Errors and omissions in NIST report (gee...what a surprise).

Discussion in '9/11' started by RtWngaFraud, Aug 27, 2013.

You are viewing posts in the Conspiracy Theory forum. PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening.

  1. LogicallyYours

    LogicallyYours New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2013
    Messages:
    2,233
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Stop with all the facts and science!!!...You're going to make his head hurt!!!!
     
  2. plague311

    plague311 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2012
    Messages:
    1,256
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    *shrug* he discovered it, so it was actually his facts and science. I was just saying that this was actually the highest percetage scenario for the bridge to survive. There was no accident compromising the support of the bridge, there was nothing that the gas fire ignited (office contents, etc.), the bridge had to be concrete reinforced in some places, and yet it still collapsed. According to the AISC :


    As you can see, the office fire actually burns hotter than a gas fire. This is for several reasons, but I point this out to say that the bridge fire was actually cooler than the WTC fires.
     
  3. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,644
    Likes Received:
    3,694
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Just as a technical note, Jet A and gasoline have about the same energy density, with the Jet A actually having a little less. Jet A is used, not because it's more powerful, but because it has a higher octane rating. It can be compressed to a much higher pressure before ignition takes place.
     
  4. plague311

    plague311 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2012
    Messages:
    1,256
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Absolutely noted, thank you for the knowledge. My fault, I should have dug into it more.
     
  5. MaxxMurxx

    MaxxMurxx New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2013
    Messages:
    422
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Read the text in the link below. It contains so many details formerly not known to myself that for me the discussion is "done"
    ( "Done" means that a new, sophisticated and honest investigation is neceassary, no matter what the outcome will be) :

    Source: http://www.truedemocracy.net/hj34/06.html

    An excerpt from the complete text (Title The Media Response to the Growing Influence of the 9/11 Truth Movement
    Part II: A Survey of Attitude Change in 2009-2010



    ........
    TruTV is an American cable television network owned by Time Warner through its subsidiary, Turner Broadcasting. Historically, its has given live homicide trial coverage and other criminal justice programming, though it has recently expanded into more caught-on-video reality, which it calls "actuality" television.

    "Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura" premiered December 2, 2009, to an audience of 1.6 million television viewers.

    The former Governor of Minnesota has good cause to look into conspiracies, as seen in his December 29 episode, which shows personal experience that the "secret state" holds more power than the senior elected representatives of the people:

    "About a month after I was elected governor, I was requested into the basement of the capitol to be interviewed by 23 members of the Central Intelligence Agency, the CIA…And I said to them, "look before I answer any of your questions, I want to know what you're doing here." Because in the CIA mission statement it says that they're not to be operational inside the United States of America. Well, they wouldn't really give me an answer on that. And then I said, "I want to go around the room, and I want each one of you to tell me your name and what you do." Half of them wouldn't. Now isn't that bizarre? I'm the governor, and these guys won't even answer questions from me."[49]

    Ventura made the 9/11 documentary after being approached by Donna March O'Connor, whose daughter died in the World Trade Center and wanted "every American exposed to the questions" about 9/11.[50]

    Ventura's documentary contained interviews with the following people:

    Janitor William Rodriguez, the last man out of the North Tower and who was decorated for heroism by President Bush, who reported enormous explosions in the basements just before the plane hit up above, and whose testimony to the 9/11 Commission was ignored

    Physicist Steven Jones, formerly of Brigham Young University, who isolated super-thermite from the enormous dust clouds of the Twin Towers and Building 7, after which he was contacted by a consultant engineer from the Department of Homeland Security, who warned Jones that, if he published his findings "the pain would be great."

    Explosives expert Van Romero, of the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, demonstrating how super-thermite can be painted onto a steel beam, causing it to burn through.

    Ground Zero rescue worker Mike Mallone, who reported seeing one of the four black boxes removed from the site, and was told of two others – and who was told by the FBI that if he talked about it, "there would be a problem."

    Investigative journalist Dave Lindorff, who was told "off the record" by a contact in the National Transportation Safety Board, which investigated the boxes, that all four had been recovered by the FBI and taken away, though officially, the contact said, this would be denied.

