Stundie's "people who don't buy the official theory" thread

[Childlike Empress]

Warnings,

Name a specific relevant warning.

It's interesting that Bob Graham himself received at least one detailed warning from Randy Glass pre 911. He confirmed it on Florida TV, but later denied that this warning contained information about planned attacks on the WTC.

I wonder if one of those "twelve instances when the September 11 plot could have been discovered and potentially foiled", mentioned in your posted synopsis of Graham's book, was the one where he himself was warned and passed the information to the FBI (or the agency he felt was "the most appropriate") - without reaction?

ETA: Glass' information leads to pakistani arms dealers and intelligence officials, not (directly) to saudi-arabians - perhaps that's why the congressional report contains the words "or another foreign power"?

 

[Pardalis]

 

[stundie]

Are you seriously suggsting that forces in the US government carried out the biggest terror attack in history, just so they could demolish a building that was costing them money? And it wasn't even the US Federal government that was on the hook for that money!

That is just so incredibly lame I can't even come up with a comparison*.

They needed a reason for war, I do not know for sure whether they planned them, but if they didn't they certainly allowed them to happen.

All of which have been thoroughly debunked. Do you have any new evidence for any of this? If not, why bother us with it again?

This is a skeptics favourite! Its been debunked and then provide no links or evidence for it.

Suspicious trading occurs on the stock of American and United, the two airlines hijacked in the 9/11 attacks. “Between 6 and 7 September, the Chicago Board Options Exchange [sees] purchases of 4,744 put option contracts [a speculation that the stock will go down] in UAL versus 396 call options—where a speculator bets on a price rising. Holders of the put options would [net] a profit of $5 million once the carrier’s share price [dive] after September 11. On September 10, 4,516 put options in American Airlines, the other airline involved in the hijackings, [are] purchased in Chicago. This compares with a mere 748 call options in American purchased that day. Investigators cannot help but notice that no other airlines [see] such trading in their put options.” One analyst later says, “I saw put-call numbers higher than I’ve ever seen in ten years of following the markets, particularly the options markets.” [Associated Press, 9/18/2001; San Francisco Chronicle, 9/19/2001] <--Link doesn't work as I think you have to subscribe!

“To the embarrassment of investigators, it has also [learned] that the firm used to buy many of the ‘put’ options ... on United Airlines stock was headed until 1998 by ‘Buzzy’ Krongard, now executive director of the CIA.” Krongard was chairman of Alex Brown Inc., which was bought by Deutsche Bank. “His last post before resigning to take his senior role in the CIA was to head Bankers Trust—Alex Brown’s private client business, dealing with the accounts and investments of wealthy customers around the world.” [Independent, 10/14/2001] http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/article161862.ece

September 6-10, 2001: Suspicious Trading on Stocks of Two Large WTC Tenants The Chicago Board Options Exchange sees suspicious trading on Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley, two of the largest WTC tenants. In the first week of September, an average of 27 put option contracts in its shares are bought each day. Then the total for the three days before the attacks is 2,157. Merrill Lynch, another WTC tenant, see 12,215 put options bought between September 7-10, when the previous days had seen averages of 252 contracts a day. [Independent, 10/14/2001] Dylan Ratigan of Bloomberg Business News, speaking of the trading on Morgan Stanley and other companies, says, “This would be one of the most extraordinary coincidences in the history of mankind if it was a coincidence.” [ABC News, 9/20/2001]
http://web.archive.org/web/20010928...ons/us/DailyNews/WTC_Investigation010920.html

At least your "Let's use terror to demolish the building just to have it demolished" hypothesis is new, ridiculous as it may be.

Not really. Read The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives: by Zbigniew Brzezinski

*Lamer than a three legged dog who just finished the Iditarod? Nope, still lamer.

Yep it's lame, but all provable. I would like to hear the debunking of the put options...this will be hilarious!!

 

[stundie]

Well, most of them are.

The others are simply misinformed or confused.

Maybe in your arrogance, it is you that is confused?

That much info going around it's hard to tell whats true and not, but by investigating from both sides, you can start to build a picture.

Yes some of the conspiracy is wild and far out, (The star wars beam and the C4 built in constructions are new ones too me! lol ) Some I do not agree with. You have too look at all the evidence, not just from the debunkers which you clearly seem to have done.

