Read through the thread again. He has stated several times that we believe that fire alone brought down the buildings.

As Hungrii Flea-Bagius just stated, he stands correct I said its the foundation of your arguements as to why the buildings fell. Fire is the foundation to which the official story forms the collapses basis. And the article even supports what Im saying its right there!




Link:http://www.sciam.com/page.cfm?section=linktous&articleid=000B7FEB-A88C-1C75-9B81809EC588EF21&chanID=

The official story maintains the FIRE is the ultimate reason why the towers fell. Had there been NO RAGING INFERNO despite the plane impacting the buildings, the buildings wouldnt have collapsed. Im not admitting anything Tk, because your wrong and thats why you only respond with one liners anytime facts are presented. Do you not see what Scientific American.com just stated????????????? Got your BLINDERS on today I see...

AUL, did I misread the following statements?











As you see, the word "sole" means "only". You've stated several times that official version believers think the ONLY reason for the buildings collapsing was fire. And like I've said, several times, that's incorrect.

I would appreciate it if you admitted you were wrong.

Come on Tk, symantics. Perhaps I was mistaken in using the word "sole" but the point Im trying to get across is fire is the basis of the official storys arguement, and Ive just posted an article which supports exactly what Im saying. Had'nt it been for the fire weakening the steel which caused other things to occur the buildings wouldnt have collapsed! So fire is the foundation of your argument, without the raging inferno the rest of your argument cannot fall into place. No inferno=no weakening of steel=no saging=no collapse= ect ect ect........

Follow Tk?

Excellent. Glad we're finally on the same page.

I really don't think fire is the basis of the argument. I definitely believe it's fire in concert with damage from the impacts (or, in the case of 7, the damage from the collapsing north tower).

No, its the basis, without it there could be no collapse despite damage. In wtc7, a plane didnt hit that building yet it caught on fire and collapsed neatly unto its own footprint. There was also a fire they "could contain", so the building collapsed, so I wonder if you took fire out of both pictures would each building still remain standing..........

I don't understand why you aren't getting this.

The belief is that the collapses were the cause of BOTH fire and damage. If only one or the other happened, they probably wouldn't have fallen.

The fact that you bring up WTC7 as if I haven't been mentioning it all along leads me to believe you're not really reading my posts very carefully.

Tk, your the one who is lost on what being said, and quite frankly talking to you seems to be a waste of time, so i'll end with this post. The belief is that FIRE brought it down despite the damage! How did we get the fire in the first place? From damage and the jetliner impact! But damage alone wouldnt bring the building down! So it is FIRE like the article said is the MAIN CULPRIT OF COLLAPSE! UNDERSTAND.

If you dont. I dont wanna talk about it anymore because we're just going back and forth and aren getting anywhere. Bye

You're saying we believe fire brought the buildings despite the damage? As in the damage was irrelevant?

That would be false.

Damage + fire = collapse. I don't know how to spell it out any more clear for you.

TK DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THE BUILDING WAS DESIGNED TO TAKE MULTI IMPACTS FROM JETAIRLINERS???????? Everytime a jetliner hits the same buildings thats going to be damage delt, but it isnt enough to make the building collapse! But when we bring in the magical Raging INFERNO thats what is the main contribution to collapse; FIRE. FIRE FIRE FIRE FIRE FIRE FIRE! FIRE FIRE FIRE!!



Link:http://www.sciam.com/page.cfm?section=linktous&articleid=000B7FEB-A88C-1C75-9B81809EC588EF21&chanID=

Did you read that??????? The article said main culprit in bring the buildings down were FIRE; HOT INFERNOS. No where did the article make any signifigance to damage, thats because we know the buildings would still be standing despite the damage, but since there was a raging inferno thats was the ultimate cause of collapse, despite there being other factors to contribute to the collapse; why do you think I said ULTIMATE CAUSE OF COLLAPSE..........

TK I QUIT! I QUIT! Cant win for losing. I never will win a battle against ignorance, I learned that long ago.

Please re-examine your definition of "flamebaiting".

Also:



You didn't. You tried to make it seem that we believe the SOLE cause of collapse of the towers AND BUILDING 7 was fire. You argued vehemently against that point, and no one ever stated that's what they believe. That's what makes it a strawman argument.

You're getting progressively venomous in your posts because I won't wriggle off the hook no matter how insulting you get.

No matter what you say or how you word it, the point remains true:

The believers of the official version DO NOT believe fire was the SOLE cause of collapse of the three buildings on 9/11.

Please stop with the bickering back and forth; neither side is going to give in so just drop it and move on, the continually posting back and forth with larger fonts doesn't seem to be helping the matter and it is clear that you both believe you are right so there is no need to take the matter any further like this. Thank you.

This is the second time I've been accused of "bickering" when I'm merely trying to make a point without attacking. Interesting.