    Air crash investigator Dale Leppard, who said that the bright orange heat-resistant boxes are never lost.

    Yet the 9/11 Commission Report claimed that the boxes from American 11 and United 175 were never found.

    Ventura concluded by asking: "If everything they told us was true, then why would they need to stonewall us?"

    Concluding Comment: (Corporate). By calling his series "Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura," he openly declares that conspiracies do exist, and that they are a legitimate subject to investigate. According to TruTV, the first episode drew 1.6 million viewers, a record for a new series on this network.

    Case Study 15: German Federal Judge Dieter Deiseroth Questions the Official 9/11 Investigation, December 15, 2009

    Heinz Heise is a German publishing house, which publishes Europe's most popular computer and technology journals. It also owns Heise Online (heise.de), which is a top-50 site in Germany, and a top-1000 website in the world as a whole.

    On December 15 2008, Heise Online carried an interview with German Federal Judge Dieter Deiseroth on the legality of the Afghanistan war and the question of whether the attacks were adequately investigated in the US.[51]

    In his response, Deiseroth made the following points:

    "The 9/11 Commission consisted of Bush Administration officials who were very close to the military industrial complex."

    Now, over eight years after 9/11, no independent court has applied legal procedures to review the available evidence on who was responsible for the attacks.

    It is not acceptable for a constitutional state to dispense with the necessary steps in identifying suspects and instead to declare war, bomb a foreign country where suspects reside, and place it under military occupation.

    Having made the claim that bin Laden was responsible for the terrorism of 9/11, the United States was under burden of proof, and yet America's own FBI admits that it has no evidence presented in court of Osama bin Laden's responsibility for the 9/11 attacks.

    Concluding Comment: (Corporate). This “top-50” online journal exposed many German people to the illegal and unconstitutional responses to the 9/11 attacks – which were the underpinning for the subsequent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq – and even to questions about the truth of the official account of 9/11 itself.

    Case Study 16: Germany's “Focus Money” says: “We Do Not Believe You!” January 8, 2010

    With 450,000 to 720,000 readers, Focus Money is the second most popular German weekly business magazine. In January 2010, it published a 5-page, highly detailed, and comprehensively researched glossy feature, "We do not believe you!"[52]

    The article first looks at the many professional 9/11 groups, as well as a 2,000-strong list of prominent and qualified people who question the 9/11 Commission Report at the Patriots Question 9/11 website.

    It quotes Richard Gage saying: "The towers accelerated without interruption in free fall…as if the lower 90 floors of the building did not exist. The only way to bring them down like that is controlled demolition."

    The article weighs Gage's list of ten features of a controlled demolition, which were exemplified in the World Trade Center collapses, against the three features of a fire-caused destruction, which were absent.

    Focus Money also explores the case of Barry Jennings, a former Deputy Director of Emergency Services in New York's Housing Authority, who reported being trapped in WTC 7 after massive explosions in this building occurred in the morning – before the Twin Towers fell. Focus Money also reported that Jennings, aged 53, died mysteriously just days before NIST's report on WTC-7 was to be released in August 2008.

    The article recommends films that challenge the official report, including "Loose Change," which has been seen 125 million times on Google video alone, "9/11 Mysteries," and "Zero" – all available online.

    Regarding the Pentagon, experienced commercial pilots are cited as maintaining that no one, let alone a Cessna pilot, could fly the route that Flight 77 allegedly took to hit the building.

    The article pointed out the lack of debris to support the official story: "There was no tail, there were no wings, no confirmation of the crash of a Boeing 757." And there were no titanium engines, which would have survived the crash.

    Also cited was Sergeant Lauro Chavez of the US Central Command in Florida, who was involved in exercises the morning of 9/11 to hijack planes and fly them into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and the White House. He asks why, when it became clear that the attacks were real, were the rogue planes not intercepted?

    Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta's testimony to the 9/11 Commission, in which he reported a conversation between Dick Cheney and a young officer prior to the strike on the Pentagon, supports Chavez' conviction that there had been a stand-down order.

    Concluding Comment: (Corporate). This 5,400-word article presented strong evidence against the official 9/11 account to Germany's economic and political decision-makers.

    ....