 

[stundie]

Debunked.

Debunked.

Already debunked.

Debunked.

Debunked.

Debunked.

Friend, let me speak plainly: There's nothing to it. Nothing to any of it.

Relax, and welcome to the forum.

Are you serious!

I'm noticing a pattern here. You skeptics think by putting the words debunked, thats the end of the conversation. The funny thing is, you have said debunked but provided no evidence. So to you it might be debunked but thats because this is were your investigation ends.

My opinions although seem weird are backed up and as I receive new information, I'm willing to change my opinion, but puting the words debunked does not constitute it as debunked!

Please feel free to explain the motlen metal found at the bottom. This is the one I'm most eager to see debunked??

 

[Gravy]

Stundie, we're not using the word debunked carelessly. These issues have been covered here ad nauseum, and most are covered in the official reports. It's clear that you haven't even read the 9/11 Commission report, which would have saved you a lot of typing here, much less perused the NIST WTC reports or sites like 911myths.com. I was serious when I advised you to use those resources. For instance, see what 911myths says about the claims you made in your last few posts, then post your rebuttal here. Using this forum's search feature would also show that these issues have all been discussed here in detail.

You can't criticize the official reports if you don't know what they say. You are woefully misinformed about the events of 9/11. I've told you where not to look for answers and where good information can be found. The rest is up to you.

 

[Gravy]

Please feel free to explain the motlen metal found at the bottom. This is the one I'm most eager to see debunked??

We have little patience with arguments from incredulity.

Why shouldn't there be molten metal as a result of the fires fed by hundreds of millions of pounds of building materials, office materials, plastics, oils, etc? Even at the surface hot spots, the temperatures of the piles were hot enough to melt aluminum a week after the collapses. If you don't think the temperatures deep within the piles should have been hotter than that, explain why, and be specific.

 

[jon]

I wonder if one of those "twelve instances when the September 11 plot could have been discovered and potentially foiled", mentioned in your posted synopsis of Graham's book, was the one where he himself was warned and passed the information to the FBI (or the agency he felt was "the most appropriate") - without reaction?

Have a look at the book, it's an interesting read. However, I don't remember Graham mentioning passing on any specific intelligence re. wtc in the book (my memory sucks, but I'd think I'd have remembered that...)

 

[Belz...]

Of course they let it happen,

"Of course" ? I don't think they "let it" happen at all.

but the reason I support the Controlled Demolition thoery is not just based on the reports of explosions, the molten metal found...but other evidence like the Port Authority loosing a 10 year battle with there insurers to get the rest of the Asbestos removed from the towers which would have cost billions.

That's ridiculous. Only someone with a profound misunderstanding of how these things work could possibly claim such a thing.

Besides, it would have cost less to remove the asbestos than to rebuild the whole complex.

Both WTC were white elephants with loads of empy offices space and they cost a fortune to run in terms of electrity/sewage etc.

You don't demolish the whole neighborhood just to get rid of two buildings. Also, the US government didn't own these buildings.

Put Option, Warnings, Failure of NORAD I could go on...but it needs to be save for another time!

All these things have been adressed before. Does NOT ONE CTer ever check his facts ?

 

[Larry Lovage]

Can you provide a link because I have NEVER seen it?? Here is what I came up with.....

Robert Bonner, the head of Customs and Border Protection, later testifies, “We ran passenger manifests through the system used by Customs—two were hits on our watch list of August 2001.” (This is presumably a reference to hijackers Khalid Almihdhar and Nawaf Alhazmi, watch-listed on August 23, 2001.) “And by looking at the Arab names and their seat locations, ticket purchases and other passenger information, it didn’t take a lot to do a rudimentary link analysis. Customs officers were able to ID 19 probable hijackers within 45 minutes. I saw the sheet by 11 a.m. And that analysis did indeed correctly identify the terrorists.” [New York Observer, 2/11/2004]

However, Bonner appears to be at least somewhat incorrect: for two days after the attacks (see September 13, 2001-September 14, 2001), the FBI believes there are only 18 hijackers, and the original list contains some erroneous Arab-sounding names on the flight manifests, such as Adnan Bukhari and Ameer Bukhari. [CNN, 9/13/2001]

The funny thing is...Flight 77 has no arab names on the list!
www cnn com/SPECIALS/2001/trade center/victims/AA77 victims html (put the . in the spaces)

When you ask for this information under the FIOA, there names do not appear either??

