This is the thread that may very well change the way you look at 9/11 FOREVER!

[eeyore1954]

Let me clearly illustrate how all of you are engaging in Doublethink, and how this makes it impossible for me or anyone else to prove NIST's report is false.

When discussing the pouring molten metal in WTC 2, I scientifically proved why NIST is wrong in their assertions, that the molten material is a silvery molten aluminum mixed with burned organic material, like: furniture, carpet and computers. I showed how NIST themselves, are clearly engaging in Doublethink it order to make a possibility out of an impossibility.

All of you are engaging in Doublethink...by holding a belief that says NIST's report is completely true...while simultaneously having a belief that states that parts of NIST's report are patently false i.e. their claims of the max temp on the impact floors or the color of molten aluminum (silvery)

"...The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them ... to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies..." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink

I proved why scientifically, the yellow-orange molten metal coming from WTC 2, could not have been either the aluminum from the planes or the steel from the building.

I stated the max temp on the impact floors was around 1000C, and NIST agrees with this. I said that steel has a melting point of about 1500C and NIST agrees with that. I said that aluminum, although it has a melting point around 660C, appears silvery when melted, and NIST agrees with that. I declared that the molten material pouring from WTC 2 has a yellow-orange glow...and NIST agrees with that. I claim there are only two likely things this molten metal can be (minus therma/ite) and that is steel from the tower, or aluminum from the plane, and NIST agrees with that.

Now that we're at a point where NIST cannot logically or scientifically explain why this molten aluminum is glowing an orange color...they slip out of reality and engage in pure Doublethink, in order to create a possibility (scientifically possible) out of an impossibility (scientifically impossible) NIST says that this flowing molten material has no visual indication (signs) that it is burning. Then NIST goes on to compare the color (visual sign) of this non-burning material to a material that is burning in a fireplace. They claim that this silvery molten aluminum is mixed with burned pieces of organic material, like: furniture, computers, carpet etc. and that these burned materials display an orange glow like something that is burning. Burned means that it's no longer burning...burned means it's black...burning would be the stage where it's glowing orange from the heat.

So, according to NIST...the molten metal pouring from WTC 2 gets its orange glow from combining silvery molten aluminum and black burned organic materials. This is what NIST is saying...and that is how I proved them scientifically wrong, by illuminating the fact that they (NIST) are clearly out of touch with reality.

If NIST isn't capable of explaining even the most basic of things i.e. the color of a molten liquid - without engaging in Doublethink - than that beautifully reflects their inability to explain (with reason and science) how the towers could have collapsed due to - plane impact + dislodged insulation + falling upper mass. If you can't add 2 + 2 ... than I think it's safe to conclude that you lack the required ability to calculate complex scientific equations.

NIST source: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Do you reaaly believe what you post or is this just a game for you. I don't see how you could possibly claim that is a valid argument for scientific proof.

Also did you ever address your very first point. Has a steel structure ever collapsed from fire alone. Someone I think kookbreaker can you a very good example of one "The Kader Toy Factory "

 

[chacal]

This is what NIST is saying...and that is how I proved them scientifically wrong, by illuminating the fact that they (NIST) are clearly out of touch with reality.

lol

 

[baron]

There is definitely something worth investigating here, and that is why hundreds of seemingly rational people would spend their time arguing against a premise that has already been proven false beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[The Pig]

When discussing the pouring molten metal in WTC 2

Did you prove what type of metal it was before proving it was metal?

All of you are engaging in Doublethink...by holding a belief that says NIST's report is completely true

All of us think it's completely true? Where does this come from?

 

[Mercutio]

28th, have you (yeah, I know) tried to replicate the effect? Melt some aluminum, throw some office junk into it (try carpet, paper, pressboard, coffee mugs, whatever), then filming it from a couple hundred yards away, to see whether you can really "scientifically disprove" the NIST explanation?

You have not scientifically disproven anything; you have attempted to logically disprove a strawman version of NIST's explanation.

