World Aero Data
Aviation discussion. 
Home | Older Messages

Search the Database

Airports
Navaids


Pages: 123456789Next
Current Page: 1 of 9
Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Future Engineer ()
Date: August 07, 2006 01:59PM

This is a response to the discussion carried out by many suggesting that the planes at the WTC couldn't have brought the buildings down. I'm sorry for being so forward, but in my opinion this is a ridiculous discussion. I am a junior at an engineering-exclusive school studying materials engineering. I admit that I am not an "expert" on the subject. However, I do know enough to explain this situation. The actual maximum burning temperature of a Jet-A fuel (standard jet fuel type in U.S.) is 980 deg. Celsius. If you refer to the Iron-Iron Carbide phase diagram, the temperature at which steel changes from cementite and pearlite (strong phases of steel) to austenite (significantly less strong) is 702.5 deg. Celsius. Also, if a steel structure is exposed to a temperature just below or at the eutectic (702.5 deg.) for a period of time, martinsite is formed (very weak). All it would take is a few I-beams to lose their structural integrity before the "chain reaction" would start. I don't have a strong opinion on the conspiracy theory, but when people say that the heat from burning jet fuel cannot melt steel it bothers me. It doesn't have to "melt" for it to become ineffective. Also, "very strong type of steel" is the most relative statement ever. The steel used in sky scrapers is a standard carbon steel, not heavily alloyed. In any case, the iron-iron carbide phase diagram describes all carbon steels very accurately. Also, when the buildings actually collapsed, all that potential energy was released into heat and sound, which is true for all destructive reactions. So it is quite possible that after the buildings fell, the temperature of the rubble reached levels higher than any fire could produce. Sorry, I’m done ranting.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Future Engineer ()
Date: August 07, 2006 02:06PM

Excuse me, spherodite...not martinsite. like I said, i'm still a student.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Jason ()
Date: October 31, 2006 10:35PM

First of all, there were molten metal at ground zero so the steel was not weakened, it melted. Second, an intense fire cannot be produced under rubble where there is no oxygen so your argument that potential energy made that intense fire is ridiculous. Therefore, thermate has been used with explosives to bring that building down.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Bob ()
Date: January 25, 2007 10:05PM

I have checked a couple sources regarding the temp. for burning JET A fuel (standard in the US). The open air burning temp is less than 350 C. I think you would have to consider the WTC open air burning. Max temp is achieved only with an optimum mixture of air and fuel producing no smoke. Smoke is a sign of oxygen deprivation with results in lower temperatures. The WTC steel was tested by UL at 2000 C and retained it's specification. It is not likely that an open air burn for less than 50 minutes could have caused enough deformation to result in collapse.

Not a pleasant conclusion I'm afraid, but hey science is science.

Regs,
Bob

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: mech engineer ()
Date: April 07, 2007 04:59AM

future engineer is correct. Pick up a material science book and you can see that steel doesn't have to melt to become weak.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Bruce Williams ()
Date: April 04, 2010 07:11PM

Future Engineer:
No matter if it weakens it or not:
1. No steel building other than the WTC has ever collapsed due to any fire of any sort.
2. A certain temperature may weaken the iron, but it is incapable of melting any of it o matter how large or or how small.

Jet A is the same stuff burned in conventional steel wall heaters. In an open-air office fire such as that at WTC (called a "dirty burn"winking smiley kerosene or any hydrocarbon will burn at around 500-700F (260C to 371C). The FEMA report on 911 said that the jet fuel burned off after a few minutes and the fires from the office furniture and carpets were about 560F (293C) The special structural steel of the WTC has over 98% of its strength at those temperatures, and the WTC was built to hold 5 times its load.

In a "controlled burn" (where oxygen and fuel are regulated in an optimal mix), jet fuel will reach a maximum temperature of 1800F(982C), which is still not anywhere near the temperature required to weaken the steel girders of a building to the point that the entire building plummeted to the ground. Yet molten steel was reported below the towers, suggesting that a very powerful "fuel" was used, set to burn or explode BELOW the building, not at its top. Thermite, an HTA (high-temperature accelerant) typically used in military operations, would have been able to liquefy the steel. Thermite can reach a temperature of 4500F (2482C) in 2 seconds, and steel begins to melt at 2750F (1510C).

