The 100% Impossible 9/11 Inside Job

[Dave Rogers]

Now perhaps aluminum could have glowed somewhat at some point, but not 4 or 5 weeks after the initial WTC office fires.

So you're saying it was hot enough to melt steel, but not hot enough to melt aluminium?

Dave

 

[GlennB]

Aluminum generally does not glow bright yellow, or even look warm in color at all.

All aluminium:

 

[aggle-rithm]

These explosions occurred deep in the sub-levels and people in the lobby were knocked to the ground. "Large motors filled with oil"? Who are you kidding here?

How about "elevator shafts filled with a fuel-air mixture and then ignited"?

This is what really gets me about truthers. They believe that a disjointed event, like an explosion in the basement, can be somehow linked to a completely separate event, like a top-down collapse that occured much later.

 

[aggle-rithm]

"Fires were not hot enough to melt steel" = proof of inside job

"Pools of molten steel found" = proof of inside job

Does it even bother truthers that their ideas contradict each other?

 

[aggle-rithm]

These are explosions prior to collapse. Please pay attention and we can avoid these unproductive asides.

Immediately prior to collapse?

Also, keep in mind that not all explosions are created equally. There are explosions that can knock you off your feet, but leave you conscious and alert. There are other explosions that liquify your internal organs as they knock you off your feet. There are still other explosions that reduce you to nothing but a pink mist.

Guess which kind would be necessary to sever a bunch of steel columns?

 

[Sabretooth]

Nice dodge/change of subject. When you fail do you just like moving on to the next irrelevant point?

You mean, like, when when I posted this about WTC7...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6739049&postcount=310
...and you opted to completely ignore it and change the subject?

The level of hypocrisy you're exhibiting is truly awesome.

Are you going to provide a single shred of evidence anytime soon? Hell, even fonebook is trying to pretend he knows how to use Google.

 

[Sabretooth]

Because aluminum was not even remotely as abundant as steel. <snip>

You have got to be kidding...seriously? Way to completely ignore the fact that a 177,000 lb aircraft, constructed of mainly aluminum, struck the building.

Wait...are you another no-planer? Did mini-nukes and laserzzz bring down the WTC?

Let me know, so I can put your sorry ass on ignore.

 

[newton3376]

"Fires were not hot enough to melt steel" = proof of inside job

"Pools of molten steel found" = proof of inside job

Does it even bother truthers that their ideas contradict each other?

I think the truthers argument is something like this...

Since the fires were not hot enough to melt steel, but there were pools of molten steel found then something else melted the steel. And that something was nano/super/therm*te...

As stupid as it is...I think that is their argument.

 

[Sabretooth]

I think the truthers argument is something like this...

Since the fires were not hot enough to melt steel, but there were pools of molten steel found then something else melted the steel. And that something was nano/super/therm*te...

As stupid as it is...I think that is their argument.

Regarding the highlight...I think it's absolutely hilarious that Truthers believe this is a valid point when there is zero evidence that there were "pools" of anything, let alone steel.

 

[triforcharity]

This is one of the "ground zero meteorites". It's comprised of formerly molten steel and concrete.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc_meteorite.wmv

Incorrect. That is a picture of 7-8 floors compressed together. See all the stuff sticking out? Yeah, there's even paper in it. NOT molten steel.

There's a 9/11 display here in NYC that houses some of these "meteorites".
http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/gun_notice.jpg

Incorrect. This refers SPECIFICALLY to molten concrete, NOT steel.

 

[triforcharity]

It's a straw man; that's it's problem. The argument that explosions can occur in office fires isn't being disputed, at least not by me. However the explosions experienced on 9/11 are not consistent with the ones you're describing.

And they certainly aren't consistant with explosives capable of cutting core columns either, as they would have been heard in HOBOKEN!

People were knocked off their feet by explosions felt at the Twin Towers. The types of explosions felt by eyewitnesses were literally ground shaking. People felt them throughout the structure and overwhelmingly emanating from deep in the sub-levels. Why would anything be exploding in the basement levels after a plane crash far closer to the roof?

Citation needed.

So let's get an understanding on what is being disputed here, or you can continue with your insightful large red font tirade.

You're still ignoring the fact that explosions are common in fires.