The first thing is the Customs chief claiming that he picked out 19 potential hijacker names from the manifests, on the day: said 19 names later turned out to be the correct ones (for which we don't have evidence that he picked the exact right names, but say he's telling the truth). Then there is an FBI public statement as of two days later at which they have identified 18 names, some of which are possibly mistaken.

So the first is anecdotal evidence that a non-FBI person had access to manifest lists and by using some intelligence came up with a list that eventually transpired to be the correct one. I think he's probably mistaken, but he would appear to be honestly mistaken. The second is what the FBI were willing to go public with as part of their ongoing investigation - said investigation probably using Bonner's list as a starting point.

Then you link to CNN's "Victims" list. Please note the word Victims. CNN are not publishing a list of every person who was on the planes, it's publishing a list of innocent victims. That, obviously, excludes the hijacker's names. As to the FOIA request, I absolutely agree that it's idiotic that if you ask for copies of the manifests of the flights, you get a typewritten list of the victims only. (I cannot remember the source of that FOIA response, was it the FBI?) But I still don't know why you are suggesting that the real manifests did not include anybody who could be labelled as a hijacker, since the Bonner testimony would appear to indicate the opposite. "Mistaken" he may well have been, but you will have to provide solid evidence that he just made up the 19 hijackers story because there weren't any in the first place.

The absence of people on the published lists is not evidence for a cover-up. Because no conspiracy theory would fail to blame people who were definitely on the plane!

General Stubblebine's statement about the hole in the Pentagon is not just idiocy on the face of it - it's also intensely ironic testimony from a man who believes he has the capability of walking through walls. The fact that there are a variety of testimonies about what happened at the Pentagon does not make all the testimony of equal value. The testimonies that are consistent with the facts that a) something hit the pentagon, b) Flight 77 never landed and all its passengers are missing presumed dead, c) contrary to what you may have read, there is considerable evidence that the remains found at the Pentagon site were from Flight 77 including aircraft pieces, passenger bodies, passenger luggage. The fact that there is a hole that isn't big enough to admit a whole plane (why does the plane have to have gone through the hole anyway?) does not justify anybody's nonsensical statement that a) it must have been a cruise missile and that therefore b) something else must have happened to Flight 77. Testimony which contradicts all the evidence that a plane hit the pentagon and that plane was AA77 and that passengers on AA77 are known to have died there, is testimony which just gets disregarded. All testimony is contradictory - you accept the testimony that fits the facts, or which is most consistent with most of the other testimony. I have seen 911 truth claims that accuse the Keane commission of ignoring one man's testimony, even though it contradicted the testimony of several other people including Dick Cheney. It doesn't seem to occur to them that if one piece of testimony doesn't match several others, then it's the one that gets discarded (as at least probably being mistaken).

 

[stundie]

None of which are evidence of the use of explosive devices, and nearly all of which, when kept in context, are about the actual collapses of the towers.

Just like it's found at all controlled demolition sites, right? Oh, wait....

When did I ever say that this is ever found at controlled demolitions sites. Anyway as I have others, please explained how its debunked and what is it?? Because I do not know at all and no one in here does, apart from it's Debunked?

You are grossly misinformed. I'll only say this once: YOU WILL NOT GET ACCURATE INFORMATION ABOUT 9/11 FROM CONSPIRACIST WEBSITES. I strongly recommend these sources when you have questions about what the official version is and what validity the CT claims have:

You guys assume my info comes from Conspiracy Websites! Thats a great assumption! I've not posted a single link to a conspiracy website yet, but you assumed I have. Thats is hilarious!

http://www.erisk.com/news/weekly/news_weekly2001-05-11_01.asp

May 5 - 11, 2001
"Chalk up one victory for insurers in the escalating asbestos-claims mOlOe:
the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey has lost a 10-year-old court
battle to get its insurers to pay more than $600 million for removing
asbestos from its properties, including the World Trade Center and New
York's airports. The judge ruled that asbestos abatement costs by themselves
do not constitute 'physical loss or damage' under the Port Authority's
all-risk policies. The agency is considering an appeal."

