Stundie's "people who don't buy the official theory" thread
- Thread starter maccy
- Start date
Your misqouting me, a common trait of the Skeptic along with Debunked without proof.
I never said a controlled demolition would cause this phenomenon have I? That was a quote by someone else. I have NEVER once said this is a by product of a controlled demolition. I have said it is a byproduct of Thermate or Thermite.
Belz...;2122665 Yes it is said:As I've said, I get my information from various source...BOTH SIDES! There has been no debunking of the Thermate/Thermite theory regardless of how many people tell me it's debunked.
Saying it's debunked doesn't make it so, something you skeptics seem to delude yourselves with.
Excuse me? Was that your explanation for the molten metal?
THERMATE or THERMITE!!
Its amazing stuff which cuts through steel like a hot knife through butter!
Larry Lovage
Thinker
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2006
- Messages
- 220
So, there is considerable evidence that the CIA had been warned by umpteen foreign intelligence agencies that Al Q'aeda were planning a major terrorist offensive, with hijacked aircraft, and that Egypt said that they knew of 20 terrorists including Cessna-trained ones, and that all these intelligence clues were missed or ignored.
I'm sorry, but I'm not managing to connect this with the theories supported by the "non-tin-hatters" you cited that a) no plane hit the Pentagon, b) none of the accused hijackers can be found on published lists of people who died, c) the WTC was brought down by controlled demolition immediately after being hit by planes, and d) the whole thing was a put-up-job that happened only because somebody couldn't be bothered to either demolish the buildings conventionally, or couldn't afford to remove the Asbestos, so thought that murdering approximately 200 times as many people as would have suffered from asbestos exposure would be a better way of going about it.
I've never understood why it is the same people who claim that 19 men with boxcutters couldn't have pulled off the world's biggest terrorist outrage, also claim that the Government must have done it because they knew that 19 men were going to hijack planes and fly them into the WTC and the Pentagon (and the White House, let us not forget).
I'm sorry, but I'm not managing to connect this with the theories supported by the "non-tin-hatters" you cited that a) no plane hit the Pentagon, b) none of the accused hijackers can be found on published lists of people who died, c) the WTC was brought down by controlled demolition immediately after being hit by planes, and d) the whole thing was a put-up-job that happened only because somebody couldn't be bothered to either demolish the buildings conventionally, or couldn't afford to remove the Asbestos, so thought that murdering approximately 200 times as many people as would have suffered from asbestos exposure would be a better way of going about it.
I've never understood why it is the same people who claim that 19 men with boxcutters couldn't have pulled off the world's biggest terrorist outrage, also claim that the Government must have done it because they knew that 19 men were going to hijack planes and fly them into the WTC and the Pentagon (and the White House, let us not forget).
Peephole
Master Poster
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2006
- Messages
- 2,584
There's a little detail your precious CT sites and Dr. Jones forgot to tell you, a thermite reaction doesn't last for months.
Did you forget about the building that collapsed in one big pile of rubble?
Last edited:
And it is your claim that this thermate kept the metal molten for days or weeks after the initial application?
Its a immensly LARGE picture.
Watch Why We Fight. Nothing to do with controlled demolitions or starwars beams, but a great understand of why war is great business for thoses involved.
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-4924034461280278026&q=why+we+fight
The Power of Nightmares (3 Parts) This tracks the founders of both the Neo Con movement (Leo Strauss) and the man considered the founder of terrorism (Sayyid Qutb) there theories and ideas!
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-4924034461280278026&q=why+we+fight
I would also recommened reading The Grand Chessboard - by Zbigniew Brzezinski
http://www.amazon.com/Grand-Chessboard-American-Geostrategic-Imperatives/dp/0465027261
Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance by Noam Chomsky.
http://www.amazon.com/Hegemony-Surv..._bbs_sr_1/104-4527939-0843138?ie=UTF8&s=books
There is plenty of other stuff, but this will help you see the links!
bob_kark
Person of Hench
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2005
- Messages
- 4,488
About 3 months actually.*
*That's how long the underground fires lasted. You know, the ones using debris from the WTC, not Thermate/Thermite, as fuel, as Thermate/Thermite would have been spent within a very short period of time by comparison.
Last edited:
But...but...surely thermate is an incredible new product the benefits to the energy industry as well as foundries and steelworks is only now becomig apparent.
