9/11 Conspiracy Thread (There can be only one!)

[Headspin]

well that's fine if you want to JUST build it. but what if you want to build it without anyone discovering you built it? or build it without the builder knowing he is going to be building it?
steakknife and shoes please!

what is the point of an analogy anyway? analogies are supposed to simplify a discussion, they are not meant to associate the topic of discussion with absurdities.

If you want to bring a building down and fool people into thinking that fire did it,
then your project requirements would be different to JUST bringing down the building.

you would want to minimise the chance of being caught :
1. during installation
2. during demolition
3. and after the fact during cleanup.
and also provide plausible deniabilty in the event of an abort.

<nanothermite> does not reach temperatures high enough to vaporize steel.

Actually yes it does- "reaction zone temperature exceeding 3000K (equivalent to 2700 Celcius or 5000 Fahrenheit)"

page 45: http://ammtiac.alionscience.com/pdf/AMPQ6_1ART06.pdf

Nanothermite, and regular thermite are chemically identical. The only difference between the two is nanothermite is ground into microscopic size particles, massively increasing the surface area for burning. It only makes the reaction happen much much faster. (not the best thing for cutting through stuff..see the video where they had to use a flower pot to slow the thermite reaction down, so it could cut through the car). The explosive force created by superheating of the air around the nanothermite would do nothing to the support columns.

"certain key MIC (Metastable Intermolecular Composites) characteristics are very attractive and quite promising for practical applications. These include energy output that is 2x that of typical high explosives, the ability to tune the reactive power (10 KW/cc to 10 GW/cc), tunable reaction front velocities of 0.1-1500 meters/sec"

A little known and new high tech incendary that you could tailor to requirements in terms of shockwave, burn rate, ignition temperature, burn temperature, etc would be a perfect choice for a covert demolition.

All this speculative reasoning is irrelevent because UNREACTED nanothermite WAS FOUND in the debris!
http://www.911blogger.com/node/18459

 

[scott3x]

Heck why stop there, if the conspiracy had weight and the government planned it all and had planted such charges, why use Commercial Grade when you can go to town with Military Grade hardware?

You aware that nano thermites -are- military grade hardware? That they are classified as -super- explosives? And that the people who knew most about them are the Department of Defense and NIST, who wouldn't even go so far as mentioning them, instead only mentioning normal thermite? And even NIST admits it did not test for any type of thermite in the debris.

 

[scott3x]

well that's fine if you want to JUST build it. but what if you want to build it without anyone discovering you built it? or build it without the builder knowing he is going to be building it?
steakknife and shoes please!

Headspin, from what I've heard, nanothermites are super explosives; so it would seem that they'd be one of the best tools, if not the best tool to do the job.

 

[scott3x]

Originally Posted by scott3x

Not exactly someone who would make a casual mistake on such things, don't you think?

If you look at the article you will see that the words are actually those of the author James Glanz. He is paraphrasing Barnett, not quoting.

Fine, he's paraphrasing. No one has ever said that he misinterpreted Jonathan Barnett.

Originally Posted by scott3x

Furthermore, if Dr. Barnett made a mistake after having had his statement on evaporated steel published in the New York Times, don't you think it'd make sense to have made a retraction? And yet, I have seen no such thing occur.

Don’t be ridiculous.

I see nothing to ridicule in my above remarks.

If you actually read the article it says they found the cause of the collapse. The cause had nothing to do with explosives.

Not only did I read the article: I know that NIST later discredited that supposed cause. The cause that NIST gave, that office fires alone did it, makes even less sense.

They later released their report stating that they found no evidence of temperatures anywhere near the 2700C needed to evaporate steel.

Fine. This still begs the question: -why- was no retraction made by Jonathan Barnett concerning his claim concerning evaporated steel? And if the reporter was mistaken, why didn't Jonathan Barnett make that clear ages ago?

Originally Posted by scott3x

Surely you agree that there should be an investigation as to why his finding was not included in the report?

Utter stupidity. As he was not even quoted saying it we can't be sure that even said those words.

