9/11 Conspiracy Thread (There can be only one!)
- Thread starter Stryder
- Start date
- Status
Sir, that is incorrect. Desist.
I'm not asking anyone to believe anything, "belief" is the problem, not any kind of solution. tons of molten iron were found in the "dust" as microspheres largely not noticeable, 10 tons is a fairly accurate estimate from what is known about the samples and how much dust was estimated.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf
Firefighters and construction workers saw "molten steel":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqNugYbZX7E
there were many other witnessess, statements from various people, the links have already been provided.
Okay you are concentrating on that floor. However the consensus appears to be that it wasn't the collision alone that brought down the towers. If there was no jet fuel then they would most likely still be standing.
Thank you HS for responding to my question.
FYI...I do most of my posting from work, and I can't view .pdf files or you tube videos. I don't have admin rights to install Adobe or Flash.
The simple fact...we have clear video of the collapse..no one in this thread is disputing the collapse started at the impact point of the aircrafts. In the few seconds before the collapse..we don't see anything that suggests either explosives or a thermite-like matierial was used.
If explosives were used...then we would have heard the explosions just before the collapse started. If a thermite type substance was used...we would a have seen a shit load of smoke of a different color just pouring out of the side of the building..because the amount of thermite that would have to be used to cut enough structure in the building to cause collapse would be seen on the video.
I just see a building just start to collapse...with nothing fishy happening beforehand.
FYI...I do most of my posting from work, and I can't view .pdf files or you tube videos. I don't have admin rights to install Adobe or Flash.
The simple fact...we have clear video of the collapse..no one in this thread is disputing the collapse started at the impact point of the aircrafts. In the few seconds before the collapse..we don't see anything that suggests either explosives or a thermite-like matierial was used.
If explosives were used...then we would have heard the explosions just before the collapse started. If a thermite type substance was used...we would a have seen a shit load of smoke of a different color just pouring out of the side of the building..because the amount of thermite that would have to be used to cut enough structure in the building to cause collapse would be seen on the video.
I just see a building just start to collapse...with nothing fishy happening beforehand.
what about partly melted girders, did you consider that in your thinking? or did you just trawl the debunking sites for best answer without thinking?
he doesn't "maintain" fire caused the damage, he has offered a weakly supported hypothesis where he says "might explain" - that is not a high level of confidence. whether he believes in "conspiracy theories" or not is not my concern. "conspiracy theory" is a term used to close debate, not open it up.
google "Metastable Intermolecular Composites" and you will find that Nanothermite is a high explosive more powerful than RDX. if RDX can destroy steel then nanothermite can too.
you cannot buy it on ebay, its high tech stuff.
No, thermite carries a very specific signature like a fingerprint. This fingerprint has been found in the microspheres
I have already explained to you that barium nitrate is not used in nanothermite. It is just an oxidizer whose function is just to provide additional oxygen to the reaction. Potassium permanganate is a better oxidizer and has been nano engineered too.
here is the evidence of explosives found in the dust. Apparantly it is unreacted nanothermite, as i said high tech stuff:
if you cannot accept this as evidence then you will accept nothing at all.
Watch here :
http://mikephilbin.blogspot.com/2008/07/you-cant-buy-nano-thermite-on-e-bay.html
1) If there is a molten material, how do they know it's steel?
2) It's already known that most of the quotes regarding molten steel were describing steel that was red hot, not molten. They were describing steel which was deformed by heat, eg. "molten steel beams". How can it be a beam if it is molten? These are laymans using the term "molten" incorrectly.
3) Please demonstrate how thermite can initiate a collapse of a steel framed building
4) Explain why if there really were tons of molten steel, why we never saw any as the tower was collapsing. All that thermite and no obvious thermite reaction anywhere.
No what he is describing sounds like very soft steel, perhaps even close to melting point but not liquid. From an earlier article.
http://chronicle.com/free/v48/i15/15a02701.htm
“few days after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl stood at a recycling center in New Jersey, staring intently at some 10-ton steel beams that had once held up two of the world's tallest buildings. They looked like giant sticks of twisted licorice”
“he describes the connections as being smoothly warped: "If you remember the Salvador Dalí paintings with the clocks that are kind of melted -- it's kind of like that. That could only happen if you get steel yellow hot or white hot -- perhaps around 2,000 degrees."
Hey look he used the word melted!
Interestingly another problem you have that there is no way of knowing if the steel was further heated after the collapse.
Tons of molten iron? Wouldn't it take two tons of thermite to produce one ton of iron?
There may have been iron spheres but there are other explanations that don’t involve super nano thermite.
Did you deduce this with psychic powers? You can quote mine and make all the assumptions you like but he is clear regarding his opinion on the collapse. Considering the steel buildings which have collapsed due to fire it isn't a surprise.
Even if, for the sake of argument, we assume that it was a hypothesis that ‘might explain’ what happened, the question remains that if he did see molten steel why would he then think the fire caused it?
Even Shaman agrees with me on this point. Will you finally admit you're mistaken on something?
Last edited:
Even NIST says that the jet fuel lasted for only around 10 minutes and did relatively little damage. They seem to think that the ensuing relatively small (for the building not the people in it) office fires were more the cause of the collapse. This despite firefighters believing they could control said fires. NIST also uses some simulations of the fire that disagree with observed results. I may try to get this if I can finally get access to a faster computer (this one is running windows xp and has only 384 megs of RAM and the speed of the computer confirms it).
The firefighters also heard explosions within the building and this was another matter entirely. The explosions in the basement are some of the clearest indications that the jets and the fires they created were not what brought the building down. The official story tries to account for the explosions in the basement by saying that it was only jet fuel going down 75-80 floors. I would certainly enjoy hearing how likely this is of ocurring.
