rely on in the beginning.)

 

[ire]

I love Pearl Harbor conspiracy theorists. Let's say FDR did know/suspect something (entirely possible).

What the hell were we going to do about it??

We'd have had 2 options...wait to be attacked, or attack pre-emptively. (And with option 1, perhaps conveniently moved more of our ships, instead of only the untested and unconventional-at-the-time-for-decisive-sea-warfare aircraft carriers, so if we knew, I don't understand why we let ourselves get so pummeled despite it. Carriers turned out to be important, sure...perhaps only because they were what we were forced to rely on in the beginning.)

Along those lines, I didn't think we knew where the Japanese fleet was..correct me if I'm wrong. So even if we wanted to strike first we couldn't

 

[RenegadeRick]

That is what bothers me the most about 9/11. They haven't allowed an independent investigation. Inevitably that leads you to believe that they're hiding something. The Pentagon lawn was filled with sand and the WTC collumns was shiped of to Indonesia (or somewhere) to be sold as scrap. Why did they cover up the crime scenes?



This was a good site that Renegade presented: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/thermite.htm One thing that I noticed was this though: http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/images/4.jpg

There's a round circle in the concrete made by the right engine. If the hole to the left of it, which they're spraying water into, is the hole made by the main body of the plane, shouldn't the engine be more to the right?

In another link provided by Renegade there was a scale of the plane explaining that the main body was ~13ft wide and that the distance between the body and the engine was just about the same (sorry, can't find that page right now..). Looking at the picture that round circle is far to close to the main hole, isn't it?

I don't want to have you think I am ignoring you RW... It's just that I don't know what that picture shows exactly. I am unsure what conclusions can be drawn from it. I hear honest speculation in your post, but alas, I have no answers for you on this one.


Any chance we could get this thread back on topic? Maybe start a pearl harbor thread or something? I feel this is detracting from the discussion at hand.

 

[ohio]

I love that figure for the burning temperature of jet fuel.

Rick, what temperature does wood burn at? Hmmm, how about charcoal?

Now explain how glass and iron were POURED before the advent of coal and coke fired furnaces.

I'll give you a hint: it rhymes with "gressure."

Adiabatic combustion of jet fuel is about 3140F or 1726C, which foil-heads like to point out is "perfect combustion and WTC was far from perfect (I'm so smrat!!!111one!)" what they fail to point out is that it's also at 1 bar and 20C ambient temp.

Let's try another quick thought exercise:
1. Heat is a measure of energy (per mass). Let's say we break a pound of hydrocarbons (how about jet fuel) with oxygen and at 1bar and 20C, giving the resulting a mixture of water vapor and carbon dioxide enough energy to reach 800C or so at 1bar (amazing how an explosion didn't increase the pressure, but let's roll with it)
2. Now contain that volume of water and CO2, and insulate it so it doesn't lose energy (boy, I bet deep piles of rubble are a really good insulator).
3. Now combust more fuel in the same space... hmm, what happened? well we added energy, AND we increased pressure, these are both things that increase heat.

Holy christ, can we give it a rest now?

(if you really want to nerd out, you can check the heat of that system above assuming twice as much matter after the second combustion...not worth your time because it won't help your argument)

 

[Westy]

I love that figure for the burning temperature of jet fuel.

Rick, what temperature does wood burn at? Hmmm, how about charcoal?

Now explain how glass and iron were POURED before the advent of coal and coke fired furnaces.

I'll give you a hint: it rhymes with "gressure."

Adiabatic combustion of jet fuel is about 3140F or 1726C, which foil-heads like to point out is "perfect combustion and WTC was far from perfect (I'm so smrat!!!111one!)" what they fail to point out is that it's also at 1 bar and 20C ambient temp.

Let's try another quick thought exercise:
1. Heat is a measure of energy (per mass). Let's say we break a pound of hydrocarbons (how about jet fuel) with and at 1bar and 20C it the resulting a mixture of water vapor and carbon dioxide with enough energy to reach 800C or so at 1bar (amazing how an explosion didn't increase the pressure, but let's roll with it)
2. Now contain that volume of water and CO2, and insulate it so it doesn't lose energy (boy, I bet deep piles of rubble are a really good insulator).
3. Now combust more fuel in the same space... hmm, what happened? well we added energy, AND we increased pressure, these are both things that increase heat.

