BrokenVisage
Lifer
- Jan 29, 2005
- 24,772
- 14
- 81
You're grasping at straws and getting frustrated now, just shut up and remove yourself from this thread if you can't face the facts. Who cares about the molten steel!?! Why would the government ship it out of country to be melted down before it could be investigated is the real question, since we don't even know how molten the steel was. Our government has the obligation constitutionally of investigating acts of terror, what the hell are they doing shipping the steel to another country then?!
You're the troll here Acanthus, he's the one contributing to this thread while you type in caps and belittle him with your stupid little comments. What "facts" are being ignored? There WERE explosives, a freakin blind man could see that, and if you can't see it by now then I weep for your children, loser. :roll:
SarcasticDwarf
Diamond Member
- Jun 8, 2001
- 9,574
- 2
- 76
From what I can tell, thermite would not account for that. Thermite will melt through an object, fusing it and other metals around it. It does not liquify large masses. Basically you would need to have huge amounts of it (especially for the vertical mbeams) in order to liquify anything.
SarcasticDwarf
Diamond Member
- Jun 8, 2001
- 9,574
- 2
- 76
It did look a lot like a controlled demolition. You know why? Because modern buildings are designed to collapese on themselves in the event that they do collapse.
SarcasticDwarf
Diamond Member
- Jun 8, 2001
- 9,574
- 2
- 76
BrokenVisage
Lifer
- Jan 29, 2005
- 24,772
- 14
- 81
And you ignore the facts of that day and refuse to put them together. Funny how that works as well. Tell me which arguements I'm consistently ignoring so I can address them. In fact you don't have to, I'll answer a couple from someone on your side:
If you want more counter-arguements answered, just ask.
SarcasticDwarf
Diamond Member
- Jun 8, 2001
- 9,574
- 2
- 76
I was referencing the claim that the WTC towers were dropped with a controlled demolition. I have yet to see anything that proves it. Yes, you can say that
1) It "looked" like a controlled demolition
2) Firefighters/police hears loud cracks/pops 1/2 mile away (keep in mind that the ones who heard them were either on/near ground level and therefore a long ways away, or were closer and died in the collapse).
3) There's this mysterious supposed molten steel
and a few other things. The fact is, all of these can be explained by something else.
1) It "looked" like a controlled demolition
2) Firefighters/police hears loud cracks/pops 1/2 mile away (keep in mind that the ones who heard them were either on/near ground level and therefore a long ways away, or were closer and died in the collapse).
3) There's this mysterious supposed molten steel
and a few other things. The fact is, all of these can be explained by something else.
Actually, the witnesses on the ground have stated the explosions were powerful enough to "turn" cars and cause earthquake type rumbles.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3498980438587461603&q=eyewitness
(Time frame 53:00 - 55:10 )
If that makes it into the mainstream media, it's over. White smoke rising from the streets at the exact same time of the explosions. 10+ seconds before collapse.
Edit: Don't forget WTC7
SarcasticDwarf
Diamond Member
- Jun 8, 2001
- 9,574
- 2
- 76
Ok, I see what they mean. Regardless though, the same sounds would be consistent with the steel/concrete structure breaking. Also, of the people that I talked and listened to, none of them heard any sounds of "explosives". I don't see any smoke that was not consistent with a structure collapsing.
I disagree... those sounds before the collapses resemble explosions. The same can be said for WTC7 (it's been almost 5 years...government agencies have admitted they haven't come up with a plausible explanation for #7). Time to reopen 9/11... to also address the money trail that leads to the CIA, Mineta's testimony, W199i, intentionally ignorning warnings from many countries, etc, etc.
SarcasticDwarf
Diamond Member
- Jun 8, 2001
- 9,574
- 2
- 76
Yes, explosions. explosions != explosives
Also, I am assuming you were within 1/4 mile at the time of collapse?
True, so let's find out how those explosions came about. Guess what? The government of the United States of America has not acknowledged that any of these explosions occurred. Many people, including fire fighters, have testified in front of the 9/11 Commission about explosions...only to be ignored.
So, let's find out.
SarcasticDwarf
Diamond Member
- Jun 8, 2001
- 9,574
- 2
- 76
Numerous explosions occurred many minutes before any towers started "collapsing"... again, explosions powerful enough to "turn" cars on the streets.
SarcasticDwarf
Diamond Member
- Jun 8, 2001
- 9,574
- 2
- 76
Some occured within 30 seconds of the collapse. Where's the footage of explosions "many minutes" before the collapse? Also, please explain how these are not associated with secondary explosions from the aircraft and the effect of it's fuels? Nothing you have shows so far has demonstrated that it is not (more than likely) the result of a general collapse of the building.