You certainly have a fondness for insulting me and a complete lack of interest in questioning the official story. Wouldn't it be good to have Jonathan Barnett state for the record whether the reporter got him right or not? Wouldn't it be good to know why Jonathan Barnett didn't include this claim of evaporated steel in the report? These questions are not 'utter stupidity'. You may have forgotten, but 3000 people died on 9/11 and countless more as a result of that event. If even the shadow of a doubt exists that this could have been an inside job, we should leave no stone unturned to find out if this was indeed the case. At present, I'd argue that it's more that there's only a shadow of a doubt that it wasn't, but in order to not see this, your approach is classic; instead of agreeing that many questions remain to be answered, you insult anyone who questions the official story...

 

[scott3x]

Originally Posted by scott3x

Since the aforementioned 2004 report, I agree that NIST has updated their assessment of how high the temperature of steel could have gotten, although they never state that the -steel- could have reached 1000C; only that the air temperature could have reached it for 15 to 20 minutes.

NIST believe that the temperature did reach those numbers.

What numbers?

As established, unprotected steel will reach temperatures marginally lower than that of the atmosphere.

As established, the WTC fires had no chance of reaching 1000C without a lot of aid (explosives, say). Apparently, it didn't even get to 700C, as an excerpt from an article comparing the WTC 1975 fire to the 2001 fire notes:
****************************
That the 1975 fire was more intense than the 9/11 fires is evident from the fact that it caused the 11th floor east side windows to break and flames could be seen pouring from these broken windows. This indicates a temperature greater than 700°C. In the 9/11 fires the windows were not broken by the heat (only by the aircraft impact) indicating a temperature below 700°C.
****************************
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/wtc_1975_fire.html

There is evidence that the steel reached a temperature that caused it to get very soft. Abolhassan Astaneh commented that he thought the steel reached temperatures over 1000C.

Astaneh -also- believed that some of the steel was vaporized. Yes, yes, he was paraphrased as well. Seriously, I don't know why you go on with this. -Ofcourse- I believe that the temperatures of the steel got to 1000C and beyond; my point is simply that the office fires were incapable of pulling this off.

Originally Posted by scott3x

It matters because if the jet fuel and/or office fires couldn't have done it...

Why not? There is ample evidence that they can and did reach temperatures that high. The Cardington tests had temperatures reaching 1000C. This has been pointed out to you about a dozen times.

If memory serves, the Cardington tests were not modelling the WTC towers.

Originally Posted by scott3x

it must have been caused by something else, such as explosives.

Only if you wish to leave reality and ignore all the evidence you don’t like.

Once again, explosives explode, they don’t just make the temperature higher.

When did I ever argue otherwise? There is -so- much evidence of explosions, from the volcano like 'collapse' to the multiple witnesses who heard and felt the explosions.

The thousands of liters of jet fuel initiated a massive office fire over many floors.

Even NIST believes that the jet fuel fires lasted at most 15 to 20 minutes and were essentially of minor relevance to the collapse of the towers; the idea being that the important thing was the fires they inspired. But the fires they inspired were in truth of similar small relevance and bigger ones didn't bring it down in 1975. The only way NIST could even get them to the 'poised for collapse' stage was by jerry rigging their computer models. It seems that even NIST realized that actually trying to model the collapses themselves based on the fires would be too tortuous to even attempt.

 

[scott3x]

Originally Posted by scott3x

Where does the claim say that the steel core didn't survive a few moments after the collapse? The point is it was completely destroyed at amazing speed.

No that was not the point. Re-read it. They are claiming that the steel was totally obliterated during the collapse. This is completely wrong.

Apparently the problem here is just one of your understanding. If you look at the page they link to you will find out what they meant:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/steel.html

 

[scott3x]

There was steel at the WTC site for about six months and thousands had access to it.

Access is not the same thing as having a good chance to examine the steel. Unless you think a 'tourist trip' will do the job:
http://911review.com/coverup/fema_wtc.html

To say that is was rapidly removed or destroyed is wrong. You will no doubt keep saying it though as facts are not important to your conspiracy fantasy.

Indeed I will keep on saying it. The facts are on my side as can clearly be seen here:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/groundzero/cleanup.html

 

[shaman_]

Fine, he's paraphrasing. No one has ever said that he misinterpreted Jonathan Barnett.