IT can keep metal molten for months!
Flo
Illuminator
This is getting way past boring. Like so many CTists before him, Stundie is singing us the old classic "le'ts flog this dead horse" followed by a medley of "No debunking that I know of, Baby (and don't count on me to look for one)", "you're no real skeptics, you're mere deniers", and "Let's move the old goalpost" ...
Stop dancing to his tune, folks ...
Stop dancing to his tune, folks ...
The funny thing is, I keep hearing, this has been debunked that has been debunked. You have made your mind up based on disinformation like.....
Like Minetas testimoney in which Gravy thinks is irrelevant because Dick Cheney arrived at POEC at 9:52. When it was Lynne Cheney who arrived at this time. Dick Cheney was already there and yet you call that DEBUNKING!
James Randi would be very proud of the investigating skills here because you guys are thorough aren't you?
But...but...surely thermate is an incredible new product the benefits to the energy industry as well as foundries and steelworks is only now becomig apparent.
IT can keep metal molten for months!
No, I stand corrected. Jet Fuel (Kersone) from the plane and office equipment, plastics, debris etc can bring massive benefits to the energy industry as it kept those fire burning.
One thing, if the combustible or maximum tempreture of all these things cannot melt steel. How the hell did it get to those tempratures.
Here is Thermite in action, Thermate is a more powerful substance!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrCWLpRc1yM
Oh like some one else said, it was underground and because thermate burns at about 5000 Degrees (I'm just estimating and cant rememeber the figure of my head) it would keep hot for months. Would it not?
The funny thing is, I keep hearing, this has been debunked that has been debunked. You have made your mind up based on disinformation like.....
Like Minetas testimoney in which Gravy thinks is irrelevant because Dick Cheney arrived at POEC at 9:52. When it was Lynne Cheney who arrived at this time. Dick Cheney was already there and yet you call that DEBUNKING!
James Randi would be very proud of the investigating skills here because you guys are thorough aren't you?
Stundie this is just rhetoric. You are deliberately regurgitating CT theories on several subjects at once and not backing up any of your assertions in detail. If you were an honest debater you would address the debunking of the issues both in already existing threads on this board (use the search function) or on debunking sites (especially 911myths.com - but see these links http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/local_links.php?catid=18).
Wher you have bothered to read a thread, you haven't addressed specific points in that thread (by posting in it to bounce it, or by quoting posts from it a new thread) you've just made a general assertion that the thread doesn't disprove your point and then repeated yourself.
People have heard all your allegations many times before and you are not addressing the counter-arguments, which are easily found on this forum and on the sites above. The sheer volume of tangents in your thread would mean it would be very difficult for and time-consuming for people here to rebut every point once again. You've been pointed to resources every time, but have failed to address those resources instead just pasting more generic CT stuff. We are not here to do you research for you.
People here are losing patience with your lack of research, your tactic of covering too many points at once and your costantly distacting rhetotorical flourishes - and for you to assert that this indicates that they haven't thought about the subject and are just "buying in to the official version" is both laughable and insulting.
The only person to have demonstrated significant ignorance about the issues is you. Even when you are given the correct information you still willfully misinterpret it. For example, when told that the asbestos removal costs would not run into billions of dollars but were in fact estimated at $600 million for all the properties that port authority owned not just the WTC you're answer was "$600 is still a lot of money". You completely ignored the multiple properties explanation and still implied that the money was for the whole WTC, you then started to quibble about the number of floors. You also ignored the fact that asbestos removal in the WTC was already under way and that the court case had no connection with this as it was an attempt by the port authority to get the money in advance for work they hadn't started. The insurers argued that the work didn't definitely need doing and the court agreed.
For more about the financial aspects of all this, look at this thread: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=69261
As somebody who took the time to welcome you here and had put in quite a lot of effort to keep your debates on track, I am personally very disappointed in your behaviour here. Nonetheless, I am confident that you are not fooling anybody, no matter how many times you accuse people of failing to deal with the issues you raise.
bob_kark
Person of Hench
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2005
- Messages
- 4,488
In the quantities present it's no surprise the fires burned as long as they did.
What steel did it melt? Do you have any proof at all that any steel melted? I've heard of molten metal, but not steel.