Take a step back. Notice that you are your own worst enemy in this thread. Your blatant ignoring of any substantive replies is clear to see. More than one person has concluded that you cannot possibly believe the things you are saying; if you cannot, how can you expect others to?

There are several lists of unresolved claims on your part. If you want to be taken seriously, you should revisit one or more of these lists and respond to your critics.

But who am I kidding? You don't want to; you don't have any interest in finding the truth.

 

[pgwenthold]

Wow, I have finally, after 4 days of browsing, finally read through this entire thread. It was supposed to be the thread that changed the way we (I?) look at 9/11. I am wondering, exactly what of the stuff you posted did you think would change the way we look at 9/11? Because I gotta say, even though I am only a casual observer of this 9/11 stuff, there isn't a single thing you posted that I haven't already seen and been shown that it is worthless. Truthfulness aside, I really wonder about your perspective. You remind me of those creationists who write to talkorigins.org and ask them if they have ever heard of "'Dr. Dino', Kurt Hovand," and then discover that the folks at talkorigins.org know more about Kent Hovind (they have to give the creationist the correct spelling) than they ever knew. When you started this thread, did you seriously not know that folks here had not read the random conspiracy website that you have been parroting? We've seen all this stuff before, what made you think it would change our minds this time? I'm more disappointed than anything else.

Of course, in a way, this thread did change the way I am looking at 9/11. For example, at the beginning, your challenge, which is a pretty common challenging from CTists, was to "provide a single example of a steel building that collapsed due to fire alone'?

Now, aside from the facts that a) no one claims that the WTC towers fell due to fire alone, and b) there ARE actually examples of steel buildings that have collapsed due to fire alone, let's go with it. Let's grant the question as legitimate and the CTists contention that, if there were no such examples, then it would be good reason to think that the buildings did not collapse by fire alone.

OK, so here's how my thinking has changed. If that question is enough to make you rule out the non-intentional collapse, then what about these:

1) When WTC towers 1 and 2 collapsed, if you watch the video, it is obvious that the top section (coincidentally, the part above the plane impact, but that is not important) falls first, and then it collapses from the top down. You can't deny this if you watch the video.

Now, you claim that it is controlled demolition. Has there ever, in the history of controlled demolitions, where the building was demolished in a top down fashion like WTC1 and 2 fell?

2) You have tried to claim that thermite/thermate was used to do the demolition of all the buildings, and way too much time was spent trying to determine whether one picture of one beam was a thermite/ate cut or not. Let's back up a step: Has there EVER been a controlled demolition of any building in all of history that has used thermite/thermate?

Just one example is all we need. Surely you must know of one, because you would not want to postulate a process that has never happened before.

3) I will say, it is not what you have said in this thread that changed my thinking, but what others have said. For example, you were asked early on by someone else whether there is any examples where 3 covert controlled demolitions were ever carried out on the same day. You don't even need to go that far: Has there ever been a controlled demolition carried out that has been tried to made to look not like a CD that has been exposed by an college age amateur movie maker (or worse (I will resist the urge to make a comment about teenage boys whose girlfriends' last names are all end in jpg (kudos to whoever came up with that, btw)))?

If no covert CD has ever been exposed before, why do you are able to do the unprecedented?

Heck, I'd like to see any evidence that there has ever been a CD made to look like a natural collapse. I'm not talking about some moron setting fire to his own building and claiming it was accidental. I want to see a case of controlled charges used to collapse the building during that fire.

Yeah, this thread has changed the way I look at 9/11, and particularly, the conspiracy theorists. I've quit worrying about the details. Before I see the details, I am going to focus on the bigger picture. Who cares if thermite/ate can cut a stinking steel beam. Prove to me that buildings can be destroyed in a CD fashion with it. YOU are the one who brought up the idea of having to have a precedent. Now, where's the beef?

 

[pgwenthold]

Reviewing my post, I realize it is long, and hence, too easy to ignore. Therefore, here is the Readers Digest version.

Three questions for CTists:
1) Has there ever, in the history of controlled demolitions, where the building was demolished in a top down fashion like WTC1 and 2 fell?