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Charlie ()
Date: April 26, 2010 11:51PM

It's been a long time since 911. I was 12 years old when it happened. now I'm 20 - a student myself - looking for some real answers. I'm not the type to take what someone says verbatim and believe it. I can use common sense however and compare it to what people say and compare it to conclude on my own. The almost button push fall to the WTC does not match up with the 911 commission report or the FEMA investigation (pancake theory). There would be disparities in the way the buildings fell, not so damned uniform or fast(10 seconds) which by my calculations is 8.34 m/ss which is ALMOST free fall.

I'm making a video on this and need some solid data to punch into thermal calculations. I was wondering if Bruce could link or lead me to your source pertaining to the WTC using steel that was able to hold five times it's load.
Was also wondering if I could get the link or source about the UL testing specifics on the steel - at what temperatures ded the steel begin to loose it's strength.

???

Cheers,

Charlie

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Desmond ()
Date: August 09, 2010 07:27AM

I thought the steel inside the concrete is for tension and concrete itself is very good at compression. The load at the bottom of the concrete of the building must be able to withstand the entire upper load. Aren't steel are buried inside the concrete to form reinforced concrete. So the fire has to melt the concrete first before it reached the steel.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Desmond ()
Date: August 09, 2010 07:31AM

I thought the steel inside the concrete is for tension and concrete itself is very good at compression. The load at the bottom concrete of the building must be able to withstand the entire upper load. Aren't steel are buried inside the concrete to form reinforced concrete? So the fire has to melt the concrete first before it reached the steel. Just wondering...

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Jack Barnett ()
Date: August 11, 2010 03:17PM

These people with their conspiracy theories are just nuts. For me to believe that government agents were able to consistently bypass WTC security and plant explosives over and over again without detection seems implausible to begin with.

Next, I'm expected to believe that any person asked to participate in this plot cooperates whole heartedly and does not question authority? Not only that, but do you know how many people would have to be involved to pull this off? How about friends & family? Not a single person would tell a friend or family member about this plot? And then we expect them all to keep quiet? Someone, someplace would have written an electronic communication tipping off the media and authorities and this would have come to light.

Clinton couldn't even keep semen stain secret.

I can't even imagine a president asking FBI/CIA officials to blow up the trade center.

You may believe that most people in the government are corrupt and or stupid, but to believe that they encompass this unbridled evil says more about them than anything else.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Jeff ()
Date: October 06, 2010 09:34PM

RE: Posted by: Jack Barnett

Your post tells us right from the start that you are not open minded or scientific.

"government agents were able to consistently bypass WTC security and plant explosives over and over again without detection"

you assume

1. This is the allegation of everyone who questions 9/11

2. it is not possible

2. It was government agents.

3. no one else is capable of this


"I'm expected to believe that any person asked to participate in this plot cooperates whole heartedly and does not question authority? Not only that, but do you know how many people would have to be involved to pull this off? How about friends & family? Not a single person would tell a friend or family member about this plot? And then we expect them all to keep quiet? Someone, someplace would have written an electronic communication tipping off the media and authorities and this would have come to light.


1. See Iran contra affair for a recent example where large amounts of people including media stayed silent.

2. You assume that there have been no whistle blowers which you will find out is untrue if you decide to use your own brain one day.


"I can't even imagine a president asking FBI/CIA officials to blow up the trade center. "

1. you are assuming this would happen.


"You may believe that most people in the government are corrupt and or stupid, but to believe that they encompass this unbridled evil says more about them than anything else"

You then go on to ridicule without providing ANYTHING of substance in your own post.

are you a dis information agent, or just ignorant?