    IV. Summary and Concluding Observations

    1. In the past year, in response to emerging independent science on the 9/11 attacks, nine corporate, seven public, and two independent media outlets aired examinations of the issue, which were all – with the exception of the National Geographic special – reasonably objective, examining the issue as a legitimate scientific controversy worthy of debate (not as "conspiracy theorists" vs. science and common sense).

    2. Eight countries – Britain, Canada, Denmark, France, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, and Russia – have allowed their publicly-owned broadcasting stations to air the full spectrum of evidence challenging the truth of the official account of 9/11.

    3. These developments may reflect a relaxation in the international media following the change in the US and British leaderships.

    Editor's note: Supporters of this publication will note that if anything changes, it will be for the worse in both the US and the UK because of the one man, Rothschild, who controls both nations.

    4. These developments definitely reflect, in any case, the fact that scientists in the 9/11 Truth Movement have recently succeeded in getting papers, such as the nano-thermite paper, published in peer-reviewed journals.

    5. These developments surely also reflect the general professionalism of the 9/11 Truth Movement, as exemplified by the emergence of not only Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth but also Firefighters, Intelligence Officers, Lawyers, Medical Professionals, Pilots, Political Leaders, Religious Leaders, Scholars, and Veterans for 9/11 Truth.

    6. These developments seem to reflect, moreover, an increased recognition of the importance of the 9/11 Truth Movement, which is demonstrated by two honors given to its most influential member, Dr. David Ray Griffin, that would have been unthinkable only a few years ago: the choice by Publishers Weekly of one of his books as a "Pick of the Week," and his inclusion in the New Statesman's list of the most important people in the world today.

    This more open approach taken in the international media – I could also have included the Japanese media – might be a sign that worldwide public and corporate media organizations are positioning themselves, and preparing their audiences, for a possible revelation of the truth of the claim that forces within the US government were complicit in the attacks – a revelation that would call into question the publicly given rationale for the military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

    The evidence now being explored in the international media may pave the way for the US media to take an in-depth look at the implications of what is now known about 9/11, and to re-examine the country's foreign and domestic policies in the light of this knowledge.
    End of exceprt
    No further comment necessary. It would be time to rethink the psychical configuration of those believing into the official story of the events and why those people so fiercly fight against re investigating the event, which, assumed the official version is correct, would provide nothing but support, trust and re confirmation for themselves.

    The simple question is:

    What are they afraid of?
     
  6. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Not a damn thing.

    Why are truthers so afraid to admit they're wrong?


    Why do they insist the same people who swore to protect us would want to harm us,instead of people who made it clear they wanted us dead?
     
  7. plague311

    plague311 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2012
    Messages:
    1,256
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well, let's start tearing apart this massive strawman hidding inside a wall of text. For those of you interested, I am going to cut out a bunch of the bull(*)(*)(*)(*)....and there is a lot. I am going to use quotes referring to maxx cause it's his point. It might be from an article or it might be my summarization of his phrases. The words might not be his own, I just use them for easier reading.

    I kept this for his reference.


    Yes, I admire William for what he did that day. He was a hero, on that day. Since that day he's been a lying (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) that has done nothing with his life but attempt to get rich off of 9/11 lies. It's too bad he got sucked into the dark side. What a stupid theory though, if he was in the basement, how the hell would he know when the plane hit? The explosions were the elevators hitting the bottom floor after the fireball ripped them loose. Furthermore, why would a bomb go off in the basement over an hour before the building fell? That's just...stupid!

    Ok, so a few fallacies are in this one. First, Steven Jones didn't isolate Super-Thermite, or any other kind of thermite. It was paint. Yep, that's it, just paint. On top of that, Jones was contacted by an engineer who told him not to do it, he does it, and not a damn thing has happened to him. He's still alive, I think he has a job, and he's suffered no consequences. Just mentioning it makes you look like a gigantic moron.

    You mean this Van Romero? That's a truther link. He doesn't think that it was explosive demolitions. He made the comment the day off, and made an off the cuff remark. In fact, the explosives comment he made was aimed at the terrorists, he wasn't implying the government. After he did what normal people do, and researched, he changed his opinion, as rational people do.

