Saturday, December 18, 2010

Comments posted to this video in response to "prayfortruejustice" who claims that I " ignore all science and change the topic to misdirect any immutable facts about the 9/11 events":


WHAT "science?" WHAT "science?" I have repeatedly posted points of fact, all you have done is post notions with nothing to back it up at all. Before we even get into "science" can we start with basic logic and agree that scientific principles apply to all the buildings where steel and fire are concerned? Can we at least agree on that?

If we can agree that scientific principles apply to all the buildings where steel and fire are concerned then the theory pushed by Steven Jones, Alex Jones, Richard Gage, Mike Rivero and others has a serious flaw because steel has weakened to the point of failing due to fire in other buildings. And as pointed out in my first video uploaded to Youtube, we can see that progressive failure of the steel columns well before the collapses. This is a fact these men are ignorant of.

And that fact should not come as a surprise to people who have taken the time to educate themselves on the subject. THE BASIC FACT that steel can be weakened by fire has been understood for a long time (its the reason they spray fireproofing onto steel for example) and I have shown how this fact had been discussed years before 9/11.

"Class 1 (fire-resistive) buildings typical of high-rise construction usually are designated as having 3 or 4-hour fire resistance ratings. In the past, that was taken to mean that they would never be a serious collapse threat. While this is usually the case in the completed structures, it is not a guarantee, particularly in the steel-framed high-rise that relies on some type of spray-on or membrane fireproofing to protect the steel." - Sept. 1998, John Norman, captain with the FDNY

Here is my reply to degeneratgambler, I sent this comment:

You didn't or couldn't dispute the facts I went to the trouble of posting over at my blog.
WTC7 sure as hell didn't SOUND like a controlled demolition did it?
(because in CD we hear multiple explosions, with WTC7, right before it collapses we DON'T hear multiple explosions.)
I hear one low rumble (probably an internal failure of the steel column)
and it didn't look like one since CD buildings don't show signs of structural failure well before they collapse. Firemen expected it to collapse due to its condition. Read hat they have to say: WTC 7 was severely damaged on the south side of the building and was on fire for about 7 hours.


Anonymous said...

pathetic government stooge, fucking traitor

Anonymous said...

Those who promote the conspiracy theory about 911 have 911 = planes + explosions. They are related to each other, no coincidence. In other words, 911 was completely Mossad + CIA operation right?

Denying that explosions happened doesn't remove the possibility that 911 was Mossad + CIA operation, to start wars in the Afghanistan, Iraq and so on...

Furthermore, to back the explosions theory, CIA + Mossad must be sure that the operation succeeds. If the plane attack would be enough to take down the towers, it would still be risky to the success of the operation if the planes don't hit the towers at the right place to cause them to fall thereafter. So, preparing explosives ahead of time would secure the success of the operation.