QUOTE=Gravy;2122044]
–The 9/11 Commission Report, including its footnotes and staff monographs on terrorist financing and travel.

–The NIST report on WTC 1&2

–911myths.com
[/QUOTE]

Not sure what that bit is about?

Now to your absurd claim that removing asbestos from the the towers would have cost billions.

1) There was only asbestos in part of one tower and on some pipes, not in "the towers."

Agreed, but even so, you admit it yourself it would have cost $600 Million.
The North Tower had asbestos up to the 64th floor, the South Tower had little or no asbestos. I agree but even so, you admit it yourself it would have cost $600 Million.

2) As has been mentioned, the asbestos fire protection in the north tower was only applied to less than half that building. In fact, it only went to the 38th floor.

You are wrong, it was fireproof to the 64th Floor.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestos www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/0111/msg00258.html

BTW I did this search in google and it came up with nothing about the 34th floor other than William Rodriguez...but hey he's telling a different story to the offical one, so he must be lying hey? http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=asbestos+to+34th+floor+WTC&meta=

Change the 34th to the 64th and there is a whole heap of links that prove you wrong. Thats that debunked.

3) There was no requirement for undisturbed asbestos SFRM to be removed from the north tower.

Did I ever say there was a requirement? I never said there was, but if the towers were to be brought down (because it was a white elephant and I'll explain that later) then the Asbestoes would have to be removed!

4) Whenever a tenant space was vacated and renovation work was to be done in the asbestos-containing portion of the north tower, licensed asbestos-abatement firms removed the asbestos SFRM, which was replaced with SFRM that was up to code. This work continued when necessary until September 2001. I've read that about half of the 38 stories of asbestos-containing floors had been treated in this way, but I don't have a firm source for that figure.

Proof of this or is this just your assumption? Why battle for 10 years and then do it yourself when as you say below, it poses no risk. As you say, where is the evidence.

5) In 1991 the Port Authority sued its past and current all-risk property insurers for what it predicted to be the cost of removing asbestos from all of its properties in New York and New Jersey. Those properties include the World Trade Center, Newark, LaGuardia, and JFK airports, harbor, rail, bridge, and tunnel facilities, and the PA's HQ on Randall's Island. The potential cost calculated by the Port Authority for work at all of those properties was $600 million. That was the amount claimed in the lawsuit.

Again, that's $600 million for all properties, not "billions" for the WTC.

Agreed but it's still a loads of money!

6) In May, 2001, the court ruled against the PA, for these reasons:

A) The asbestos at the properties didn't pose a health threat that would necessitate the evacuation of the buildings for abatement work. The abatement work that had been done was safely accomplished while the buildings were occupied. In his ruling, Judge Bissell gave this example of work that was not covered by the PA's loss and damage insurance policies:
B) The PA was claiming actual losses on 69 asbestos abatement projects, although it had only incurred costs on 13 projects.

7) The PA appealed the decision, and lost its appeal. Following are excerpts from the the judgment of 3rd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Weis:

Sorry it was millions not billions (If I said billions, then it was because I couldn't remember the exact figure at the moment of typing!)

So they lost a 10 year court battle for $600 million, then end up doing it themselves. Even though you admit it was safe.

Another absurd claim. Where do you get this stuff? The WTC was thriving and highly profitable. That's why Silverstein fought so hard to get the lease.
Thoroughly investigated. Thoroughly debunked.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_elephant
World Trade Center, New York. Built amidst controversy, including protest by the 1,600 small businesses evicted from their locations to make way for the complex, and the objections of the New York City government to the undervalued payments in lieu of taxes the state governments of New York and New Jersey were forcing it to accept from the Port Authority of New York, builder and owner of the Trade Center. By 1975 it lay half-empty in spite of the 25,000 New York State employees relocated to the complex by Gov. Nelson Rockefeller, who had championed the project all along. The buildings' fortune improved gradually throughout their lifespan, which was cut short when terrorists destroyed them on September 11, 2001. However, the complex was initially viewed as a monument to the stubbornness of Gov. Rockefeller, his brother David Rockefeller of the Chase Manhattan Bank, and Port Authority Executive Director Austin J. Tobin, for their insistence upon building it in spite of the declining value of Lower Manhattan commercial real estate at the time. This perception lent the World Trade Center's twin 110-story towers the early nickname Nelson and David.