Also, these explosions that "turned" cars. Where did they come from? Either they were up near the impact site (in which case they would have to be so powerful that the building would have shattered) or it would have been near the ground and would therefore have killed people. More importantly, WHY would there have been explosions minutes before the collapse? If someone was detonating explosives, why would they do it minutes before the main event? What would be the point?
If you actually went through this thread, you'd find many links. Then again, you've been doubting the existence of explosions since the beginning.
http://www.mypetgoat.tv/video/Bomb_Montage.WMV
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1951610169657809939&q=11+revisited
http://media.putfile.com/911-WTC-Reporter-Secondary-Explosions-CNN-News
http://terrorize.dk/911/comments/911.wtc.truck.bombs.fbi.jack.kelley.rm
You realize people have testified to the Commission that explosions in the basements pushed them "upwards", right?
Where did they come from? Let's find out
Time to reopen 911.The problem with this is that you have conspiracy theorists using 18th century science to prove their point, and those rebutting it, when they aren't simply stonewalling or denying, are offering the same level of analysis, rather than any rigorous proof to the contrary.
For example, take the part of the video where they analyze the trajectory of the plume using common sense high school physics. Sure it LOOKS good, but in addition to issues of angle of incidence of the camera, there's the huge problem of how the debris cloud is generated. The outer "skin" of the cloud is NOT necessarily the trajectory of debris, but the combination of trajectories of a multitude of debris. In addition to which, much of the outer visual portion may be airborne particulate with a high surface area.
The thing is, this event crunched our economy, kept a chimp in office, and is the spoken reason for the dismantling of our constitution, the death of many American soldiers (and many more Iraqis), an absolute money vacuum in the middle east, and defined our foreign policy as imperialism for every other nation on this planet. Oh yeah and like 3000 New Yorkers got killed too, but whatever.
With all that in mind, the rebuttal is "man you guys are crazy - go get some tinfoil"
Are you kidding? There should have been a mandate and the funding to back it, for computer modeling by the best and the brightest in the industry! We should have four color printouts and Powerpoint presentations and computer animation. If that debris cloud was normal for a non-explosive structural collapse, I want seven PhD's in fluid dynamics and four demolition experts who have never seen each other before and have never sent any money to the RNC to tell me, independently, exactly why there was clearly no explosion. I want multiple camera angles, I want mathematical formulas, I want someone to do a logistical check on the feasability of manually planting explosives in a building that size. I want to know exactly what was in the concrete that made that building and I want to know what was in the cigarette of the guy who was responsible for creating the admixture.
For example, take the part of the video where they analyze the trajectory of the plume using common sense high school physics. Sure it LOOKS good, but in addition to issues of angle of incidence of the camera, there's the huge problem of how the debris cloud is generated. The outer "skin" of the cloud is NOT necessarily the trajectory of debris, but the combination of trajectories of a multitude of debris. In addition to which, much of the outer visual portion may be airborne particulate with a high surface area.
The thing is, this event crunched our economy, kept a chimp in office, and is the spoken reason for the dismantling of our constitution, the death of many American soldiers (and many more Iraqis), an absolute money vacuum in the middle east, and defined our foreign policy as imperialism for every other nation on this planet. Oh yeah and like 3000 New Yorkers got killed too, but whatever.
With all that in mind, the rebuttal is "man you guys are crazy - go get some tinfoil"
Are you kidding? There should have been a mandate and the funding to back it, for computer modeling by the best and the brightest in the industry! We should have four color printouts and Powerpoint presentations and computer animation. If that debris cloud was normal for a non-explosive structural collapse, I want seven PhD's in fluid dynamics and four demolition experts who have never seen each other before and have never sent any money to the RNC to tell me, independently, exactly why there was clearly no explosion. I want multiple camera angles, I want mathematical formulas, I want someone to do a logistical check on the feasability of manually planting explosives in a building that size. I want to know exactly what was in the concrete that made that building and I want to know what was in the cigarette of the guy who was responsible for creating the admixture.