PS: that was a rhetorical question, People who are ignorant don't know it.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Manny ()
Date: October 08, 2010 07:33AM

J. Barnett don't listen to everyone, but see for yourself by "following the MONEY" I know what your thinking, but you have to ask yourself this question "How could the Mendez brothers savagely kill their own mother and father for MONEY! You'd be surprise what 500 BILLION dollars could buy...follow the MONEY...
You sound like you believe in the Bible..."money is the ROOT of ALL evil."
9/11 has nothing to do with jet fuel being able to burn concrete or steel columns. But the LOVE of MONEY. Wake up and smell our country's roses.

Its sad JB. It just pains my heart to see all those young men and women coming up on Sunday morning shows. "In Memorium" I cried every Sunday. And still am crying!

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Mat ()
Date: November 16, 2010 04:03AM

I think it's fairly safe to say that Science, including the all-important PHYSICS, is on the side of those who question the official account.

The twin towers collapsed when the fires were burning out - the smoke was getting less and less and all reports say that the fires were either being brought under control, or were burning themselves out.
If the towers had collapsed straight after the impact, i don't think this debate would even be going on. the fact that molten steel/metal can be seen dripping from the corner of WTC1 minutes before the collapse started is a red flag. a large part of the jet fuel was consumed in the initial fireball - that is obvious from the vids.

Moving on, the are countless eyewitness accounts all saying roughly the same thing - molten steel under the rubble. EVEN under WTC7, which was never even hit by a plane, sustained only minor (relatively) damage and came down HOURS after the towers had themselves collapsed.

WTC7 experienced 2.25 seconds of free-fall (approximately 8 storeys worth), something which is PHYSICALLY impossible if there is any kind of resistance, which there would be if the columns weren't all cut within miliseconds of each other.

I draw your attention to [www.youtube.com]
watch this, and then tell me that it was Jet fuel that brought down the buildings.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Jonathan ()
Date: December 08, 2010 07:21PM

Hi there everyone, I would just like to say that I admire and appreciate that there are other people out there still talking about this, and that so many of you are so well informed. Unfortunately, 'tis trus, ignorant people are seldom aware of their ignorance. I just want to add a few key points to an already compelling discussion.

1. Money money money, Larry Silverstein alone went from his initial 11 million dollar investment into a 99 year lease on the WTC, then after changing his insurance just a few month before the incident in order to better incorporate the possibility of a Terrorist attack, and claiming it as two separate incidents b/c it was two buildings, came out of it with a pay off of 11 Billion Dollars. That is enough money for any man to take out his own buildings and kill 3000 strangers. Let's be real. Greed is a helluva drug.

Side note: Larry also worked it in the insurance policy that he alone would have the exclusive rights to rebuild. Now, as if that isn't going to be one hell of a cash cow in the future. The new WTC and a WTC 1 memorial. Can you say tourist attraction?

2. Lets talk about getting in and setting explosives. Look into who was in control of the security firm that covered the WTC. It was none other that GWB's cousin Marvin Bush. And, he was in NYC on the day of the incident. What an SOB.

Side note: It is possible for families and businesses or what have y9ou to affect the government. Particularly a family that has such strong ties to oil and power all over the world. Just b/c the president is the president, doesn't mean he can't use unofficial channels to do or say things. If he knew much about it at all. The schmuck.

K I will stop ranting as much and use better point form Sorry.

3. In 1945 the U.S. government decided to let the Japanese get all the way to Pearl Harbor and bomb the place. They let it take place in order to Galvanize the country for war. Same thing happened here but it was not let happen, it was fabricated. Now we are in Iraq!! Yay!! =( But would there be any chance of us there without 9/11? Probly not in such force and short time.

I think people who discount this just b/c it is a "conspiracy" are crazy. Do they really think conspiracies, don't happen? Do they really think that people cannot be threatened or paid or even killed to be silenced? These things are not just in the movies people. Real life is far worse. And far better. I have to have faith that history will hold those responsible as criminals and Terrorists of the worst kind. Monetarily motivated and domestic.

Take care guys and dolls. keep on Thinking for yourself and using those magical reasoning skills of yours. LOVE!!