What, no one in the street has mentioned it to you? ... The point is that he is paraphrasing. Barnett may not have ever used the word ‘evaporate’. The all the evidence so far, including the analysis from Barnett’s team, contradict the idea that the steel evaporated.

I see nothing to ridicule in my above remarks.

I’m sure you don’t Scott.

Not only did I read the article: I know that NIST later discredited that supposed cause. The cause that NIST gave, that office fires alone did it, makes even less sense.

:wallbang:

Stop being obtuse and focus on the point being discussed. We are trying to determine whether there was evidence of evaporated steel.
The point is that the team did not think explosives were involved or that the steel reached those temperatures. So clearly they did not find any evidence for temperatures around 2700C.

Fine. This still begs the question: -why- was no retraction made by Jonathan Barnett concerning his claim concerning evaporated steel? And if the reporter was mistaken, why didn't Jonathan Barnett make that clear ages ago?

Because no one cares about the paraphrasing in an article from seven years ago except for a few gullible conspiracy theorists. Barnett’s reputation is not on the line and he is not going to give it a second of thought.

You certainly have a fondness for insulting me and a complete lack of interest in questioning the official story. Wouldn't it be good to have Jonathan Barnett state for the record whether the reporter got him right or not? Wouldn't it be good to know why Jonathan Barnett didn't include this claim of evaporated steel in the report? These questions are not 'utter stupidity'. You may have forgotten, but 3000 people died on 9/11 and countless more as a result of that event. If even the shadow of a doubt exists that this could have been an inside job, we should leave no stone unturned to find out if this was indeed the case. At present, I'd argue that it's more that there's only a shadow of a doubt that it wasn't, but in order to not see this, your approach is classic; instead of agreeing that many questions remain to be answered, you insult anyone who questions the official story...

Appealing to emotion is a logical fallacy. I don’t know if I have insulted you directly yet. I have certainly insulted your comments. However that did not start happening until about 80 pages into the discussion.

Sure it would be great to get Barnett to clarify. Give him a call or send him an email.

However, if I was an American taxpayer and my money was going to an investigation based on the bad science, quote mining and ignorance I would be furious.

What numbers? .

1000C

As established, the WTC fires had no chance of reaching 1000C without a lot of aid .

Established …how? All you have done is claim it so over and over.

(explosives, say). Apparently, it didn't even get to 700C, as an excerpt from an article comparing the WTC 1975 fire to the 2001 fire notes: .

Didn’t you say previously that the fire went over 1000C? Can’t you see how you keep contradicting yourself? You are trying to demonstrate that the fire was at a low temperature at the same time you are trying to prove very high temperatures. Your arguments are a mess.

****************************
That the 1975 fire was more intense than the 9/11 fires is evident from the fact that it caused the 11th floor east side windows to break and flames could be seen pouring from these broken windows. This indicates a temperature greater than 700°C. In the 9/11 fires the windows were not broken by the heat (only by the aircraft impact) indicating a temperature below 700°C.
****************************
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/wtc_1975_fire.html .

NIST reported hundreds of windows broken by fire…….

Astaneh -also- believed that some of the steel was vaporized. .

You are being dishonest. He did not say that. He made it clear that he believed the steel got very soft. Not molten or vapor.

Yes, yes, he was paraphrased as well. Seriously, I don't know why you go on with this. -Ofcourse- I believe that the temperatures of the steel got to 1000C and beyond; my point is simply that the office fires were incapable of pulling this off. .

Yet you have no evidence to support this belief, in fact you need to ignore a lot of evidence to sustain it.

If memory serves, the Cardington tests were not modelling the WTC towers. .

Oh scott you are really struggling now. My reference to the Cardington tests - “The Behaviour of a Multi-storey Steel Framed Building Subjected to Fire Attack – Experimental Data, British Steel PLC, 1998……. Also known as “The Cardington Tests.”
The data is somewhat relevant don’t you think?

When did I ever argue otherwise?

Are you reading your own posts? You said “the WTC fires had no chance of reaching 1000C without a lot of aid (explosives, say).”

There is -so- much evidence of explosions, from the volcano like 'collapse' to the multiple witnesses who heard and felt the explosions.