SarcasticDwarf
Diamond Member
- Jun 8, 2001
- 9,574
- 2
- 76
I doubt it because you attempt to make up evidence. I started watching the first video that you provide as proof. The second segment (about 20 seconds in) has a History Channel clip about the building's ability to withstand aircraft. Now, if this was not a FUD campaign they would have shown that the video shown goes on to say that it is smaller airliners he was refering to. A larger aircraft creates a much larger problem. Most of the strength of the buildings was in the outside skin. Because it was a very large aircraft that hit, it destroyes a large percentage of the superstructure all on one side. Gee, I wonder if that caused any problems. Let's go the the next part. A reporter is talking about a "suspicious device" that police found. I lived just outside NYC at the time. That entire day there were reports of everything conceivable happening. There were reports that the Washington Mall was burning. I suppose that was covered up too. Next segment, interviews of people saying they felt an explosion. Again, there's little to indicate that it was anything NOT caused by the building collapse.
You consistently say that explosions people were talking about were caused by explosives. In addition to that, you completely ignore the fact that detonating explosives over a thirty minute time period makes zero sense. Why would you slowly detonate small charges over a long period? There's no point in doing so.
You consistently say that explosions people were talking about were caused by explosives. In addition to that, you completely ignore the fact that detonating explosives over a thirty minute time period makes zero sense. Why would you slowly detonate small charges over a long period? There's no point in doing so.
It was all over manhattan, its clear why it was cleaned up.
Im frustrated because this is the 1075th thread and you guys have nothing new to say about it, you just beat the same stupid flat out wrong crap.
Oh yeah im sorry, the controlled demolitions that landed exactly where the remote controlled cargo planes hit carrying tons of thermite planted by the government clearly brought down the towers along with explosive charges that they used OVER THE COURSE OF 120 MINUTES in the most non-traditional possible method. Then in their top secret govt coverup the CIA secretly held mettings all over the world with world leaders and media outlets to keep the american sheeple thinking it was osama bin laden. All under the pretext that we need revamp our military structure (which hasnt been done) and incited 2 wars in the middle east against islam.
THAT is your story? YOU weep for MY children?
The 5 schizophrenics on the forum unite and suddenly thats corroborating evidence?
I have also read this, the buildings were built to withstand boeing 727s and 737s. The 757 and 767 are much much larger transatlantic type aircraft, with a LOT more fuel and a LOT more inertia.
Edit: typos.
JulesMaximus
No Lifer
- Jul 3, 2003
- 74,600
- 1,005
- 126
What did you expect? You thought maybe they would fall over like a tree?
God, you conspiracy theory people are stupid as hell.
BrokenVisage
Lifer
- Jan 29, 2005
- 24,772
- 14
- 81
I want to know all that too, but you realize that there are people in their 50's and older now who just want to know who killed Kennedy and the reason behind it. The problem is they won't be alive when the archives are opened, that's essentially how our government sealed the lid on things back then. All those things you want are well and good, but I'll settle for those security tapes of the Pentagon. Something crashes into a building that close to the ground, goes through 4 rings, and leaves nothing but a small hole through them all. No engies found, no lawn damage, and no passenger manifest for the plane they say crashed into it that I could find. The tip of the plane is made of carbon and could not peirce those walls, they were re-enforced only weeks earlier. Too many questions, too many contradictory statements, too - much - MOTIVE!
Now if you'll excuse me *wraps himself in tinfoil* had to put on my 'open-mind suit'.
0roo0roo
No Lifer
- Sep 21, 2002
- 64,795
- 84
- 91
yup there would be no point. the buildings pancaked from the weakened point high up, nothing had to be wrong anywhere else for it to go down once that pancake effect started. believing in explosions... conspiracy theorists like him have to believe in extremely complex and vast set of events with large numbers of conspirators..it just gets absurd.
skyking
Lifer
- Nov 21, 2001
- 22,878
- 6,044
- 146
Molten steel, it cracks me up to think this is some sort of damning evidence. Explosives propogate from 20 to 30k ft/sec, and that's it. Steel gets cut like a knife, party over.
It takes a bunch of calories to melt steel, like a huge fire. There was a huge and persistent fire. Gas mains fed the initial fires till they could get shut off, then all the trapped combustibles smoldered down there like a furnace.
Molten steel does not equal explosives.
I would not put it past some group of people to conspire and bring down those buildings.
People are every bit as full of evil as good.
I do find it quite impossible for anyone to hide it after the fact. Or hide the rigging, or hide anything of the sort.
People are as fallible as they are evil or good.
It takes a bunch of calories to melt steel, like a huge fire. There was a huge and persistent fire. Gas mains fed the initial fires till they could get shut off, then all the trapped combustibles smoldered down there like a furnace.
Molten steel does not equal explosives.
I would not put it past some group of people to conspire and bring down those buildings.
People are every bit as full of evil as good.
I do find it quite impossible for anyone to hide it after the fact. Or hide the rigging, or hide anything of the sort.
People are as fallible as they are evil or good.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter