Loose Change

[aggle-rithm]

Geggy can't be for real.

He's just having a laugh by making the skeptics here jump through hoops to counter the tens-of-thousands of pieces of so-called evidence. He has to know that all of that rubbish proves absolutely nothing.

I have little doubt that geggy is a complete troll. It's difficult to imagine someone being as mind-bogglingly stupid as he pretends to be and still be able to put on his pants in the morning. However, I treat it as an exercise in logic. Whether geggy's for real or not, I am getting something out of this because there are plenty of people out there like him, and it helps to be prepared to respond with something more eloquent than a slack-jawed, disbelieving stare.

 

[NobbyNobbs]

How do you explain the molten steel that was glowing orange and burned as long as 5 days at the rubble area of where the three buildings stood?

5 days is nothing. There's a town in Pennsylvania (someone else can find the name, I'm sure) that's been built over a coal mine that's been on fire for *decades*.

 

[Manny]

I actually don't get that at all. I've got at least a basic understanding of some of the CTer's lines of questioning. But a lot of their "questions" are either answered or unanswered by either the "standard" story or their conspiracy theory. Both "sides" allege that something happened inside the trade center to make the steel very hot. The sane people think it was the fact that a FREAKING AIRPLANE HIT THE TOWERS and started some fires; the CTers allege that there was thermite or some other magic heat-producing explosive or whatever. It doesn't matter. Both "sides" say there was a heat source and agree that the metal was hot even following the collapse of the towers. How does the metal being hot favor one theory over another (except to make the "explosives only" crowd need to find a heat source like thermite)?

 

[aggle-rithm]

But is it possible to use thermite compunds in explosive devices?

How do you explain the molten steel that was glowing orange and burned as long as 5 days at the rubble area of where the three buildings stood?

Congratulations for managing to cram so many errors in such a short post.

1. Questions are not evidence.
2. The correct spelling of "compounds" is not "compunds". (A minor error, but you still get full credit!)
3. There was no molten steel, as temperatures never got nearly hot enough.
4. You contradict yourself; in earlier claims you said the buildings couldn't have been brought down by fire because it didn't get hot enough.
5. Steel doesn't burn, except perhaps at the core of a red giant star.
6. There are many things that can cause metal to melt, and controlled demolition is not one of them. Yet you seem to think that molten metal supports your case that there was a controlled demolition.
7. Shifting burden of proof. How do WE explain...? No, it's YOUR wacko theory, YOU explain! And make it a good one, 'cause we know BS when we see it.

 

[delphi_ote]

Come to think of it, I find it hard to think of something less plausible.

Santa is close, but I don't know any adults who believe in him.

 

[chipmunk stew]

Come to think of it, I find it hard to think of something less plausible.

Hans

Some of them are trying their damndest, though. I'm thinking of the "no-planes" contingent, for example.

 

[aggle-rithm]

I actually don't get that at all. I've got at least a basic understanding of some of the CTer's lines of questioning. But a lot of their "questions" are either answered or unanswered by either the "standard" story or their conspiracy theory. Both "sides" allege that something happened inside the trade center to make the steel very hot. The sane people think it was the fact that a FREAKING AIRPLANE HIT THE TOWERS and started some fires; the CTers allege that there was thermite or some other magic heat-producing explosive or whatever. It doesn't matter. Both "sides" say there was a heat source and agree that the metal was hot even following the collapse of the towers. How does the metal being hot favor one theory over another (except to make the "explosives only" crowd need to find a heat source like thermite)?

It's funny how they keep piling on the unnecessary entities:

CT's: The fire couldn't have caused the collapse, it didn't get hot enough! They must have used explosives, because there was evidence of thermite in the rubble!
Skeptics: Thermite isn't an explosive.
CT's: Right! They used explosives too!
Skeptics: Umm... How did they...?
CT's: There was molten steel in the rubble!
Skeptics: I thought you said it wasn't hot enough--
CT's: They also started a bonfire!

etc., ad nauseum.