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Axenome ()
Date: May 04, 2011 12:02AM

Funny how thousands of people see holes, but zero people are actually doing anything about it.
Doesn't matter. 10 years after the fact, the perpetrators (if any) have gotten what they want, the history books say what they want, and the people are doing what they want- in the last case, absolutely nothing.
Doesn't matter anymore.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Brian ()
Date: May 17, 2011 02:28PM

Just the fact that the 7th building was obviously taken down on purpose is the smoking gun here. It would be impossible for a demolition crew to set the explosives in that 7th WTC building (the command center) from the time it was ordered to the time it imploded and fell. Many demolition experts have agreed it was a typical imploded fall that was done purposely with explosives. Those charges had to have been set weeks before. So to me this is the proof that the twin towers also had explosives.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: FalseFlag ()
Date: May 25, 2011 09:23PM

There were about 10 thousand people involved in the Manhattan Project and managed to keep that secret. Just keep looking at good evidence in this and don't be dissuaded by ad-hominems and conjecture. Do your own research and have courage in your convictions, one person can make a big difference in bringing those responsible to justice. These False Flag types of operations have been used by many countries around the world throughout history.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Dave ()
Date: June 11, 2011 06:59PM

Manhatten project wasn't secret, documents were smuggled out and sold to the russians.

Iran- Contra wasn't kept secret either or i wouldn't know about it.

The towers started the collapse from the floors the planes hit. Were the guys flying, who had just a few hours on a simulator, good enough to hit the exact floor? Not.

So to make sure you get the right floor you had to wire each floor individually as a starting point to start a chain reaction to the other floors. Very complex and very time consuming. And assume the impact of the aircraft wouldn't damage the prima cord and connections which it would have almost certainly done. Unless you try to engineer an impact proof/fire proof series of explosives. Or have someone good enough to exactly time the aircraft impact so it wouldn't be noticed on video. Why all this extreme complexity? And this wouldn't be enough they had to go to a smaller one and blow it up because they didn't think the first 2 would be enough effect?

So someone recruited these Al-Queda guys, Trained them on a sim and trusted them to succesfully hijack and hit a building. hired demolition experts to do what would have been months of work.

Why do that when it would have been a thousand times easier just to blow one building from the bottom? Basically the same reaction from America?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Kevin ()
Date: June 17, 2011 09:25PM

[davidraygriffin.com]

Pretty good scholarly article.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Du2L5R1 ()
Date: June 24, 2011 04:35PM

Manny, you're close, but misdirected. The bible is a fairy tale that has been sculpted over the millenia to control the sheeple through fear of social exclusion and eternal damnation.
You say, "money is the root of all evil", well i say man is the root of all money Money is just a construct of mankind...so where is the REAL evil???....is it al queda? is it the US? is it Israel? is it the world bank??...or is it the flying spaghetti monster? ; )

And to Dave above, yeah, maybe the guys who hijacked the plane were fundamentalist f*&kwits (i personally believe that ALL fundamentalists are f*%kwits,regardless of their skin colour or whatever fiction they choose to base their lives around.). I suppose one could theorize that perhaps some counter intelligence and a healthy dose of disinformation, created the ideal "wag the dog" scenario....which led us to iraq (WMD/oil), then Afghanistan (Al-queda/uber-rich mineral deposits), where to next??
...by the way, which "peace loving, free" nation corners the market in weapons tech and development and is also the largest exporter of military weaponry????