Testimonies have stated that an explosion in the basement happened moments -before- the plane hit one of the buildings. They felt that the explosion was nearby, not 75+ floors above them. William Rodriguez also says that he then felt the impact of the plane far above but didn't know what it was until he was later told.
I'm not sure on the particulars of this but remember that the contention is that thermate TH3 or nano/super thermite (they're all the same thing) was used, not thermite.
Such as?
The thing is, aircrafts are not exatly 'points'. They're actually fairly large. In the north tower, the impact created damage on multiple floors. Now here's the interesting part; although the plane did a lot more damage to floors 95 and 96, floor 98, despite only being hit by a part of the wing and having only lost about 1% of its weight bearing load capability from the crash is the floor that first collapsed. Why not floor 95 or 96? Perhaps the people who demolished the building didn't think that people would analyze these details...
I disagree with you there, but I'm on a slow comp and so can't go looking for the information right now. There were also quite noticeable squibs during the collapse itself. The way the collapse occurred, with mushroom like plumes, also makes it clear that it was demolished. While its true that dust does rise from buildings that simply collapse without explosives, from what I remember, most of it occurs when the dust hits the ground, not before.
It has been argued that explosions were heard just before and during the collapse, though not nearly as loud as a normal controlled demolition. There is no mistake that the twin tower collapses were highly unusual even for controlled demolitions, as they collapsed from near the top down, instead of from the bottom up. However, just because the collapse didn't happen as a demolition usually does doesn't mean that demolitions (albeit it 2 unusual ones) is not the most plausible explanation for what occured. The third collapse, that of WTC 7, proceeded the way demolitions usually do, that is, from the bottom up.
There is a lot of evidence that it was. The white color of a fair amount of the smoke is to many evidence that thermite was used; from what i understand nano thermite produces aluminum oxide, which appears as white smoke.
Most of this post has been addressed already scott. Perhaps you think repeating lots of debunked arguments in the same post will make them more convincing. It doesn't.
http://www.badeagle.com/beimages/WTC5.jpg
If WTC was smaller it would probably be more obvious to you just how bad the fires were. Perhaps because the building is so big it looks like only a small percentage is on fire so it should be ok. You only needed one floor to fail and the building would start collapsing.
http://www.debunking911.com/genfires.htm
http://www.debunking911.com/fire1.htm
http://www.debunking911.com/fire2.htm
http://www.debunking911.com/fire3.htm
Once again there isn't really a large body of knowledge regarding large planes hitting skyscrapers.
Quote mining is dishonest and desperate.
The collapse started at the top.
The jet fuel may have burnt out in ten minutes but NIST certainly don't think it did 'relatively little damage'. With thousands of gallons of jet fuel you can start an inferno in an office building.
Small fires?
http://www.badeagle.com/beimages/WTC5.jpg
If WTC was smaller it would probably be more obvious to you just how bad the fires were. Perhaps because the building is so big it looks like only a small percentage is on fire so it should be ok. You only needed one floor to fail and the building would start collapsing.
http://www.debunking911.com/genfires.htm
http://www.debunking911.com/fire1.htm
http://www.debunking911.com/fire2.htm
http://www.debunking911.com/fire3.htm
Should they have stood out the front and watched while people were dying? I think it is offensive that you try to use this as proof for controlled demolition.
Once again there isn't really a large body of knowledge regarding large planes hitting skyscrapers.
There were lots of exploding noises that day.
Quote mining is dishonest and desperate.
Scott,
The collapse started at the top.
There were also lifts whose cables were severed. The emergency brakes stopped some but others went all the way to the lobby or the basement.
Up there with the more stupid theories as the people in the basement couldn't see the plane so they couldn't know if any banging noises were before the plane hit.
Perhaps they did feel explosions nearby but not the initial one.
Why is that strange?
Last edited:
I don't think there is a point here as it wasn't the collision alone that brought the building down.
How convenient of you to think so. Once again, the point was that floor 98 in the north tower (WTC 1) was the first floor to collapse, even though it received relatively minor damage from the plane. Again I ask you- why is it that that floor collapsed first, instead of floor 95 or 96 which were much more seriously damaged by the plane?
Floor 98 is mentioned in his link. Sorry. Desist.
Geoff, please read what I write carefully. This is what I said:
"What you are quoting makes absolutely no mention of floor 98 at all."
Notice the 'what you are quoting' bit. I'm making a simple point on floor 98 and he quotes passages about floors 95, 96 and 97.. no 98. I never said that somewhere in the linked material it doesn't mention floor 98. I simply said that what he quoted was completely besides the point.
Since you obviously don't have and real physics knowledge, here's a pointer. HEAT RISES. When the fuel in the plane was burning, the hotest points would be around and ABOVE the fires. Those supports heated and buckled first, then proceeded to take the rest down.
I don't see how anyone could think this was a controlled demo. Do you realize that these girders aren't exposed in offices? To do this, they would have to drill/saw through concrete and drywall to install the demo, and wires would be running through all these offices? Why don't people remember all these wires running everywhere? I doubt everyone who did this could be silenced. There were people from those offices that didn't go to work that day, and they have no memory of people installing anything like this.
wires and cabling?
how do they fire explosive bolts on spacecraft orbiting mars?
you're not suggesting they use wires and cables all the way back to earth are you?
all these speculative questions are irrelevant if high tech unreacted nanocomposite explosives were found:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=300WYhC6KQI&e
how do they fire explosive bolts on spacecraft orbiting mars?
you're not suggesting they use wires and cables all the way back to earth are you?
all these speculative questions are irrelevant if high tech unreacted nanocomposite explosives were found:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=300WYhC6KQI&e
- Status