It would not. Not to mention the fact that there is proof of oxygen starved debris fires, and no evidence of any thermite residue.
PerryLogan
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2006
- Messages
- 980
And another one bites the dust.
chipmunk stew
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2005
- Messages
- 7,448
Stundie, I'm bumping this for you because you completely ignored it, despite the fact that it addressed specific questions you brought up, gave you specific links to consider, and never once used the word "debunked".Welcome, stundie!
A few points I feel inclined to address:
The vast preponderance of evidence is that flight 77 hit the Pentagon.
A few places to get you started:
http://www.911myths.com/html/757_wreckage.html
http://internetdetectives.biz/case/loose-change-2
http://www.loosechangeguide.com/lcg2.html
By the way, there are a few pilots here. There are also a few clever people here with aeronautical experience and experience with data recording analysis who can calculate G forces and such. They, the NTSB, and the vast majority of the piloting and aeronautical engineering community agree that Hanjour's maneuvers were nothing special and well within the range of the aircraft's capabilities. Wittenberg is a crackpot.
http://www.911myths.com/html/no_hijackers_on_the_manifests.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/official_manifest_images.html
Scanned images of the passenger lists can be found in a ZIP file here:
http://www.911myths.com/html/the_passengers.html
Here's the first page from flight 11, for example:
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g73/chipmunk_stew/Flight11Manifesta.jpg
Few claim that it is just crackpots who do not believe the entirety of the official story. In fact, many of us here have questions about some elements of the official story. Some of us use epithets such as "conspiraloon" sparingly for the cases in which evidence-based logic and reason is abandoned for speculation and paranoia. For example, I feel justified in calling Lyte Trip a conspiracy nut after reading that he has concluded that all the physical evidence at the Pentagon (see links above) was staged.
Some of the names you gave (Paul Hellyer, for example) I would place in the same category. Others I would not call crackpots. Curt Weldon, for instance. Some of the names on the list would probably change their positions if they were exposed to evidence that clearly contradicted their opinions.
We're about evidence here. The epithets are only rolled out for those who appear to be immune to evidence.
I encourage you to familiarize yourself with the documents posted in the Links section. You can get there through the link in my sig. I also encourage you to take advantage of the forums search function.
Belz...
Fiend God
Why would they want to knock them down, now ? Certainly not because they're unprofitable: they're rebuilding the complex now.
You didn't. Does every thing I say have to be something you said ? You're weird.
My point was : why would the government be complicit to the destruction of the WTC if they didn't have anything to gain ?
Put options ? The fact that the airline industry had been in a low for months prior to 9/11 doesn't add up ?
The fact that no such event ever occured before, something that could have contributed to the lack of response to your "warnings", doesn't add up ?
The fact that NORAD wasn't designed to handle internal crises doesn't add up ?
This isn't a Clancy novel, Stunt. Not everyone is always aware of everything in advance. After the fact, it's easy to gather the evidence they should've had.
I do believe that would be YOUR claim, not mine.
"A" JREF forum ? There's only one of those.
It's like saying: "I really expected better from a Belz..."
Belz...
Fiend God
So far, so good.
You DO know that plenty of fuel was available in the various offices, right ?
You ARE aware that fires can rage underground for months in some cases, right ?
Certainly not thermate. The reaction stops fairly quickly.
Also, thermate leaves traces that were not found on the site. Care to explain that ?
Belz...
Fiend God
Misquoting you ? I quoted your exact phrase. You assumed that he meant you said that all controlled demolitions had underground fires. That wasn't why he said it. MY point is, you misinterpreted his post.
No, you didn't, and that was my point as well. You might want to take up reading courses.
Which makes no sense at all.
And conveniently choose to ignore one of them, it seems.
There has been no debunking of the Thermate/Thermite theory regardless of how many people tell me it's debunked.
Well, you haven't been out here for very long, then.
Might want to talk to Huntsman about that. He has some experience with explosives.
Saying it's debunked doesn't make it so. But when someone says it's been dealt with ad nauseum, you should take heed and try to find out where. I've given you links for that.
Laugh all you want, Stuntie. The point is that NORAD was never meant to respond to internal threats like this. There was no defined protocol between these agencies, and that certainly didn't help their response time.
Source, please. 100 times ?
Since both sides use this term, I choose not to use it. In fact, I rarely use the term "skeptic", either.