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Donald Morgan ()
Date: July 03, 2011 04:03AM

I have to say.
Whether the steel melted, changed it's crystal make-up, broke or wtf ever. This would not have dropped the entire building...Sky scrapers don't just get thrown together they have a very strict building code. One of which relies on the build being able to take impacts from flying objects....When the steel at the point of impact was heated (btw jet fuel burns at 980 deg. Celsius in a controlled scenario) it may have been heated enough for enough amount of time to change its crystal structure but that would not have weaken the massive steel structure below or above it. In other words at the point of impact what should have happened is the same thing that happens when you chop down a tree....it would have feel to the side. that is simple physics my friend. Also, to mention the pools of melted metal, STILL glowing red hot weeks after the initial collapse. Are you trying to say that jet flue burns hot enough and long enough to melt enough metal to from pools of lava like liquids to last a at least aw eek. these were found by fire fighters when they were removing ruble searching for bodies. Now I do not give a fuck but seriously, come on....are we all fucking retards? I mean i know at least half of us are....but shit. why do we let our government play these bullshit trick on us like this. go back and check out how every war has started since WWI. it's all bullshit! go read. look shit up. watch the zietgieghst. become enlightened. and just to clear this last shit up. its not a conspericy theory....its god damn fact laying on the floor in front of you. the only conspericy theory is thw bullshit the government fed us so we would want to go invade the middle east and implant our own seeds of governmental dominance so we can have a foothold on that economy as well. sorry it just pisses me off when stupid people talk. bye.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: BTSun ()
Date: July 11, 2011 06:23AM

Ahh hem...
I know that most everyone here is "pro-conspiracy" and has had the great pleasure of jumping on so weak arguments here.
First of all there is a lot of guessing and weaving around facts here.

The infamous "Melted Steel"

Ok, so first jet fuel in an open environment burns anywhere in between 800* F and 1500* F where steel "melts" at 2750°F. And obviously, if you've ever poured gas on your average campfire, gas doesn't burn for all that long. So... theory dismissed jet fuel did not DIRECTLY bring down the WTC. However, can we all agree that the WTC burned after that? During the building of the WTC Asbestos was used on the initial floors, then the environmentalists said, "NO!!!" so a good 75% of the towers is made in flammable insulation, that's a good fuel. Also, it wasn't only jet fuel that was burning and just because there was no jet fuel doesn't mean there was a nice and cool fire ready to be put out by the nearest firefighter! Now many sources (including NIST) report pockets of the after-jet-fuel-burning reaching temps of over 1800*F. Unfortunately that's still not hot enough to melt steel. However, true experts (sorry that probably doesn't mean anyone here, no offense) state that a building does not need to have its steel "melted" to collapse, just lose some of its structural integrity. And experts say that steel will lose 50% of its strength at 1100*F and will have less than 10% of its strength at 1800*F. That's a lot of strength to take away on a 110 story building. Some will still say, "but that doesn't explain the melted steel at the bottom!" when steel is heated, it needs a place to expand to, and if there is not place to expand to the metal will sag and crack, which may confuse an uneducated firefighter, or reporter to look as if the steel had been "melted". Call the fire chief he will report that there was NO melted steel at the site.

WTC 7

WTC 7 as reported by NIST, "had little damage before its collapse". So some of you are so quick to jump on that "fact" when you shun the rest of the information by the official report, you find one fact that fits your twisted theories and grab it! But NIST discovered after that there was actually about 25% of the depth of the south of the building "scooped" out. The building also had unusual construction. 2 trusses held about 2000 sq ft each in the visible outings of the building. If you take out one column then the other on the north side is carrying quite a substantial load, over its designed capacity. The fifth-floor burned for over 7 hours. Emergency generators were fed by a rather large tank in the basement of the WTC7. This pressurized line supplied the fire for quite a long time. There was also no firefighting in WTC 7. The structurally abstracted building combined with the long fire led to the collapse of this building.

If you guys have anything you'd like to poke holes in I'd be glad to help answer!!