Explosives shatter and break things with force, they don’t just make steel hotter. So why do you keep saying that explosives caused the steel to get to 1000C and soft?

Even NIST believes that the jet fuel fires lasted at most 15 to 20 minutes and were essentially of minor relevance to the collapse of the towers;

Again you are trying to misrepresent the truth. Without the jet fuel there would not have been raging fires across many floors.

the idea being that the important thing was the fires they inspired. But the fires they inspired were in truth of similar small relevance and bigger ones didn't bring it down in 1975. The only way NIST could even get them to the 'poised for collapse' stage was by jerry rigging their computer models. It seems that even NIST realized that actually trying to model the collapses themselves based on the fires would be too tortuous to even attempt.

The fire in 1975 clearly not more intense than the one on 9/11. The claim for this based on the broken windows and it is completely wrong. There are numerous other differences which even a ten year old could see.

 

[shaman_]

Apparently the problem here is just one of your understanding. If you look at the page they link to you will find out what they meant:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/steel.html

So are you claiming that the steel core was totally destroyed or not?

 

[scott3x]

Originally Posted by scott3x

Fine. The above quote from NCSTAR-1F seems to essentially be saying the same thing as before- that the maximum air temperature was 1000C for 15 to 20 minutes. The steel certainly wasn't mentioned.

As has been demonstrated to you, the temperature of the steel will be only marginally below that of the atmosphere.

Where has it been supposedly demonstrated to me?

So the temperatures reached that high, just as seen in the tests and the simulations. This is corroborated by the other evidence such as the bowing, molten material, soft steel ect. All the different pieces of evidence point to the temperatures being near 1000C.

Don't confuse evidence that the steel reached 1000C and beyond with evidence that the fires did it.

Originally Posted by scott3x

Originally Posted by shaman_

Originally Posted by scott3x

For office fires, yes, but not for a thermate induced demolition. Surely you realize that if evaporated steel were truly found, it would be fatal to the official story?

No evaporated steel was found.

I'm not so sure of that, but you didn't answer my question.

Your question was a pointless one.

No, it's not. I think the reason you believe it's a pointless question is because you refuse to contemplate the possibility that both Astaneh's and Barnett's statements on the presence of evaporated steel were in fact correct, instead relying on the fact that no reports mentioned this fact. If you were for to a moment contemplate the possibility that these reports were rigged, then the fact that there were statements by 2 very prominent people in the WTC building collapse investigations should be of great concern indeed, as the presence of evaporated steel would be yet another sign that explosives were involved in the WTC building collapses.

Though I'm not sure how you would even identify something that has been evaporated.

You'd have to ask Dr. Barnett.

Why don’t you think about it.

Why don't you? I, for one, don't have the qualifications of either Dr. Barnett or Dr. Astaneh-Asl concerning such things. Do you?

I definitely disagree with you there:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2082459&postcount=2203

The problems with that molten metal page have been pointed out to you numerous times.[/quote]

Can you point out where it's supposedly been pointed out to me?

Originally Posted by scott3x

I, on the other hand, would argue that you are the one who doesn't want to ponder anything that might disagree with the official story, such as Dr. Barnett's comment on evaporated steel.

Nope. I went looking for corroborating evidence and instead what I found was the report by his team that estimated temperatures near 1000C. The very article has the headline explaining that they found the cause of the collapse and it wasn’t bombs.

Yes, I know that. Their explanation for the collapse of WTC 7 was deemed to be flawed, as I have mentioned already. The NIST explanation is also fatally flawed. I also note that you missed Astaneh-Asl's statement regarding vaporized steel for the WTC towers.

Originally Posted by scott3x

1- Quit making personal attacks.

If you want to make a case of my comment I encourage you to do so.

I just did.

I have been very, very patient with you Scott and I think a moderator will see that if they read from the start.

I think I've been far more patient; I take all these personal attacks and yet have never returned fire.

Meanwhile although you do not make personal attacks, your behavior borders on intellectual dishonesty and trolling.

Prove it.

Originally Posted by scott3x

2- Based on your previous statement, I believe my response made sense.

[snip personal attack] You have posted a photo of a building halfway through a collapse, you think it looks like a building exploding so you think explosives caused the collapse. If you watch the video and not just look at a still photo it is clear that the building is not exploding it is collapsing.