Holy christ, can we give it a rest now?

(if you really want to nerd out, you can check the heat of that system above assuming twice as much matter after the second combustion...not worth your time because it won't help your argument)

So you are saying that if I wanted to cool down a 2000C degree room I couldn't do so by burning jet fuel inside it? Preposterous.

 

[ohio]

But can you access the google cache?

Are you serious? Does it matter if he can read the up-to-date text of a humor blog?

 

[RenegadeRick]

Holy christ, can we give it a rest now?

Not quite yet.

1. An explosion has a one time event of pressure. Your example suggests a constant or increasing pressure. But since you are ignoring this, I will too.

2. Where did this additional fuel to combust come from?

3. If tons of rubble are adding pressure, they are also blocking oxygen from getting to the fires. How is this issue overcome?

 

[RenegadeRick]

Are you serious? Does it matter if he can read the up-to-date text of a humor blog?

It was my initial question and he did not answer it.

I mainly asked, because this could be a possible route to blocked information. However, it seems reasonable that the government must have blocked this also, therefore it MUST be true.

But does it really matter? No.
Personally, I would be reluctant to post a link I had not reviewed myself. But that is just me. Y(and R00's)MMV.

 

[rockwool]

I love Pearl Harbor conspiracy theorists. Let's say FDR did know/suspect something (entirely possible).

What the hell were we going to do about it??

We'd have had 2 options...wait to be attacked, or attack pre-emptively. (And with option 1, perhaps conveniently moved more of our ships, instead of only the untested and unconventional-at-the-time-for-decisive-sea-warfare aircraft carriers, so if we knew, I don't understand why we let ourselves get so pummeled despite it. Carriers turned out to be important, sure...perhaps only because they were what we were forced to rely on in the beginning.)

That is besides the point. The point is that you was lied to, and have been about it ever since! You was also lied to about the Gulf of Tonkin incident, and you was so about 9/11 and probably a whole heep of other things.

 

[ohio]

Not quite yet.

1. An explosion has a one time event of pressure. Your example suggests a constant or increasing pressure. But since you are ignoring this, I will too.

2. Where did this additional fuel to combust come from?

3. If tons of rubble are adding pressure, they are also blocking oxygen from getting to the fires. How is this issue overcome?

A one time event? That burned for an hour. Inside a building. As you've acknowledged, more than enough heat and pressure to soften the steel. The molten state occured during (I've turned brass, aluminum, and steel momentarily molten during a simple impact test with a 20 lb weight falling 5 ft... I wonder what half a million tons over a couple hundred feet does) and after the crumpling as fuel (jet fuel and building materials) continued to combust under the heat and pressure of a compacted skyscraper.

In fact YOUR argument is one against the presence of explosives, as unlike jet fuel a bomb WOULD be a one time event and wouldn't explain the fact that i-beams were still white to red hot when pulled out of the rubble days and weeks later. If explosives were the only thing that could melt steel it would have been solid again by the time it hit the ground.

Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it's a conspiracy or that no one else understands it. It just means you don't understand it.

 

[ohio]

But does it really matter? No.
Personally, I would be reluctant to post a link I had not reviewed myself. But that is just me. Y(and R00's)MMV.

You're ****ing loony. He said he read it previously, he just doesn't have access RIGHT NOW to it word for word.

Maybe your too thick to remember that this one thing you read one time was funny, but it doesn't preclude the possibility that someone else might. Especially Maddox. Of course it's funny.

Seriously, you're ****ing loony. You're looking for conspiracy and manipulation in the way some dude posted a link to a funny article he read once. Take a step back and think about that one. Do you find yourself thinking that the fact that the street light goes from red to green to yellow and then BACK TO RED is moooore than just coincidence? Prozac, dude. Prozac.