Pick your term: altercate, bandy, battle, bicker, buck, bump heads, contend, cross, cross swords, disagree, dispute, face down, face off, feud, hammer, hammer away, hash, hash over, hassle, jump, jump on, kick around, knock around, lock horns*, pettifog, quarrel, quibble, rehash, row, sass, squabble, wrangle, arguing.

The point is that both of you(not just you) are going back and forth and both of you are refusing to accede the point you both are trying to get across. It gets old rather quickly to have an argument that boils down to: "Yes it is...no, it isn't, Yes it is...no, it isn't, Yes it is...no, it isn't, Yes it is...no, it isn't, Yes it is...no, it isn't... etc..." with fonts getting redder and larger as if it couldn't have been read the first several times it was bolded. At a certain point it takes away from the discussion and is a personal matter between the two of you that is not going to be resolved and will only escalate.

http://www.truthring.org/wp-content/upload...tc7pile/080.jpg

Tell the owner of the crushed car that he's walkin' to work because he stupidly parked his car inside WTC7's footprint.

http://www.truthring.org/wp-content/upload...tc7pile/029.jpg

Rubble from the collapse of WTC7 completely covers this street, to an apparent height of 11-12 m. Please explain where WTC7s footprint ends.

We seem to be getting a bit too wrapped up on what 'its own footprint' means. I think it's fair to say that, whilst some debris might have landed outside the footprint, the overwhelming majority was within it, particularly given that WTC-7 was flanked by buildings that appear to have sustained little damage from the collapse.



This one shows that the outer walls have undoubtedly been 'pulled' in and that neighbouring buildings were unscathed.

The debris Field at Building seven was at its Furthest point 70 feet .The majority, 85% of the building fell within its footprint. The remaining 15% did fall up to 70 feet outside of the footprint. For a 47 story tall bulding this is remarkably small debris feild.....The debris that fell outside of the footprint ,fell to the west towards the Verizon building this information straight from Fema.

if i am not mistaken the debris field for the towers was of similar size around 70 feet i will find that info and relate it here asap

That artifact where we see the image of the tower 'phase' as it collapses is the bane of video, low res, high speed at that. It causes the 'ghosting' effect as seen in that and all other videos. Our eyes register at 72 cycles per second. Video, even crude hand held cameras or cell phones, register at 86+ cycles per second, and is why with the development of high end FX, we can make you see literally anything under the sun

Like this:



To the untrained eye, agreed, that video sequence looks bizarre.

RAMS

read between the lines here the man is telling
us straight to our faces that todays special effects
can make us see anything they want us to see
can you see the meaning in there?

HFB, do you seriously think the events of 9/11 was the work of Hollywood special effects? Do you think that's even in the realm of possibility?

Think about what you're suggesting, and how completely insulting to the victims it is.

Your statement above does not get any clearer than that, and true as well. Well put.

RAMS

thats wht you De-Bunkers always pull out of your hats
It is CLASSICAL Psy Ops stuff hit em with emotional
stuff talk about the dead folks try and belittle the
Poster By IMPLYING that he somehow disrespects the dead folks

or implying that he doesnt care about them because he asks questions
I have seen it stated here before abd this is a good time to repeat it
Questioning the Government is NOT disrespectful to the dead or the country
It is YOUR DUTY as an American Citizen to QUESTION a corrupt Government


It is the single most Patriotic thing an American can Do its called Dissent
because you dissent does NOT mean that you hate the country or government
It does NOT mean you hate or disrespect those who died that morning
It does NOT mean you are anti American.....................quite the contrary actually


Dissenting because one sees injustices and Tyranny at all levels of Government
and dissenting because one believes the Government may have been complicit in the 9-11
attacks shows that one REALLY TRULY DOES CARE about this Country and its citizens
BTW the same goes for trying to get to the bottom of the 9-11 quagmire yes its a hrad pill
to swallow but there is CERTAIN evidence that just points to Government complicity



the best way I can remember the dead is be theyre voice and find out EXACTLY what did happen
people like us will see to it that the truth comes out on this issue sooner than later thanks to the web
we are Standing in the face of tyranny in order to find out what really happened for the families
perhaps then you have issues with some of the families themselves as many of them have banned together


in order to find out what really happened that day i suppose they are disrespecting theyre dead loved ones?
the man that posted ELUDED to the fact that Special FX allow them to make us see what they want us to THINK
we sawHE said it not me

In direct answer to your Ludicrous question................................NO I dont believe it was all a Hollywood special effect
although there may have been some photographic trickery going on that day to help "shape" public opinion
It is a method that is as old as the hils..thanks for for IMPLYING that i said something that i DIDNT say
this has become a regular issue with YOU in particular you llike to make it apear as people say things that
they dont its a regular occurance with you

and in no way have i ever disrespected anyone by dissenting and not following the pied piper

All that to say the bolded. Thanks for finally getting around to answering the question.

ETA: in regard to your "Classic Psy Ops" statement: I'd like to ask you if you think I work for the government, but I'm afraid of another rambling post accusing me of mind control.

Amusing arent they HFB?

not very effective either

Nice post btw

thanks jimmy.