You honestly think I haven't seen the videos? I'd argue that the videos make it even clearer that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolitions.

Originally Posted by scott3x

With the help of some high powered explosives, I'd agree.

High powered explosives to not warm up and soften steel.

I challenge you to find evidence that would show that explosives couldn't have brought down those buildings and rendered the steel the way it was found.

Originally Posted by scott3x

Fire alone has never brought down a steel-frame high-rise before or since.

[snip insulting comment]Others and myself have explained why that comment is meaningless numerous times.

If that's true, why not link your explanation?

 

[scott3x]

Originally Posted by scott3x

Apparently the problem here is just one of your understanding. If you look at the page they link to you will find out what they meant:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/anal...ses/steel.html

So are you claiming that the steel core was totally destroyed or not?

As I mentioned before, the steel core lasted for a second or 2 before falling down with everything else. Nowhere do Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth claim otherwise.

 

[scott3x]

Originally Posted by scott3x

I have already listed a bunch of points from the A&E web site that make it clear that it was a controlled demolition.

Those points have all been debunked [snip insulting comment]

Actually, it's the other way around (I debunked the debunker, Kenny). When I first saw your flippant response, I considered the possibility of having to re-debunk everything. I loathed the prospect, so I decided to create a web site that includes the refutations of me and Headspin of his supposed debunkings:
http://scott3x.tripod.com/911/cd/

 

[scott3x]

Originally Posted by scott3x

The fact that it also had some unusual characteristics for a controlled demolition

No they were characteristics unlike a controlled demolition.

It has some characteristics that are unlike a normal controlled demolition. However, given the amount of characteristics that -are- like a normal demolition and the fact that the characteristics that are unusual for a controlled demolition can still be part of a controlled demolition -anyways- makes it the most plausible theory. For more plausible then the idea that fires took down the buildings.

 

[scott3x]

Originally Posted by scott3x
All matter weighs -something-. Spread out dust, however, doesn't weigh all that much per cubic meter.

The top thirty floors of WTC2 were not mostly dust and did weigh quite a lot.[/quote]

Until they were pulverized into dust in mid air anyway; these buildings had no need to 'pancake'; even when they're falling into thin air they spontaneously disintegrate...

Originally Posted by scott3x
And breaking up is putting it mildly; I think exploding outwards covers it better.

Complete nonsense. The top thirty floors are falling downwards. It is clear that they are falling, not exploding.

Or falling while exploding anyway...

Originally Posted by scott3x

There's also the issue that much of the WTC towers' debris fell outside of their footprints

I thought you and your ae911 buddies said it collapsed into it’s own footprint? Make your mind up.

You're thinking of WTC 7, which wasn't even an unusual demolition; from the bottom up, classic crimp and debris mainly in its own footprint. No plane hit it either. They did a real rush job when it came to examining the evidence there too, as Jonathan Barnett makes clear:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVGD_mFVY6I

Their excuse that they had to remove the steel for that building to 'help in the rescue efforts' is a little lame, considering that everyone was evacuated from that building. The fact that essentially all of the WTC 7 steel, instead of being taken somewhere else to properly analyze it, was simply scrapped, also lends credence to the idea that the powers that be wanted to get rid of it quickly.

Originally Posted by scott3x

all that debris simply couldn't have aided in the hopelessly flawed pancake collapse theory, because it wasn't even falling down on the rest of the building.

So because there was some ejected debris

Some? The concrete was pulverized in mid air. 9/11 researcher plaguepuppy makes it clear how this is yet another stake in the pancake collapse theory:
*********************************
In trying to come to terms with what actually happened during the collapse of the World Trade Towers, the biggest and most obvious problem that I see is the source of the enormous amount of very fine dust that was generated during the collapses. Even early on, when the tops of the buildings have barely started to move, we see this characteristic fine dust (mixed with larger chunks of debris) being shot out very energetically from the building. During the first few seconds of a gravitational fall nothing is moving very fast, and yet from the outset what appears to be powdered concrete can be seem blowing out to the sides, growing to an immense dust cloud as the collapse progresses.

