(UK) The Daily Mail joins the circus!

[mookid]

That's a looooooooot of aluminium to be melting.. Good job the plane stayed nicely in one piece to produce that much 'flow'. :/

 

[mookid]

I did not see any puddles of steel, did you?

No I didn't.. I also didn't see the holocaust.. Please continue..

 

[WildCat]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-F0MnfzkOhM

Can someone explain this for me aswell - ta !

Sorry for all the questions

Yes, the fires continued to burn for months after the collapses. The video title is obviously false - the metal (of unknown composition) is red hot, not molten. And it's not in a pool either, as you can't pick up a pool of molten metal like that!

Are the above explanations satisfactory to you mookid, or are you a disciple of Steven "thermite" Jones?

 

[WildCat]

That's a looooooooot of aluminium to be melting.. Good job the plane stayed nicely in one piece to produce that much 'flow'. :/

Who said the plane remained in one piece?

 

[jon]

Something that has always confused me is that there was only one investigation allowed to investigate what happened; to me this makes little sense considering it's the most dramatic 'terrorist' attack on the West of our generation.

Not sure what you mean by this. There were two - not one - massive official investigations looking directly at the attacks (NIST and 9/11 Commission), not to mention the other investigations by the US government and others touching on related issues. Anyone else who wants to investigate is allowed to do so - and some have done, with people like Sen. Graham, James Ridgeway and the staff of the Der Spiegal magazine writing interesting books based on their investigations. Just because (some) truthers are holding off on carrying out their investigations, and instead 'just asking questions' and demanding that others do the hard work of answering them, doesn't mean that investigations are banned

The attacks have been pretty thoroughly investigated (both by the government and others) compared to other terrorist attacks; there's never been such a thorough investigation into a building's collapse. Hell, I wish there was such good info available about the 7/7 London bombings. However, if you believe there's more to find out - no investigation can cover everything about an issue - you're quite free to investigate the attacks yourself if you want.

 

[babazaroni]

No I didn't.. I also didn't see the holocaust.. Please continue..

What was it that you wanted explained?

The title of the video was Puddles Of Steel 6 Weeks After WTC Demolition

Please elaborate about what you are trying to imply.

No puddles of steel were visible.

 

[mookid]

Wow there are some heroically closed minded people in here looking to force a point. Give your explanation and be done with it.. less of the 'BELIEVE ME OR BE WRONG' attitude.

 

[anor277]

...............

So the argument goes something like.. "Your conspiracy can't possibly be true because the people you're accusing of lying have told us that what they said was true. And they have to be right because they have the people that are the most knowledgeable and expert in every area that's covered - we know this is true because they told us so."

Compelling stuff..

.............?

Or maybe perhaps it more like........

"Your conspiracy can't possibly be true because for the scenario you propose, demolition by preplanted explosives, not one iota of physical evidence has been adduced. Such evidence would be abundant (i.e. flash burns, chemical residues, detonation cord) had explosives been used, and would have been readily apparent to the firefighters, engineers, underwriters, who investigated the collapse. In the absence of such evidence there is no need to consider alternative explanations."

 

[WildCat]

Wow there are some heroically closed minded people in here looking to force a point. Give your explanation and be done with it.. less of the 'BELIEVE ME OR BE WRONG' attitude.

Nonsense. We put forth a valid explanation, one which is supported by the evidence and put forth by the scientists who studied the issues.

Do you have an alternate explanation?

 

[mookid]

Not sure what you mean by this. There were two - not one - massive official investigations looking directly at the attacks (NIST and 9/11 Commission), not to mention the other investigations by the US government and others touching on related issues. Anyone else who wants to investigate is allowed to do so - and some have done, with people like Sen. Graham, James Ridgeway and the staff of the Der Spiegal magazine writing interesting books based on their investigations. Just because (some) truthers are holding off on carrying out their investigations, and instead 'just asking questions' and demanding that others do the hard work of answering them, doesn't mean that investigations are banned

The attacks have been pretty thoroughly investigated (both by the government and others) compared to other terrorist attacks; there's never been such a thorough investigation into a building's collapse. Hell, I wish there was such good info available about the 7/7 London bombings. However, if you believe there's more to find out - no investigation can cover everything about an issue - you're quite free to investigate the attacks yourself if you want.

Interesting.. and I quote...
Claims of bias within the commission

The 9/11 commission members were appointed by George W. Bush, with input from Congress, which led to the criticism that it was not a truly independent commission. The commission stated in its report that "[their] aim has not been to assign individual blame

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Commission

 

[WildCat]

Interesting.. and I quote...
Claims of bias within the commission

The 9/11 commission members were appointed by George W. Bush, with input from Congress, which led to the criticism that it was not a truly independent commission. The commission stated in its report that "[their] aim has not been to assign individual blame

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Commission

So what errors did the 9/11 Commission make?

eta: do you have an alternate explanation for the dripping material and the red-hot metal?

 

[jon]

Interesting.. and I quote...
Claims of bias within the commission

The 9/11 commission members were appointed by George W. Bush, with input from Congress, which led to the criticism that it was not a truly independent commission. The commission stated in its report that "[their] aim has not been to assign individual blame

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Commission

I didn't say the 9/11 Commission was perfect (it wasn't), I said it was massive and - compared to similar investigations - relatively good. I presume you'd accept the first point - and, as to the second - I can't think of a government investigation of a similar terrorist attack that was as good as the Commission: can you?