    Once again, what? He's talking about it, actively, on a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing television show. I can't find any information on him after doing just a real quick, basic search. Which leads me to believe he's a nobody. The only references are on Ventura's ridiculous show. Obviously things can't be too bad if he's still rattling on about it. What a stupid statement.

    "Someone told me that there is sketchy things but told me not to tell. If you say they said it, they'll deny it." What a crock of (*)(*)(*)(*). No wonder he says it, there's no way to prove it wrong. He's basically setting up a strawman. Anyone can say that (*)(*)(*)(*) LoL. Fat ass Alex Jones does it all the time, and gets called out on it. This is just more crap.

    More woo, I only see this guy references on truther sites.

    Stupid question, red herring, strawman. Because it's none of your (*)(*)(*)(*)ing business Ventura, and you're a tool. If anyone felt you needed to be involved, they would have included. You're an ex wrestler that got voted in as a joke. Shut up, no one trusts you except wootards.

    What? This sentence doesn't make any sense and is just there to try and give creedence to something, I just don't know what.

    They identified them, it was the largest FBI investigation in the history of ever. Strawman

    Wrong, we gave him lead poisoning because of 9/11. They didn't charge him because they didn't need too. It has nothing to do with his involvement. Red Herring

    LoL patriots....nice

    They didn't fall like it was a controled demolition, everything else is a red herring, meant as a distraction from the facts that the towers didn't "accelerate without interruption in free fall." We can blatantly see that from the pictures showing debris falling faster than the towers.

    Gage is a moron, and has been debunked a thousands times. I'm not going through it again, if you believe what this turd says, you may put me on ignore. Thank you

    No, he didn't, and leave him the (*)(*)(*)(*) alone. His family has asked SEVERAL TIMES for truthers to keep his (*)(*)(*)(*)ing name out of their mouths. They are sick of you using him as a reference. He does NOT believe 9/11 was done by the government, nor did he. The fact that you distort his words to try and support your story, after he said it's not true, is disgusting. The only reason you do it is because he's dead and can't defend himself. By the way, he didn't die suddenly. He passed away of LUKEMIA, he had been dying for years. Get your (*)(*)(*)(*)ing facts straight

    Make sure to watch those with the debunking along side. It shows how full of (*)(*)(*)(*) they are.

    This is based on a pilot that cares what the outcome of the plane will be. They knew they were crashing, they couldn't have cared left. Also, the pilot had experience flying a commercial plane.

    Strawman, we all have the evidence.

    Not true. They weren't involved in exercises that included flying planes into the WTC, pentagon, and the white house. That's just factually untrue. There were some exercises, however, they didn't label specific buildings, just the thought that a plane could be used as a missile.

    There wasn't, that's a lie.

    Long story short, sorry Maxx, you just repeated the biggest bunch of crap in the world. Everyone, outside of truthers, knows that this list is garbage and has been debunked forever.

    Try again, muffin.
     
  8. Andelusion

    Andelusion New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2013
    Messages:
    1,408
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't care. Believe whatever you want.
     
  9. Andelusion

    Andelusion New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2013
    Messages:
    1,408
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    0
    In order for there to be an explosion... you have to have unlit fuel, vaporized in a concentrated area, which is then ignited by a spark, causing the rapid burning of the fuel in the concentrated area to expand so rapidly, that it damages the nearby area.

    It can't be lit on fire to begin with. That won't cause an explosion. Take a small open top can, fill it with fuel, lit the top on fire, and then kick the can over. Was there an explosion? No, it just spread around. But no big bang. No explosion.

    [video=youtube_share;3f4lPzxSm5A]http://youtu.be/3f4lPzxSm5A[/video]

    In this case, the fuel was unlit, but it wasn't concentrated enough to 'explode'. It created a wave of burning fumes, but no bang, no branched blown all over, nothing happened.

    [video=youtube_share;_VaqK0xQqtc]http://youtu.be/_VaqK0xQqtc[/video]

    In this video, the fuel was concentrated enough, but it was already lit. The molotov cacktale only blew flames all over where it hit. Still no explosion, no bang, nothing damaged except the glass bottle chucked at the rocks.