The floors themselves are quite robust. Each one is 39" thick; the top 4" is a poured concrete slab, with interlocking vertical steel trusses (or spandrel members) underneath. This steel would absorb a lot of kinetic energy by crumpling as one floor fell onto another, at most pulverizing a small amount of concrete where the narrow edges of the trusses strike the floor below. And yet we see a very fine dust being blown very energetically out to the sides as if the entire mass of concrete (about 400,000 cubic yards for the whole building) were being converted to dust. Remember too that the tower fell at almost the speed of a gravitational free-fall, meaning that little energy was expended doing anything other than accelerating the floor slabs.

Considering the amount of concrete in a single floor (~1 acre x 4") and the chemical bond energy to be overcome in order to reduce it to a fine powder, it appears that a very large energy input would be needed. The only source for this, excluding for now external inputs or explosives, is the gravitational potential energy of the building. Any extraction of this energy for the disaggregation of the concrete would decrease the amount available for conversion to kinetic energy, slowing the speed of the falls. Yet we know that the buildings actually fell in about 9 seconds*, only slightly less than an unimpeded free-fall from the same height. This means that very little of the gravitational energy can have gone toward pulverizing the concrete.

Even beyond the question of the energy needed, what possible mechanism exists for pulverizing these vast sheets of concrete? Remember that dust begins to appear in quantity in the very earliest stages of the collapses, when nothing is moving fast relative to anything else in the structure. How then is reinforced concrete turned into dust and ejected laterally from the building at high speed?
*********************************
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/concrete.html

 

[shaman_]

Access is not the same thing as having a good chance to examine the steel.

The point is that it wasn’t spirited away quickly and anyone could have grabbed a piece.

Indeed I will keep on saying it. The facts are on my side as can clearly be seen here:

Six months is a hasty, speedy removal only in the heads of the gullible. Perhaps they should have left the pile of rubble there as a tourist attraction.. bodies and all.. It’s so suspicious that they didn’t. They must be hiding something!

 

[shaman_]

Where has it been supposedly demonstrated to me?

You have been shown different fire tests where this was the case. One was even presented by a 9/11 conspiracy site.

Don't confuse evidence that the steel reached 1000C and beyond with evidence that the fires did it.

You have no evidence that anything else did it. On the other hand it has been demonstrated that the fire was perfectly capable of doing so and this is supported by what was seen on the day.

No, it's not. I think the reason you believe it's a pointless question is because you refuse to contemplate the possibility that both Astaneh's and Barnett's statements on the presence of evaporated steel were in fact correct, instead relying on the fact that no reports mentioned this fact. If you were for to a moment contemplate the possibility that these reports were rigged, then the fact that there were statements by 2 very prominent people in the WTC building collapse investigations should be of great concern indeed, as the presence of evaporated steel would be yet another sign that explosives were involved in the WTC building collapses.

1. Show me where Astaneh's said the steel evaporated. 2. Barnett was not actually quoted saying that it evaporated. 3. Barnett’s team reported maximum temperatures around 1000C. 4. Barnett and Astaneh believe do not for a second believe that explosives were involved.

So you are willing to quote mine them and talk about there qualifications but then you ignore their conclusions...

You have nothing but just wont see it.

Why don't you? I, for one, don't have the qualifications of either Dr. Barnett or Dr. Astaneh-Asl concerning such things. Do you?

I think I gave you way too much credit. I’m starting to feel a little stupid that I bothered to discuss this for so long with someone who’s mind is only capable of spamming the same links over and over again.

I will spell it out for you. If the steel has evaporated then it isn’t there, is it? So how do you recognize if the steel had evaporated?

Can you point out where it's supposedly been pointed out to me?

You either have a memory problem or you are being obtuse. It has been discussed several times throughout this 100 page thread. I’m not finding the particular posts while I am at work.

Yes, I know that. Their explanation for the collapse of WTC 7 was deemed to be flawed, as I have mentioned already.

You are being intentionally dense. We were trying to determine if Barnett thought there was evaporated steel. It seems he did not after all.

The NIST explanation is also fatally flawed. I also note that you missed Astaneh-Asl's statement regarding vaporized steel for the WTC towers.

Where was this comment? Previous articles made it clear he was referring to soft steel.