Anyway, you said before that only one investigation was allowed. Could you clarify what you mean by this - there were two official investigations, and others who want to investigate have done (and no doubt will do); some of these other investigations have been very good.

 

[mookid]

"Your conspiracy can't possibly be true because for the scenario you propose, demolition by preplanted explosives, not one iota of physical evidence has been adduced. Such evidence would be abundant (i.e. flash burns, chemical residues, detonation cord)

There were residues.. flash burns; the core was internal?! Detonation chord; There's an interview with a British guy who worked for an IT company in the WTC; he should've died that day in the tower but he felt ill and didnt go into work that day. He 'claims' (in a telephone interview - and quite why he'd lie I'm not sure) that in the weeks leading up to 9/11 they had several power outages (security goes OFF), there were lots of un-uniformed guys walking round with lots of cable (...), they were moved to another floor, he could hear heavy duty maintenance going on above him so he went up to look what was going on.. couldnt see anything when he did.. just emptiness and walls. Added to which Bush's brother just happened to be made head of security ahead of time.

Important Question has anyone here read "Confessions of an economic hitman" ?

had explosives been used, and would have been readily apparent to the firefighters, engineers, underwriters, who investigated the collapse. In the absence of such evidence there is no need to consider alternative explanations."

All of the "final say" experts that would've confirmed these observations are employees of the accused so that would make sense wouldn't it..?

 

[mookid]

So what errors did the 9/11 Commission make?

eta: do you have an alternate explanation for the dripping material and the red-hot metal?

Look at the fire next to it (for a start it's clearly oxygen starved so it could never get hot enough).That fire lit thermite that was supposed to be detonated.

I've also heard a lecture by an MIT structural engineering expert who's totally independent to the entire process explain how he believes that the buildings were pulled.

 

[babazaroni]

they were moved to another floor, he could hear heavy duty maintenance going on above him so he went up to look what was going on.. couldnt see anything when he did.. just emptiness and walls.

Then you would know what floor the explosives were set on right?

Which floor was this?

Added to which Bush's brother just happened to be made head of security ahead of time.

Wrong.

The security company that he was on the board of was dismissed long before 9/11.

 

[mookid]

I didn't say the 9/11 Commission was perfect (it wasn't), I said it was massive and - compared to similar investigations - relatively good.

Your girlfriend was (unfortunately for you) talking about penises, not commission reports when she said "bigger is better". But you can keep kidding yourself if you like (joke - maybe..?)

Keep in mind your membership agreement regarding civility in the forums.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jmercer

I presume you'd accept the first point - and, as to the second - I can't think of a government investigation of a similar terrorist attack that was as good as the Commission: can you?

Pearl Harbour?

Anyway, you said before that only one investigation was allowed. Could you clarify what you mean by this - there were two official investigations, and others who want to investigate have done (and no doubt will do); some of these other investigations have been very good.

Bit late in the day though.. I think if they wanted to fiddle with the evidence they could probably have done that by the time those had started..

 

[WildCat]

Look at the fire next to it (for a start it's clearly oxygen starved so it could never get hot enough).That fire lit thermite that was supposed to be detonated.

Oxygen-starved?! There was a hole a hundred feet long and several storys high! How the hell could it be oxygen-starved? And thermite, btw, is not ignited by fire. Nor does it nor can it burn for weeks on end, in fact it burns in seconds and cannot be slowed down.

I've also heard a lecture by an MIT structural engineering expert who's totally independent to the entire process explain how he believes that the buildings were pulled.

OMFG, are you talking about Jeff King? Hint: He's not, and never was, a structural engineer nor an expert in it. He also is not employed by MIT.

 

[babazaroni]

Look at the fire next to it (for a start it's clearly oxygen starved so it could never get hot enough).

Clearly oxygen starved.

My, oh my, I've never heard of this before.

Try doing a google search on this forum for 'oxygen starved' and learn.

 

[mookid]

dismissed long before 9/11.

disconcertingly vague of you: I wonder how long the shelf life of demolition equipment is (i bet you don't need a fridge freezer to keep it fresh).

Presumably the conspiracy theory doesn't purport that "Bush woke up one morning early September and decided I'm going to blow up the WTC next week".. I think they're assuming that this was planned fairly meticulously.. i.e. they knew that they had to leave a gap between Bush's brother being head of security and bringing the buildings down. The power outs and the building work was under Bush's brother though. Watch the damn movie/video please

 

[babazaroni]

disconcertingly vague of you: I wonder how long the shelf life of demolition equipment is (i bet you don't need a fridge freezer to keep it fresh).

Presumably the conspiracy theory doesn't purport that "Bush woke up one morning early September and decided I'm going to blow up the WTC next week".. I think they're assuming that this was planned fairly meticulously.. i.e. they knew that they had to leave a gap between Bush's brother being head of security and bringing the buildings down. The power outs and the building work was under Bush's brother though. Watch the damn movie/video please

But you just claimed that work was done just prior?

Please settle on a story.

And check your previous post. You've been warned.