    The amount of fuel really doesn't matter in this case, for a number of reasons. The fuel would have been spread over the area of a football field. Most people who have never actually been to the Twin Towers, don't realize just how huge they were. Each individual floor of the twin towers, had an entire acre of rentable floor space. That's not including the core where the elevators and stairs were. Additionally both planes hit multiple floors. Meaning that the fuel in those planes, would have been spread over multiple acre sized floors.

    Think of an acre of land, and then think of how many gallons of fuel it would take to wipe out that much land, and then think of spreading that fuel over 3 or 4 acres, and then think of how much fuel it would take to not only fill all those acres, but then go into an elevator shaft 76+ floors to the ground.

    Even tens thousands of gallons wouldn't be enough. Plus, we're not even talking about the relatively slow burning gasoline. We're talking about very quickly burning jet fuel.

    So again, back to the claim. You are suggesting that fuel magically was able to remain unignited, flow over the area of an acre to an elevator shaft, and then flow all the way down 76 some floors, and then magically remain concentrated enough to explode, and then explode at ground level?

    No, I'm sorry. This is about as possible as magic fairies and unicorns. Just the act of falling 76 floors, would diffuse the fuel enough that you'd be lucky to ignite it at ground level. Not going to happen. Not possible. Just the basic physics of diffusion say that's impossible.
     
  10. Andelusion

    Andelusion New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2013
    Messages:
    1,408
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No I didn't infer anything. I didn't talk about controlled anything. I didn't talk about how the towers fell at all.

    You people are the ones defending the government's official story. There is no possible way that two planes hitting those towers could result in pools of molten metal. None.

    No matter what else you want to babble on about, changes this fact. Regardless of how the molten metal got there, it can not have been because of those two planes. You want to find out how the towers fell, fine, by all means do so. But if all you want to do is defend the government story, you have got to explain how that metal got their, or you are nothing more than an ignorant parrot chirping the official line over and over, because the official line doesn't explain these two facts.

    If you can..... then do so. You tell me how that molten metal got there. I'll hear out your theory. Otherwise, stop wasting my time.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Got it. You can't respond. Thanks for stopping by. Have a nice day.
     
  11. MaxxMurxx

    MaxxMurxx New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2013
    Messages:
    422
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You don't get the point. The point is that there are so many concerns about the appropriateness of the official "investigation" from different angles of expertise that those simply cannot be officially "ignored", being shared or "debunked" by non professionals like you and me. I have my expertise on one certain field, on others I have none and have to believe experts. Government experts however usually are not the best ones, simply because of better payments elsewhere. Those expert opinions deviating from the official version of the events have to be taken into account and to be discussed - OFFICIALLY, not between you and me. If in the end the concerns come out to be without reason - nothing could be better. IGNORING them OFFICIALLY, is the problem.
     
  12. Andelusion

    Andelusion New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2013
    Messages:
    1,408
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Again, when Aluminum is poured, it turns silvery.

    [video=youtube_share;hunjHmEq-Og]http://youtu.be/hunjHmEq-Og[/video]

    You can see clearly while in the pot, the aluminum has the glowing red color you are talking about. The moment it's poured, is it red? No it's silver. Back to the metal flowing from the building. Is that even red? No it's a bright shining yellow. Not a dull red, or silvery, or anything similar.

    As far as hot steel being exposed to air, causing an reaction, and so on. Not a valid explanation. First, industrial steel is designed to keep that reaction limited to surface area. That how stainless steel works. Second, the steel was coated with Asbestos. Air couldn't reach most of the steel anyway. Yes, they claim the explosion removed the asbestos, but in reality the asbestos was designed to handle such things. They specifically made it sticky and an adhesive to the metal.

    Equally there were many parts of the structure exposed to air, and didn't have asbestos, and there was no reaction.

    [​IMG]

    Windsor Tower in Madrid Spain. Burned for 20 hours. Floors crashed, but the steel structure did not.

    [​IMG]

    Clearly the steel was hot. Yes? Clearly it was hot enough for 20 hours of burning. Yes? Clearly the steel is exposed to air. Yes?