 

[tempesta29]

How can you possibly say I'm ignoring that fact when I specifically addressed it and rebutted it in on the previous page? And you have the nerve to use huge colored fonts to boot? Ignore.

 

[tempesta29]

So you're saying it was hot enough to melt steel, but not hot enough to melt aluminium?

Dave

All aluminium:

I don't need to be told that aluminum can glow. I'm aware that it can glow, but the available evidence doesn't suggest that it was aluminum. Not only were no large pools of silvery liquid noted, which this aluminum would have become at some point, but people saw actual steel beams melting.

 

[tempesta29]

OK, quantify, in your own words, what 500,000 tons of collapsing building should feel like when it's raining down all around you.

If you're referring to the explosions in the tower basements, accompanied immediately by the smell of jet fuel...gee, I wonder if it was just a coincidence that jets had dumped massive loads of flammable liquid there.

Yah, gotta be a coincidence, for sure. Uh huh. No correlation. Nuh uh.

Elevator crashes from somewhere high up, nah, that wouldn't go bang or make any noise. Of course not.

It was all nanothermite. WE get it, dude. Wake up people!!!! Inside job!!!!

Your writing is juvenile. I suspect it's because you sense the weakness of your argument. An elevator is not going to shake the base structure of these buildings. Kerosene igniting is not going to shake the base structure of these buildings. One fire fighter said it looked as though a bomb had gone off in the lobby. Your theories are not consistent with the actual event.

 

[TJM]

How can you possibly say I'm ignoring that fact when I specifically addressed it and rebutted it in on the previous page? And you have the nerve to use huge colored fonts to boot? Ignore.

You're confusing hand waving with rebuttal. They aren't the same thing.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I don't need to be told that aluminum can glow. I'm aware that it can glow, but the available evidence doesn't suggest that it was aluminum. Not only were no large pools of silvery liquid noted, which this aluminum would have become at some point, but people saw actual steel beams melting.

So, because large pools of silvery liquid weren't seen, you're discarding the idea that it might be aluminium, but just because no large lumps of solidified steel were found, that's no reason to suspect it wasn't molten steel?

And you haven't addressed the actual point I highlighted. You're saying the aluminium wouldn't have been glowing five weeks later, but steel was still molten. So you're saying it wasn't hot enough to melt aluminium, but it was hot enough to melt steel.

Dave

 

[Sabretooth]

How can you possibly say I'm ignoring that fact when I specifically addressed it and rebutted it in on the previous page? And you have the nerve to use huge colored fonts to boot? Ignore.

You're referring to this, I assume?:

It's a straw man; that's it's problem. The argument that explosions can occur in office fires isn't being disputed, at least not by me. However the explosions experienced on 9/11 are not consistent with the ones you're describing.

So how about actually backing up your points with...you know...facts and/or evidence and/or citations?:

People were knocked off their feet by explosions felt at the Twin Towers.

Evidence and/or citations? Ever hear a gas tank, propane tank, or boiler explode?

The types of explosions felt by eyewitnesses were literally ground shaking.

Evidence and/or citations? Ever hear a gas tank, propane tank, or boiler explode?

People felt them throughout the structure and overwhelmingly emanating from deep in the sub-levels.

Evidence and/or citations? Are you suggesting that fire cannot travel?

Why would anything be exploding in the basement levels after a plane crash far closer to the roof?

Evidence and/or citations? Are you suggesting that fire cannot travel?

 

[Sabretooth]

Your writing is juvenile. I suspect it's because you sense the weakness of your argument. An elevator is not going to shake the base structure of these buildings. Kerosene igniting is not going to shake the base structure of these buildings. One fire fighter said it looked as though a bomb had gone off in the lobby. Your theories are not consistent with the actual event.

Simile =\= Actual.

Way to quotemine.

 

[Sabretooth]

I don't need to be told that aluminum can glow. I'm aware that it can glow, but the available evidence doesn't suggest that it was aluminum. Not only were no large pools of silvery liquid noted, which this aluminum would have become at some point, but people saw actual steel beams melting.

Evidence and/or citation?

Your baseless assertions are worth zero to your story until you start providing them.

 

[twinstead]

I claim that locomotives cause tornadoes. Is it a coincidence that people are always hearing them when a tornado is around? I think not.