Another question, if it was so profitable, why did the Port Authority give out a 99 year lease on it? Not because they were cost cutting were they??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Silverstein

During the 1990s, New York was suffering from the effects of Black Monday (1987) leading to high vacancy rates at the World Trade Center. George Pataki became governor of New York in 1995 on a campaign of cutting costs including privatizing the World Trade Center. A sale of the property was considered too complex, so it was decided by the Port Authority to open a 99-year lease to competitive bidding.

Name a specific relevant warning.

I was hoping you would ask me this....Here goes...I have provided link for things that are still active, any links I've not posted can be backed up with a quick search on google.

In 1999, British intelligence gave a secret report to the US embassy. The report stated that al-Qaeda had plans to use “commercial aircraft” in “unconventional ways,”“possibly as flying bombs.” [Sunday Times, 6/9/02]
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/mi6_warned_us_of_al_qaeda_attacks.htm

On July 16, 2001, British intelligence passed a message to the US that al-Qaeda was in “the final stages” of preparing a terrorist attack in Western countries. [London Times, 6/14/02]

In early August, the British gave another warning, telling the US to expect multiple airline hijackings from al-Qaeda. This warning was included in Bush’s briefing on August 6, 2001. [Sunday Herald, 5/19/02]

In June 2001, German intelligence warned the US, Britain, and Israel that Middle Eastern terrorists were planning to hijack commercial aircraft and use them as weapons to attack “American and Israeli symbols which stand out.” Within the American intelligence community, “the warnings were taken seriously and surveillance intensified” but “there was disagreement on how such terrorist attacks could be prevented.” This warning came from Echelon, a spy satellite network that is partly based in Germany. [Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 9/11/01, Washington Post, 9/14/01]


In late July 2001, Egyptian intelligence received a report from an undercover agent in Afghanistan that “20 al-Qaeda members had slipped into the US and four of them had received flight training on Cessnas.” To the Egyptians, pilots of small planes didn’t sound terribly alarming, but they passed on the message to the CIA anyway, fully expecting Washington to request information. “The request never came.” [CBS, 10/9/02]

Given that there were 19 hijackers and four pilots (who trained on Cessnas) in the 9/11 plot, one might think this would now be a big news item. But in fact, the information has only appeared as an aside in a CBS “60 Minutes” show about a different topic. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/09/60II/main524947.shtml


In late summer 2001, Jordan intelligence intercepted a message stating that a major attack was being planned inside the US and that aircraft would be used. The code name of the operation was Big Wedding, which did in fact turn out to be the codename of the 9/11 plot. The message was passed to US intelligence through several channels. [International Herald Tribune, 5/21/02, Christian Science Monitor, 5/23/02] http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0523/p11s01-coop.html

Russian President Vladimir Putin publicly stated that he ordered his intelligence agencies to alert the US in the summer of 2001 that suicide pilots were training for attacks on US targets. [Fox News, 5/17/02] http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,53065,00.html

The head of Russian intelligence also stated, “We had clearly warned them” on several occasions, but they “did not pay the necessary attention.” [Agence France-Presse, 9/16/01]

The Russian newspaper Izvestia claimed that Russian intelligence agents knew the participants in the attacks, and: “More than that, Moscow warned Washington about preparation for these actions a couple of weeks before they happened.” [Izvestia, 9/12/02]

Five days before 9/11, the priest Jean-Marie Benjamin was told by a Muslim at an Italian wedding of a plot to attack the US and Britain using hijacked airplanes as weapons. He wasn’t told time or place specifics. He immediately passed what he knew on to a judge and several politicians in Italy. Presumably this Muslim confided in him because Benjamin has done considerable charity work in Muslim countries and is considered “one of the West’s most knowledgeable experts on the Muslim world.” [Zenit, 9/16/01] http://zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=9943

Benjamin has not revealed who told him this information, but it could have come from a member of the al-Qaeda cell in Milan, Italy. This cell supplied forged documents for other al-Qaeda operations, and wiretaps show members of the cell were aware of the 9/11 plot. [Los Angeles Times, 5/29/02, Guardian, 5/30/02, Boston Globe, 8/4/02] http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,724304,00.html