    Now explain, why didn't the magical exothermic oxidation reactions, didn't cause the steel to melt? And honestly the Windsor Tower burned hotter than the twin towers.

    As far as the battery backups on floor 81, the chances of those batteries causing explosions, is minimal at best. Most battery backups of this size, operate the same way a car battery does. How many exploding car batteries have you seen in the past 10 years? In fact, the only real danger is with NiCad, and Li-On batteries. The chances that those battery backups were either type, is very low as they are horribly expensive. But even with those batteries, they typically don't melt and flow, they tend to burn.

    [video=youtube_share;NV_CBLxIczc]http://youtu.be/NV_CBLxIczc[/video]

    The battery quickly catches fire, but does not melt or explode, it simply burns. No pool of melted metal. Just chard bits left. The battery backups on floor 81, (a claim I have yet to validate anyway), at the very most would burn for a short quick time, and then die out. There would be no river of molten metal. And if I understand building codes enough, my memory suggest that such a batter backup of this size would require shielding to prevent any such toxic fumes and such from escaping. Since neither planes hit those floors, there's nothing to suggest than any shielding would have been damaged.

    Generally I would agree with you, and perhaps you are right. For a moment, just one moment, place yourself in my position.

    I don't have any sage wisdom. I don't have any inside sources. I have nothing, except the government report, and a high school education in physics. When I read the government report, and compare it to basic science.... it doesn't wash.

    And then people here, demand I provide proof of what should be common knowledge of basic science. Like..... water is wet. "I DEMAND YOU PROVE IT! PROVE WATER IS WET!"...... and then I'm accused of not providing proof of my claim..... :confusion: Really?

    For example.... the diffusion argument in the prior post. I shouldn't have even needed to explain this. Diffusion is well known, well understood, well documented, scientific fact.

    Say... you eat a chili cheese hot dog with spicy brown sauce. You are at home, and you fart. You pass a big ol bunch of methane. Should you be worried that if you try and light up a cigarette that the methane will explode, blowing a hole through your butt?

    Can methane burn? Yes. Can it explode? Yes. Can igniting concentrated methane in an enclosed area, explode? Yes. So will lighting up a smoke, explode your butt? No.

    PROVE IT! PROVE IT I SAY! I DEMAND PROOF!

    ..... diffusion. The methane will defuse into the air, and there will be no explosion. Basic high school level physics.

    Honestly, sorry if everyone is offended, but... I don't care. After awhile, this level of childish nit picking stupidity, gets really old.

    Take your post. Did you start squealing? No. You ask honestly, I answer honestly. Pretty simple stuff. You demand proof water is wet, and prove that fuel defuses in air.... I'm going to get tired of that. Tough. Deal with it. You don't have to reply to me at all. No skin off my back.
     
  13. Andelusion

    Andelusion New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2013
    Messages:
    1,408
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Again, if it is not steel, great. What is it? What other metal glows that color falling from the side of the tower, and is found in large pools of still molten metal a week after the crash? It's not aluminum. We know that. It's likely not lead, as there were no large supplies of lead sitting around the edges of the building. What is it? You tell me.

    Because the NIST information doesn't match up with basic physics. Having a profession write "1 plus 2 is 12" doesn't make that right, just because a profession said it. If that's good enough for you, so be it. It's not good enough for me. Don't like it? Too bad. Some of us can think for ourselves. If you are not included in that group, that's your choice.

    Lastly, look... you are the one claiming that two planes were the only things involved at 9/11. Fine. Explain where that molten metal came from, and then I'll move on. Otherwise, your story doesn't match up to the facts. If you don't need your story to match the facts, then unicorns and fairies it is. Good enough for you. For some of us, that's not enough.
     
  14. Andelusion

    Andelusion New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2013
    Messages:
    1,408
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Did that happen? or not?
     
  15. cjnewson88

    cjnewson88 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,133
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Easy. Very large fires in the towers = very hot fires in the rubble. Any metal with a low melting point - Aluminium, Lead, Copper, which there was plenty of, would melt. 200 cars parked under the towers. Cars melt when they catch fire.

    [​IMG]

    Molten metals in the rubble pile, and in the towers, is no mystery at all. It fits perfectly with the very large, hot fires which the crash of the two airliners ignited.