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Sherif Shaalan ()
Date: July 30, 2011 04:19AM

Those with the courage will find the evidence presented by Dr. Judy Wood to be the most conclusive. www.drjudywood.com. Read and study her book, "Where Did The Towers Go?" This is NOT theory, this is evidence.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Covenant ()
Date: August 12, 2011 11:58PM

@BTSUN

Why don't you google "melted steel at wtc site"? They were digging out of the ground a MONTH after the building fell. Allow me to guess, this is a conspiracy theory and the pictures are photoshopped? Additionally, somehow an aircraft crashing into 15 or so floors of the wtc suddenly made the floors below it incapable of sustaining the load that they always had? I suppose a building gets heavier (MUCH heavier) when hit with an aircraft. So in light of this, instead of the top falling off, the building collapsed along the path of MOST resistance at freefall speed, all the way to the ground. WTC's penthouse at the very top collapsed first, and then the whole building crimped and fell at freefall speed as well. It too, fell into it's own footprint, along the path of most resistance. Combine this with Larry Silvertein's "pull it" quote, and it seems very suspicious.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: elvin ()
Date: September 04, 2011 04:44PM

want to make a correction, the bible DOES NOT state money is the root of all evil BUT For the LOVE of money is a root of all kinds of evil...

Elvin

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Gord ()
Date: September 04, 2011 07:51PM

Very well put. I love the emotion behind it too. Between the debunkers and the eighth wits (lol) who believe every 'official' lieing bit of mis/dis-information it won't matter how logical, factual, scientific or specific you get with them. They just are MADE totally incapable of accurate perception or even digestion of the most obvious (to those intelligent anyways). These masses who have been programmed to think and respond are so intensely and utterly dumbed down, mind controlled and/or programmed that explaining the obvious to them is like re-convincing your friend about who he/she really is after a hypnotist has masterly convinced him/her they are some dead celebrity! When an entire sinister and plotting society of sociopathic evil decide to take control of a situation (or a 'peasant society') they will use a labyrinth of ways to distract, persuade, manipulate, deviate, confuse, entrance, hypnotize, daze and control the minds and actions of the population who are focussing on the entrancing weapons of mind control designed for them - like the television and all other sources of MAINSTREAM media/mediums, as in, all forms of mainstream education systems, entertainment systems, health'care' systems, political/corporate systems, 'silent' electromagnetic (etc) scalar weapons systems that use emf waves to suppress and even regulate brainswaves (included among 'the silent weapons for a quiet war' - look it up).. I could go on.. lol

To anyone with half a brain 9-11 was most definitely a false flag operation for those bloodline families in control of the US government and military to have an excuse to continue on with the next phase of militaristic objective phases from all the previous false flag operations leading up the 9-11 false flag. (Case in point; End of story; Now let's do citizens' arrests (IF nothing else) on these war criminals involved right from the top. Naturally that would take some mass planning. But it's possible. So I put it out there in the emotional desire to see it manifested!!!)

Once a mind is free from 'mainstream control' it is possible to think and reason for one's self. Many revelations about this system we have been lulled asleep under by it's spell to stupify, supppress and zombify the masses are clear to see once the mind can be freed and open to look for AND find alternative and reliable sources of information. That is why I don't watch tv other than to pick out and on the propaganda and deceptively, subliminally and craftily PROGRAMMED messages and ideas 'hidden' within shows to PROGRAM the minds of those viewing this bullshit. The 'official report' on 9-11 was programmed into the minds of the faithful television viewers who tuned into that lower frequency and remained plugged into it for the entire dreadful time until their minds were absorbed fully with the deception and craftily contrived bullshit their factually starving minds took in and was hypnotically programmed to believe regardless of all logic or fact! Fully believing in MSM news to present the truthful facts most fell for this psy-ops tactic of mass hypnosis.

So, as the saying goes: "Its better to remain silent and thought of as stupid then to speak up and prove yourself stupid" if you do not know the facts because you cannot yet think for yourself with an open and intelligently curious mind. Or, to put it more simply, WAKE UP OR SHUT UP! LOL

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Jane ()
Date: September 05, 2011 05:57AM