2) Has there EVER been a controlled demolition of any building in all of history that has been carried out by using thermite/thermate?

3) Are there any known examples where someone has tried to disguise a CD as a non-intentional collapse (that were consequently exposed)?

Background on all these questions is given in the post above.

Oddly enough, I could imagine that there could be answers to a couple of these questions, but I would think the folks here are much more likely to know it than are the CTists.

 

[Horatius]

Just one example is all we need. Surely you must know of one, because you would not want to postulate a process that has never happened before.

Ahem:

1. ... This has never been done before.

2. ... This has never been done before.

3. ... This has never been done before.

4. ...This has never been done before.

5. ... This has never been done before.

6. ...This has never been done before.

7. ... This has never been done before.

8. ... This has never been done before.

9. ...Do I really need to say, "This has never been done before"?

10. Do it all perfectly the first time.

11. Do it all perfectly the second time.

12. Come up with a whole new way to do all the explosive bits of points 1-9 perfectly the third time.

So that's at least 9 "never befores" his PET theory would require. Although you could argue that it's really 18 never befores, as there were 3 buildings.....

 

[uk_dave]

No, your initial post was spot on and you are to be commended to it.

Expect an extra special gift from big owl in your NWO stocking this christmas...oh and have newspaper handy to mop up the residue.

 

[pgwenthold]

So that's at least 9 "never befores" his PET theory would require. Although you could argue that it's really 18 never befores, as there were 3 buildings.....

But yet, "the building fell because it was weakend solely by fire" strawman is unacceptable, because, you know, it has never happened before (even though it has)

 

[Loss Leader]

I proved why scientifically, the yellow-orange molten metal coming from WTC 2, could not have been either the aluminum from the planes or the steel from the building.

Considering the fact that all of the ingredients of Thermite/ate were naturally present at the World Trade Center - aluminum, rust, sulpher in the wallboards, etc. - I'm not sure how you could have proven anything. In fact, I'm sure you could not have.

 

[~enigma~]

burned materials display an orange glow like something that is burning. Burned means that it's no longer burning...burned means it's black...burning would be the stage where it's glowing orange from the heat.

Talk about grasping a semantical straw. Ok let's play. Let's say you are right about everything but my question to you is what are you doing about it? Why are you trying to convince anybody on an internet forum instead of getting off your ass and doing something? Why aren't you doing something? Are you a fraud and are you afraid of being exposed if you were to present this in court somewhere? put up or shut up.

 

[Blue Mountain]

I proved why scientifically, the yellow-orange molten metal coming from WTC 2, could not have been either the aluminum from the planes or the steel from the building.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

[TheChadd]

Have you not seen all of the video footage with NYFD on the scene...telling people there was a bomb in the building and to leave the scene? No, the NYFD didn't only THINK or ASSUME it MAY come down. They KNEW it was coming down.

Wait... Did you just accuse rank and file members of the NYFD of being in on a plot to blow up building 7?

 

[beachnut]

I proved why scientifically, the yellow-orange molten metal coming from WTC 2, could not have been either the aluminum from the planes or the steel from the building.

So, according to NIST...the molten metal pouring from WTC 2 gets its orange glow from combining silvery molten aluminum and black burned organic materials. This is what NIST is saying...and that is how I proved them scientifically wrong, by illuminating the fact that they (NIST) are clearly out of touch with reality.

No you proved it was! You have shown us the proof thanks.

The only thing that is out of touch with reality is yourself. You have proved it over and over, to all.

Thank you

 

[Firestone]

28th Kingdom, you have shown in this thread that you don't understand a lot about physics, chemistry, any science really. That's nothing to be ashamed of, surely you are very well versed in some other thing ...
However, it is futile for you to claim that you proved anything scientifically about therm?te, collapse of buildings, ...

However, you also gave us here your theory of what happened on 9/11.

Karl Johannes asked you questions about this theory. Nothing to do with physics. Why don't you address these relevant questions about your theory? That's what people are supposed to do on a discussion forum.