For instance, in August 2000, one terrorist in Milan was recorded saying to another: “I’m studying airplanes. I hope, God willing, that I can bring you a window or a piece of an airplane the next time we see each other.” The comment was followed by laughter [Washington Post, 5/31/02]. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...ode=&contentId=A36296-2002May30&notFound=true

In another case in January 2001, a terrorist asked if certain forged documents were for “the brothers going to the United States,” and was angrily rebuked by another who told him not to talk about that “very, very secret” plan. [Los Angeles Times, 5/29/02]

In March 2001, the Italian government gave the US a warning based on these wiretaps. [Fox News, 5/17/02] http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,53065,00.html

I could go on and on of other reports, but its getting boring.

Too say they did not recieve any warnings is almost laughable when you realise the failure of the 6th Aug 2001 Memo "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US and George Tenets warning in July, unless you think Tenet is lying??

Come again?

The most notice NORAD had of a hijacked jet was 9 minutes. Two of the flights it only knew about after they crashed.

What about the FAA? Alarms would have been ringing as soon as the transponder was switched off. Yet there is another failure of communication!

Good. Take as much time as you need to do your homework so you don't embarrass yourself with such ignorance again.

Don't ever question my homework. I have studied all I can from this. It appear all you skeptics have accepted the debunker versions of events.

I think you need to do yours......

 

[Belz...]

They needed a reason for war,

Why ? Why would they need to go to war, exactly ?

And if they did, why would they need to kill 3000 of their own citizens ? Why couldn't they just bring up the WMD question right off the bat ?

I do not know for sure whether they planned them, but if they didn't they certainly allowed them to happen.

"Certainly" ? Do you have more gems like this ?

This is a skeptics favourite! Its been debunked and then provide no links or evidence for it.

There are litterally dozens of threads on this. Might want to check these, first:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53102
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=61752

Suspicious trading occurs on the stock of American and United, the two airlines hijacked in the 9/11 attacks.

There was nothing "suspicious" about that trading. Perhaps you'd care to look up how things were going in the airline industry at the time.

Yep it's lame, but all provable. I would like to hear the debunking of the put options...this will be hilarious!!

Hilarious ? Yes, in the sense that it would be ridiculously easy to do.

Maybe in your arrogance, it is you that is confused?

Here we go again. What arrogance ?

That much info going around it's hard to tell whats true and not, but by investigating from both sides, you can start to build a picture.

Oh, I'm sure that, when googling for information on 9/11, you check out sites that disagree with you and thoroughly investigate their claims, too.

You have too look at all the evidence, not just from the debunkers which you clearly seem to have done.

You have a lot of difficulty with absolute words like "certainly", "clearly" and "of course", don't you ? You might want to check those links I provided and see if I've seen all the evidence.

 

[uk_dave]

http://www.erisk.com/news/weekly/news_weekly2001-05-11_01.asp

May 5 - 11, 2001
"Chalk up one victory for insurers in the escalating asbestos-claims mOlOe:
the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey has lost a 10-year-old court
battle to get its insurers to pay more than $600 million for removing
asbestos from its properties, including the World Trade Center and New York's airports. The judge ruled that asbestos abatement costs by themselves
do not constitute 'physical loss or damage' under the Port Authority's
all-risk policies. The agency is considering an appeal."

How does that become $600million for just the WTC?

 

[stundie]

We have little patience with arguments from incredulity.

Why shouldn't there be molten metal as a result of the fires fed by hundreds of millions of pounds of building materials, office materials, plastics, oils, etc? Even at the surface hot spots, the temperatures of the piles were hot enough to melt aluminum a week after the collapses. If you don't think the temperatures deep within the piles should have been hotter than that, explain why, and be specific.

I'll be specific!

What on earth could be fueling those fires for weeks on end?? Piles of wire/aluminium, office materials are going to burn at tempratures to melt steel? Fires need fuel to burn, yes all the things could have burned, but it would not be hot enough to melt steel.

Unless you think the combustable debris/materials are hot enough to melt the steel? hahahaha!! Talk about theories? Where is your proof of this?

The only logical explanation is THERMATE! The molten iron found they clean up crew found is a by product of it!

