Hard facts that there is no way around

Discussion in '9/11' started by MkStevenson, Jul 15, 2014.

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. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,489
    Trophy Points:
    113
    All been explained before and it is not surprising that when someone hears a loud noise that they would use the word explosion unless you think they were in on it to make all you truthers go crazy.
     
  2. LogicallyYours

    LogicallyYours New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2013
    Messages:
    2,233
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ok, this one:

    This claim of themite found has been debunked. Not true...and more, Harrit/Jones will not release or share their sample for testing. Why?
     
  3. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    My take on the dust bit, and this dovetails with my assertion that 9/11/2001 was the most poorly documented disaster since the invention of photography. The dust samples should be abundant, out of the many tons of dust that fell on Manhattan, how much of the dust was actually saved for analysis? FEMA, FBI, ( etc ..... ) where allegedly on scene to "investigate" and had more than plenty of opportunity to gather up & store samples. Not to mention EPA, ( etc .... ) there are a lot of entities that should have considered it in the best interests of doing their job, that is the job that taxpayers pay them to do, to gather up samples and catalog said samples as to where & when they were taken. But apparently the only samples, are those in private hands and even academia doesn't have access to samples of the dust. I believe that WHY is a very valid question, and that the people on the public payroll who should have been doing their jobs on 9/11/2001 and indeed were not should be held accountable, but its a bit late now. If you were to observe the scene at say a train wreck, or a large freeway pile up, there WILL be a photographer who is on the public payroll in some form either as a function of the Sheriffs office or Highway Patrol or (?) but there will be documentary photos done. On the subject of 9/11/2001, were are the pix, the documentary photos that would shed light on the allegation that there were straight cut columns to be seen before the clean-up effort happened. Or is this a case of the perpetrator, not wanting to collect up incriminating evidence?
     
  4. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Source for this claim, please.
     
  5. MkStevenson

    MkStevenson Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2014
    Messages:
    66
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Insert 'truther link, then insert 'truther link', etc.

    Good way to avoid specific discussion, I guess.

    - - - Updated - - -


    Self explanatory. There exists no evidence to confirm the opposite so, there ya go.
     
  6. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,489
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In other words, don't read facts, stick to the fantasy.
     
  7. MkStevenson

    MkStevenson Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2014
    Messages:
    66
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So there was molten metal, correct?
     
  8. MkStevenson

    MkStevenson Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2014
    Messages:
    66
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Fine. Which thread?
     
  9. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    19,117
    Likes Received:
    3,667
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Quite possibly yes weeks after the collapse which is irrelevant
     
  10. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    exactly why should it be irrelevant to find molten metal
    weeks after the "collapse"?
     
  11. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Molten metal is not evidence of controlled demolition. CD does not use heat.
     
  12. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    First of all, explosives in any form, create heat, its simply a product
    of the action of the explosive. You are right a mundane CD operation
    does not produce molten metal, however to take the term at face value
    Controlled Demolition is simply a Demolition that is in a Controlled manner. So, other things such as ejected parts of the building and molten metal may not fit the standard CD operation, however the major feature is that its a demolition, and its under control. This fits because it is extremely rare
    ( if happens ever ) that the total destruction of anything happens as it were "by chance" as if somebody could roll snake-eys 1,000,000 times in a row with perfectly legit dice.
     
  13. MkStevenson

    MkStevenson Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2014
    Messages:
    66
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Almost like irradiated metal, weeks after. Metal that got so hot it literally took weeks and months to cool. Office fires sure do seem to pack quite a punch, don't they (considering the bulk of the fuel burned off on impact)? Those big giant fireballs tell us that much. All in an hour. How nicely, and neatly expeditious. Wouldn't want to have too much time for speculation, I guess.
     
  14. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I can see you've never used a Dutch oven....
     
  15. MkStevenson

    MkStevenson Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2014
    Messages:
    66
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Oh. It was product from a Dutch oven then?
     
  16. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    zoooooooooom!...right over your head
    A dutch oven is used for cooking using buried coals..
     
  17. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    and these coals can be expected to melt the metal DUTCH OVEN?
     
  18. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Nothing was melted.....you may try again.
     
  19. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That was my point, your underground fire burns hot enough
    for cooking but not hot enough to be a danger to the metal
    dutch oven. However, this still leaves in question exactly what
    did cause the heat that was seen in the form of either glowing
    hot metal, or liquid metal observed at ground zero.....
     
  20. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The bulk of the office fuel burned off during impact? That's quite a claim.
     
  21. MkStevenson

    MkStevenson Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2014
    Messages:
    66
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Remember that huge fireball? Well, it wasn't moisture I the air that created them. The kerosene like fuel all but burned off in the first few second on impact. Probably then, the kerosene that had gotten inside and down the walls/stairwells, ignited the thermite so the whole process could speed up and hurry the collapse.
     
  22. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You can't ignite thermite that way.

    The jet fuel ignited fires across multiple parts of multiple floors all at once. To simply say it all burned up in the first few seconds is disingenuous. People in the lobby and the basements smelled the jet fuel: it went throughout the building.
     
  23. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,489
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So, how many tons of fuel stayed in the building? How did it burn compared to the fuel that made it outside (what you saw)?
     
  24. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    The one labeled:

    Discussion of Harrit's Bentham paper regarding thermite...
     
  25. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Just noticed he was banned...

    Oh well.
     

Share This Page