Here as a reminder are those questions.

did they send the men to afghanistan to appear in training videos and martyrdom videos?
why would they have to mislead people who time and time again have commited their devotion to jihad and suicide?
are bin laden ksm, binalshibh, zawahiri, atef etc also paid off men?
if not how do you explain how bin laden refers to each one by name and repeatedly extols their task?
is a 767 (a plane that is not fly by wire) able to be remotley flown over the mechanical input of the pilots?
if not then who was on that plane when they were electronically hijacked?
if no one then where were all the alleged passengers? crew?
who made the phone calls?
what happened to the hijackers if they were not on the plane?
what happened to the passengers?
how do you account for the extensive delay in the remote flight system (image to plane, plane to controller, controllers reaction, controllers input, input to plane, signal to control surfaces) when taking into account the incredible speed and precision of flight 175's left bank at the last moment?
what elements within the govt are you referring to?
do you have any evidence besides a connection to a dubious claim to earlier govt involvment in a terrorist attack? even if that were true it does not prove anything about september 11
what does the pakistani ISI (which is stock full of radical islamists who do not exactly always listen to the dictates of military coup leader in cheif pervez musharraf) have to do with the USA CIA?

as i am no gravy i cant roll off a list of debunkification at you, but these are questions you must have asked yourself before you posted such an astonishing claim and therefore i would be interested in how you would account for these minor discrepancies

but most importantly...

do you honestly believe america, global hegemon, imperial leader, sole superpower, colonial collossus, is so bereft of enemies who want to kill us that we have to invent them?
that one goes for all the deniers.

 

[beachnut]

28th why do you like Alex Jones so much; you sound like him. Some people think he is a complete idiot.

Do you really think Alex Jones is a complete idiot or just nuts?

28th?

 

[babazaroni]

They claim that this silvery molten aluminum is mixed with burned pieces of organic material, like: furniture, computers, carpet etc. and that these burned materials display an orange glow like something that is burning. Burned means that it's no longer burning...burned means it's black...burning would be the stage where it's glowing orange from the heat.

Dude, the NIST report says partially burned. That means a portion is not burned.

From the NIST faq:

Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface.

Did you think the word partially was not important so you left it out because it just clutters things up?

How can you say something has been scientifically proved when you omit key words?

Now go back and do some more semantic twisting.

 

[Levantine]

I'm gonna have to say "Thanks!" here to 28thKingdom. If I ever was engaged in any sort of doubt about the official story, he has done *everything* necessary to remove that doubt. As a long time lurker on these threads, I tend to stay a bit removed from the conversation and really get to focus on both sides of the argument (if that's what you want to call it).

I'm finding more and more these conspiridrones are destroying any attempt at being taken seriously in any venue by their continued, bull-dogged approach to "research" and disemination of "fact".

I have never seen people more removed from reality or logic than people like Christophera and 28thkingdom. Their approach smacks of rhetoric and flagrant disrespect. They are so tied to their belief systems (as stated earlier) that they just can't let the idea that they could possibly be wrong enter their minds. And that's what damages their credibility. Any protests of "No, I'm open minded" is always silently (or not) followed by "But nothing you can say or do will change my mind".

Disgraceful.

I'll never claim to be truly objective, but I think the skeptics have pretty much won this battle, as it were. Those on the fence will be enlightened by "real" truth - logic and reason will win the day. There will always be those who are on the fringe.

Let them be on the fringe. They'll burn out and take care of themselves; relegated to small forums on the corner of the internet, constantly readjusting their tinfoil hats as they fall over their eyes - feverishly composing non-sensical posts on message boards where the common reaction is an eyeroll from thinking adults.

Thanks again skeptics, thanks for your respect for the victims and for the truth. That's why I signed up here and that's why I stay. Keep on educating.

 

[apathoid]

Expect an extra special gift from big owl in your NWO stocking this christmas...oh and have newspaper handy to mop up the residue.

I afraid the last of my stocking fillers went to Gravy, but I do have an Applebee's 50% off dinner for two coupon if you're interested pgwenthold.