    So, with that explanation done. Can you explain to me how a controlled demolition would leave molten metal in the pile?
     
  16. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Perfect example of what I meant.

    Rude.
     
  17. Andelusion

    Andelusion New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2013
    Messages:
    1,408
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That is not what the report said, and that isn't what happened. No where does it show melted steel. There's no pools of molten metal at this bridge.
    Nor any other large fire of a steel framed building.

    Now, to what I wager is the real point, yes a fire can cause the partial collapse of a structure. No one is denying that. When a structure catches fire, and burns hot enough the steel can warp and twist, droop and sag. The effects of those things is that whatever the steel is holding up, will often collapse. But the steel itself, is usually found intact, if drooping, twisted and sagging.

    For example the ruins of the Windsor Tower picture above. You can see that the frame is sagging. You can see some parts have fallen. You can see twisted metal and so on.

    What you don't see is a complete and utter collapse all the way to ground floor, like 9/11. You don't see molten metal flowing off the side. You don't see pools of molten metal at the base. And also, you don't see damage to floors that were not on fire. Granted all the floors caught on fire except 1 through 4 I believe. But there was no damage (other than water damage) to those floors. No magic explosions happened in the basement, and damaged the lobby.

    [​IMG]

    Clearly you can see twisted steel. You can see where it gave way. What you can't see is any molten steel, or melted steel, or anything similar. Why? Because... it's not there....

    By the way, another problem is that even in this picture, what you do is is steel structures that still exist. They might be twisted, warped, sagging and so on, but they are still there. Just like the Windsor Tower, the majority of the structure was still there.

    Yet the twin towers was a total and complete collapse all the way to ground level. I know of no other steel framed building that has done this. I've seen the roof of a auditorium fall in, but I have never seen every single wall leveled.
     
  18. Andelusion

    Andelusion New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2013
    Messages:
    1,408
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So, I looked up that photo, and couldn't find a single source. You claim it was at the twin towers. Can you explain how a fire 70 floors up, apparently wiped out a car in garage? Are you part of the magic fuel people who think the fuel remained unignited as it flowed down from the 76th floor, into the garage, and then flowed over to the car, and lit it on fire?

    The fuzzyness of the photo makes it impossible to determine where that car is, or what happened to it.

    I am not denying that metal can be melted, or that aluminum in the car can melt and make that tiny little stream. But that's not a bright yellow river collected into a pool, like we saw at ground zero.

    So no.... sorry. That is not a valid explanation.
     
  19. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    We NEVER saw a 'bright yellow river collected into a pool' at ground zero.....
     
  20. cjnewson88

    cjnewson88 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,133
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Picture is not from ground zero. I never said it was. I was showing you that cars melt when they are on fire.

    How does fire 70 stories up get into the basement??? You are aware the buildings collapsed, right? You are aware the 6 sub-basement levels collapsed? All that burning building fell into the basement when it collapsed. Wow, do show some thought.

    The amount of Aluminium alone would suffice to create pools of molten metal. Not only are there many things made of aluminium in the rubble pile, but the entire facade of both the twin towers is aluminium cladding. Where do you think that all went when the buildings collapsed?

    But, this is beside the point. It makes logical sense that large, hot office fires in the buildings should leave large, hot fires in the rubble pile. That is a no brainer. Now stop avoiding the question, and tell me how molten metal comes as a result of controlled demolition?
     
  21. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Not to mention a lot of things in the twers were likely zinc,which melts at an even lower temp than aluminum.

    I know a lot of things in cars are.
     
  22. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Pure aluminum, sure. The expert in my link does not make a case for pure aluminum.

    In what scenario does controlled demolition leave molten metal?
     
  23. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The use of high temperature super thermate that liquifies metal, as was used in WTC1,2, AND 7.
     
  24. cjnewson88

    cjnewson88 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,133
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Therm*te is quick reacting, any metal it melts quickly solidifies. Do you have any evidence that therm*te would leave pools of metal? Just how much therm*te are we talking about here?
     
  25. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There aren't even any truther sites that make this claim. Did you make it up?

    Your scenario is impossible.
     

Share This Page