Scientific fact has explained itself until it was blue in the face with facts on how and why the towers fell that fateful day in September. I won't entertain them with anymore. Here we are a decade later with the same people saying the same tired things about the "facts" they decide are true, and support their claim that America is "evil". I would like these same people to look into the faces of families that lost people that day, the families from flight 93 and those whom lost people in and around the towers, and tell them their ugly theories. Look at them with your "facts" and tell them all the ugly things you contiune to spew forth in an effort to destroy the very country that loves and cares for its people. The people that think this beautiful country and our sometimes flawed leaders could committ such a heinous act are more than welcome to LEAVE. We don't need or want your kind here. You are a poison that spreads is virus without concious or compassion. We can and will make it without you. Leave.... Go to another country... One not so "evil" as you have dubbed this one to be. We won't miss you, and I assume from the hatred you regurgitate you won't miss us either... So good riddance.. Be an menace elsewhere.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Billy ()
Date: September 07, 2011 04:41AM

@jane you think that our leaders even though they may be flawed just simply arn't capable of instigating and commiting such evil acts that some here alledge that they have done but historically those in positions of power and authourity have largely been guilty of planning, carrying out, ordering, condoning or turning a blind eye to uncountable numbers of henious and undeniably wicked and what can only be descibed as evil attrocities against their fellow human beings but mostly to the unprivaledged masses they rule and are considered to be their subjects to do with whatever they will. Just loik at the many instances of genocide througout history and all over the world or at those in power in many of the ancient and in some cases not so ancient cultures and civalisations who would systenatically and regulary carry out mass instances of human and often child sacrifices so they could appesee whatever god they worshipped and who many believed would for the price of spilled blood grant them supernatural gifts and powers that they needed to keep rule of their kingdoms or empires, and also think about the wars of conquests that have been carried out all throughout history where whole defeated peoples have been entirely slaughtered just so the invading king or emporer can increase his power base and rob and pilliage the conquered coubtry or state of all its resources and riches to increase his personal wealth as the people he rules are mere peasents who even though they are chronically poor he taxes them for the little they have, also the frequency that kings and queens would casually order the excecution of they decided they wanted dead and without having to give a reason for as well as the murder of anyone who dared to speak out against their rulership or anyone they deened as a potebtial threat to or who could one day becone a threat to their grip on power, and also the fact that things like the spanish inquisition were carried out and justified by a supposed christian orginisation who said they were doing god work the emporer tyoe pope ruled roman catholic church and who also recently turned a blind eye to nazi extermination of jews even though the pope at the time knew of the attrocities that were taken place and who still allowed the vatican to have dealings with hitler. So if so many rulers in the past could act in such evil ways what makes you think that those who rule today would be any different because as the quote by lord acton quite righteouly says judging by the evidence of history "power corrupts;absolute power corrupts absolutely". Just think about it because even though some things change most keep the same and history has always been found to repeat itself unless it has been learned fron but i don't think that anthing has truely been learned from recently or ortherwise by both those who control power or much of the sheeple that make up the ruled over masses on this plabet.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Chelsea ()
Date: September 10, 2011 06:37AM

Really. How many people died on 9/11? And this is what you have to say? WOW....
You know another popular conspiracy theory? That the real Paul Mccartney died in January of 1967 and the Beatles replaced him with a look alike so they wouldn't loose their fame.... Now go off on this ridiculous piece of imformation you know nothing about. At least this time you wont be direspecting 3,000 people and their families.
Stop being rediculous, 9/11 was aweful, some bad people got together(as bad poeple often do) and did a really really bad thing. Stop acting like the government is trying to kill everyone. My goodness, people get an internet connection and watch Fox News and suddenly they have it all figured out.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Mike ()
Date: September 10, 2011 07:14PM

Spoken like someone who has either read nothing or understood none of what they read.

Maybe you and Jane should form a coalition.

Options: ReplyQuote
Pages: 123456789Next
Current Page: 1 of 9


Your Name: 
Your Email: 
Subject: 
Spam prevention:
Please, enter the code that you see below in the input field. This is for blocking bots that try to post this form automatically. If the code is hard to read, then just try to guess it right. If you enter the wrong code, a new image is created and you get another chance to enter it right.
This is a moderated forum. Your message will remain hidden until it has been approved by a moderator or administrator
This forum powered by Phorum.




©2014 WorldAeroData.com.