 

[chipmunk stew]

5 days is nothing. There's a town in Pennsylvania (someone else can find the name, I'm sure) that's been built over a coal mine that's been on fire for *decades*.

Centralia. I drive through it on ocassion on my way to & from vacation. It's pretty eerie. They have to divert roads every few years; there are streets laid out like a neighborhood, but only one or two houses every few blocks; you can see smoke seeping up from cracks in the pavement in certain places.

 

[Hellbound]

As for thermite, here's a real life example of it being used in wartime, in Normandy, 1944, Pointe du Hoc:

Excellent story. Thanks Polaris. I was too lazy to go looking up anything on the Internet. I make it a moral point not to spend any more effort on a forum theory than the person did in constructing it

If I remember my Strength of Materials courses from (many) years ago, I think explosives primarily cause metals to fail due to shear forces, rather than tension, compression, or torsion failure (though there can be combinations).

Exactly the point I was getting to, but I wanted to stay away from words like shear or compression. But it is a good point.

To "pulvarize" the concrete with explosives, you have to rely on tension/compression forces. For explosives, this basically means you have to have multiple charges, placed on either side of the concrete in question so you get the two blast waves meeting each other in the middle. Even then, it's only going to "pulvarize" a small area directly between the explosives...the rest of the are ait blows out will be blown out from shear forces, usually in chunks of varying sizes.

Even in large explosions, pieces of detonators and timers (things in contact with or actually inside the explosive) are found routinely. Explosives don't pulavarize easily or characteristically.

 

[Belz...]

5. Steel doesn't burn, except perhaps at the core of a red giant star.

Or blue ones.

 

[geggy]

To topple over, the center of gravity must move outside the supports! that means the center of the building would have to move 110 feet laterally (that's parallel to the floor, for the loosers), minimum. For the whole building to topple, we're only talking 8.5 degrees (which would put the top edge a little bit past the opposide bottom edge. Somebody would probably have noticed that...)

Plausible yes, The plane didnt hit directly the center part of the south tower, instead it hit close to the corner of the building, cutting the columns only on that side while the columns on the other side stayed intacted. It was clearly evident as we all saw the top part tipped over. When the top portion above the impact hole tipped over, it would forced the column frames and joints on that same side the top part was leaning toward to snap down while the intacted side of the columns would pull the joint up and apart and then fall down. If thats the case, the entire building would've tipped over as much as 8-10 degrees. But instead the columns fell down straight down as if the columns were breaking apart evenly. And while the top part gave away, the mass volume of dust was rather large.

NIST and controlled demolition, inc both addressed the pool of molten steel at the bottom of the rubble but the commision did not. But then I cant post any links as a back up due the request of some posters here...

Evidence of thermal residue unless you think otherwise...

The only reason you think I'm crazy for thinking the reason of the towers were brought down with explosives is because it all sounds crazy to you.

 

[CptColumbo]

The only reason you think I'm crazy for thinking the reason of the towers were brought down with explosives is because it all sounds crazy to you.

You are right about this, and you have yet to prove to us that it isn't crazy.

Assuming, that there was a massive conspiracy, how many people would have to be involved? They would have to plant the explosives, rig the planes to fly remotely, get rid of the original planes with passengers and crew, plant people at ATC and the FAA, pilot the craft into the WTC, set off the explosives, fly a plane into the Pentagon, crash a plane in PA, and keep it all secret.

10 people were with the Vice-President when he shot a guy in the face. The press still got the story.

And your theory doesn't sound implausible or crazy?

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

... If thats the case, the entire building would've tipped over as much as 8-10 degrees. But instead the columns fell down straight down as if the columns were breaking apart evenly. And while the top part gave away, the mass volume of dust was rather large.
...

Math showing this?

...
Evidence of thermal residue unless you think otherwise...
...

Source of original image?

 

[Pardalis]

Still waiting for your evidence the US was in on 9/11.

 

[kookbreaker]

NIST and controlled demolition, inc both addressed the pool of molten steel at the bottom of the rubble but the commision did not. But then I cant post any links as a back up due the request of some posters here...