I just did. .



I think I've been far more patient; I take all these personal attacks and yet have never returned fire.

You spam the same links over and over as if they have never been discussed before. Then when it is mentioned you say “really? Where?” Perhaps you have a genuine memory problem. Do you?

You honestly think I haven't seen the videos? I'd argue that the videos make it even clearer that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolitions.

Only if you have a religious like belief in fantasy conspiracies.

I challenge you to find evidence that would show that explosives couldn't have brought down those buildings and rendered the steel the way it was found.

A very lame attempt to shift the burden of proof. You are claiming that explosives can explain the softened steel? Is that correct? It is up to you to explain how that happened. However you are still being as vague as possible as to whether the thermate and explosives, megathermite, superthermite, ultrathermite and whatever was used to soften the steel, cut it or destroy it. I have asked you numerous times.

If that's true, why not link your explanation?

Because I’m not searching through 100+ pages at work to satisfy the need of someone who is either dishonest or has genuine mental problems.

As I mentioned before, the steel core lasted for a second or 2 before falling down with everything else. Nowhere do Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth claim otherwise.

It may have fallen but it was not completely destroyed.

It has some characteristics that are unlike a normal controlled demolition. However, given the amount of characteristics that -are- like a normal demolition and the fact that the characteristics that are unusual for a controlled demolition can still be part of a controlled demolition -anyways- makes it the most plausible theory. For more plausible then the idea that fires took down the buildings.

The WTC had very few similarities with a normal CD.

Until they were pulverized into dust in mid air anyway; these buildings had no need to 'pancake'; even when they're falling into thin air they spontaneously disintegrate...

So watch the video again. They were not pulverized into dust.... They didn’t fall into thin air, they were pushing down on the lower floors.... They didn’t spontaneously disintegrate. ...

You're thinking of WTC 7,

So when it collapses into it's own footprint it is suspicious and when it doesn't it is suspicious. I see.....

Some?

Yes some.

The concrete was pulverized in mid air.

Couldn't concrete have been 'pulverized' during the collapse?

9/11 researcher plaguepuppy makes it clear how this

Yet another link. Could you make an argument without relying on links so much?

 

[ScyentsIzLief]

What I don't understand is why this thread is put in pseudoscience. There is overwhelming science to back the 9/11 inside-job. The guess the mod(s) are still in denial or very ignorant.

 

[James R]

Welcome to sciforums, ScyentsIzLief.

You've been here for about 2 seconds and posted 11 posts, and already you're criticising the moderation of this forum.

Not an auspicious start to your time here, I'd say.

 

[ScyentsIzLief]

Welcome to sciforums, ScyentsIzLief.

You've been here for about 2 seconds and posted 11 posts, and already you're criticising the moderation of this forum.

Not an auspicious start to your time here, I'd say.

Not to mean any disrespect, but if you deny the evidence (as you are doing) what does that say about you? Aren't mods suppose to be objective? You're essentially insulting the 9/11 truth movement. There is absolutely nothing pseudoscience about facts that the towers fell at free fall speed, steel being melted by fire, explosions etc. What WAS pseudoscience was the mod's decision to put the thread here.

If you sincerely believe that the government would not do this to us, that's your issue. But, IMO, the actual event should be treated objectively. Limiting one thread and putting it in pseudoscience is an insult to the people who researched all the evidence and the people who died there.

I do feel strongly about the 9/11 truth and I think that since none of us are behind the attacks, we should all try to find the real truth. Everyone knows a poorly funded organization located in a 3rd world nation, like Al Queda, could not have succeeded in 9/11 if the U.S. didn't let it.

 

[Headspin]

There is ample evidence that they can and did reach temperatures that high. The Cardington tests had temperatures reaching 1000C. This has been pointed out to you about a dozen times. ”

If memory serves, the Cardington tests were not modelling the WTC towers.

Wasn't the point of the cardigan tests to see how steel and building behaved at various temperatures, rather than to see what temperatures would be reached?

Weren't the Cardigan temperatures the input data, rather than the output data?

If i do tests at various temperatures, I cannot conclude the temperatures reached were those temperatures at some other fire event. What I can conclude is how the steel behaves at certain temperatures.