You have failed to debunk anything and if you really believe you have debunked it, then I'm going to laugh at your so called debunking skills based on what...Your theories?? lol

 

[Belz...]

When did I ever say that this is ever found at controlled demolitions sites.

Oh, golly. You're not very smart, are you ? His point was that a controlled demolition would NOT cause this phenomenon.

You guys assume my info comes from Conspiracy Websites! Thats a great assumption! I've not posted a single link to a conspiracy website yet, but you assumed I have. Thats is hilarious!

Yes it is, because you surely haven't got it from any of the opposing view sites, have you ?

Agreed, but even so, you admit it yourself it would have cost $600 Million.
The North Tower had asbestos up to the 64th floor, the South Tower had little or no asbestos. I agree but even so, you admit it yourself it would have cost $600 Million.

Which is not worth demolishing the whole area and rebuilding the entire complex, is it ?

Proof of this or is this just your assumption? Why battle for 10 years and then do it yourself when as you say below, it poses no risk. As you say, where is the evidence.

Huh ?

So they lost a 10 year court battle for $600 million, then end up doing it themselves. Even though you admit it was safe.

Safe for removal while people were working. They HAD to remove it themselves.

Another question, if it was so profitable, why did the Port Authority give out a 99 year lease on it? Not because they were cost cutting were they??

"So" profitable ?

What about the FAA? Alarms would have been ringing as soon as the transponder was switched off. Yet there is another failure of communication!

Yes. Those agencies were not meant to communicate.

Don't ever question my homework.

Oh, I think I will.

 

[Belz...]

What on earth could be fueling those fires for weeks on end?? Piles of wire/aluminium, office materials are going to burn at tempratures to melt steel? Fires need fuel to burn, yes all the things could have burned, but it would not be hot enough to melt steel.

Uh-huh. Okay, you know nothing about fires, that's for sure.

Unless you think the combustable debris/materials are hot enough to melt the steel? hahahaha!! Talk about theories? Where is your proof of this?

Idem.

The only logical explanation is THERMATE!

Oh, brother. Yes, I DO question your homework.

 

[uk_dave]

Stundie, please explain how thermate can keep metal molten for weeks?

You already said yourself that fires need fuel. Is thermate a fuel?

 

[stundie]

"Of course" ? I don't think they "let it" happen at all.

That's ridiculous. Only someone with a profound misunderstanding of how these things work could possibly claim such a thing.

Besides, it would have cost less to remove the asbestos than to rebuild the whole complex.

Of course it would, but they would have to remove the ASBESTOES before knocking down WTC and rebuilding the whole complex. Wouldn't they?

You don't demolish the whole neighborhood just to get rid of two buildings. Also, the US government didn't own these buildings.

You skeptics are now making MORE false claims...When did I ever say the goverment own the buildings!! lol

All these things have been adressed before. Does NOT ONE CTer ever check his facts ?

I've checked you so called facts and they do not add up. Hence the reason I'm still debating. Like I said before, if you can show me EVIDENCE to back your claims...I'm more than willing to change my view, but all I hear it's been deunked...or making false claims to things I've never said.

I really expected better from a JREF Forum!

 

[stundie]

Stundie, please explain how thermate can keep metal molten for weeks?

You already said yourself that fires need fuel. Is thermate a fuel?

Thermate, or Thermate-TH3, is an incendiary compound primarily used for military applications. Because of the similarity in names, thermate is sometimes confused with one of its components, thermite.

Thermate is a mixture of thermite and pyrotechnic additives which have been found to be superior to standard thermite for incendiary purposes. Its composition by weight is generally thermite 68.7%, barium nitrate 29.0%, sulphur 2.0% and binder 0.3%. Addition of barium nitrate to thermite increases its thermal effect, creates flame in burning and significantly reduces the ignition temperature.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yex063_Fblk&feature=PlayList&p=C0E39728ACB19348&index=5

If your asking about to explain how thermate can keep metal molten for weeks! Then you really have not INVESTIGATED!!

 

[stundie]

Uh-huh. Okay, you know nothing about fires, that's for sure.

Idem.
Oh, brother. Yes, I DO question your homework.

Fires need Ignition, Fuel & Oxygen to burn.

So where is the fuel that kept the tempratures as high for as long as they did??