You can post single, relevant links for your claims. You are not encouraged to post screed and pils of links for political rants.

But I doubt you have any material on molten steel. To date there has been no evidence of molten steel on site. Such 'evidence' as shown is often laughable (such as Dr. Jones pile o' concrete).

Evidence of thermal residue unless you think otherwise...

[qimg]http://www.rumormillnews.com/pix3/pic87970.jpg[/qimg]

The lack of melted edges, and the fact that cooled molten steel doesn't look like this does not impress me. The material you see could be anything from melted wire covers, to leftover fireproofing material.

The only reason you think I'm crazy for thinking the reason of the towers were brought down with explosives is because it all sounds crazy to you.

Its crazy becuase there is absolutely no evidence for it. None!

 

[hellaeon]

The only reason you think I'm crazy for thinking the reason of the towers were brought down with explosives is because it all sounds crazy to you.

Reminds me of a old aquaintence who was into all this and crossed into David Icke Territory. He said to me and I quote: "Its such an impossible reality because it goes against everything we know. But thats only because we have been taught that way".

Uh huh.

 

[CurtC]

Plausible yes, The plane didnt hit directly the center part of the south tower, instead it hit close to the corner of the building, cutting the columns only on that side while the columns on the other side stayed intacted.

I'm with you so far, and fully agree.

When the top portion above the impact hole tipped over, it would forced the column frames and joints on that same side the top part was leaning toward to snap down while the intacted side of the columns would pull the joint up and apart and then fall down. If thats the case, the entire building would've tipped over as much as 8-10 degrees.

Now you've lost me. When the top part of the building tipped over, at that point the support mesh that held it up at the impact point was no longer intact, so failed, and let the top part of the building fall. It fell onto the lower part of the building, obliterating its support mesh and destroying everything as it went down. Why are you saying that the building would tip over 8-10 degrees? There's no way that the supports at the point where the "bend" occurs could take that much strain - it just falls down long before it gets to that point.

And while the top part gave away, the mass volume of dust was rather large.

Have you ever noticed when you see a controlled demolition, that the explosives don't seem to produce much dust, but when the building falls down, there is a huge amount of dust? There is just a hugely greater amount of energy available from the falling building to pulverize the concrete than from the explosives themselves. They are just the triggers, not what does most of the destruction.

NIST and controlled demolition, inc both addressed the pool of molten steel at the bottom of the rubble

BS. Prove me wrong.

Evidence of thermal residue unless you think otherwise...

Thermal residue? What is thermal residue exactly, and why is this picture evidence for it?

The only reason you think I'm crazy for thinking the reason of the towers were brought down with explosives is because it all sounds crazy to you.

It does sound crazy, but if someone comes up with a crazy idea and actually offers good evidence for it, I'm completely willing to change my mind. But you have offered zero evidence that's even hinting at coming close to possibly being slightly mediocre evidence.

 

[hellaeon]

Evidence of thermal residue unless you think otherwise...

hahahaha good one ginger geggs.

 

[JPK]

16 ounces. Which makes it 33% heavier than a pound of gold.

Unless of course it was a pound of gold dust, in which case it would be lighter.
JPK

 

[Pardalis]

If there had been explosives we would have all seen it. «We» as in BILLIONS of people. Don't you think whoever put those explosives would risk anyone finding out? And the supposed «squibs» we see appear after the buildings start to collapse. They could be any number of things we have already talked about in this thread.

You said it yourself, you don't doubt that these planes hit these buildings. And in your timeline, there is proof that the 19 highjackers did board these planes. What else do you want?

Face it, the explosives-planted-in-advance theory doesn't work. All you have left is your the-US-government-knew-specifically-about-the-9/11-plot-and-decided-not-to-do-anything-so-that-they-could-invade-Iraq theory, wich is highly improbable, mostly speculative, and really, really hard to prove. On the other hand, we have ample proofs that the Bush administration is incompetent at handling threats and crisis (Katrina), wich is the official reason of why 9/11 happened.