• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Why would you repeat wrong assertions?
Click to expand...

Everything OK? Repeat??!!?

Why an hour? There are many locations that could be candidates for charge placement where fires burned for less than an hour. This includes ALL locations in the South Tower, which collapsed less than an hour after fires started.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry - at this point it's becoming clear you're only interested in being contrary, no matter what. Why an hour? I dunno. Put on your thinking cap. You'll figure it out.

I think you need to contemplate a little on the meaning of words like "assumptions" and "proof" within the context of rational or even scientific debate
Click to expand...

I think dedicating the next X amount of pages to defining "assumptions" and "proof" is retarded. See the MIHOP thread.

You know damn well what I'm asking for and what constitutes proof. Either help these people out and help prove it or shut your yapper.
 
tmd2_1 said:
In regards to why they would pick WTC 7 I mean it would make sense to have a close up view of the two towers would it not?
Click to expand...

No, not really. What good would it do? It's useless for controlling the airliners; it's too close, and surrounded by other buildings, so it doesn't make remote control any easier. By the time the demolition is required, the towers are all over the national news, and a couple of extra cameras won't be noticed, so you've got a good view from whatever multiple viewpoints you want. The charges are set off by remote control; we know radio didn't work too well inside the towers, and trusting to radio control in a signal-rich environment for something this critical would be insane, so the charges would have to be wired. I see no reason why a close-up view would be so critical as to offset the obvious risks associated with having the secret control centre right where it's most likely to be spotted.

tmd2_1 said:
Also before the south tower collapses, you see something molten pouring out of the impact zone...Yes I know you will all say it is aluminum from the plane...but do you think it is a coincidence that the south Tower happened to fall shortly after the liquid started to pour?
Click to expand...

Good God, are you serious? The molten liquid was a result of the fires in the tower. The collapse was a result of the fires of the tower. The tower fell shortly after the crash and the fires. It's not coincidence, it's causation.

tmd2_1 said:
Also it would make sense as to why the South Tower fell first?
Click to expand...

There's no sensible reason why a plan would call for the south tower to fall first, no. Nor is there any reason why the fires set off the thermite in the south tower early, but not the north tower.

tmd2_1 said:
I have never heard or read any good explanation for why this occurred.
Click to expand...

And this is the problem with truthers coming here and lecturing people on things they know very little about. We have all seen the explanation of why the south tower fell first, because we've studied this more carefully than you have. Can I suggest that you do some research and find some things out for yourself? Saying "I know 9/11 was a conspiracy, but I don't really know all that much about it" isn't a very convincing line of argument.

Dave
 
I'm not suggesting they were remote controlled from WTC 7..perhaps I don't know...but perhaps it was just a place where they kept in contact with the planes that were following and controlling the planes by remote control. I don't know...I am not lecturing anyone..merely suggesting. To suggest I have done little research on 9/11 is completely not true. I have spent...many...many hours reading watching videos..from all points of view. Maybe I could be as knowledgeable as that other fellow who said 175 was flown into the ground. I do not mean to insult him..or anyone...but he said it twice...difficult to say type-o.
I'll say most people who have not looked into 9/11 are unaware that the 2nd tower hit fell first, and are surprised to learn that is what happened. That was something molten pouring out of the south tower...meaning something was melting...everyone agrees that jet fires could not melt steel...so it was either aluminum or something that was melting the steel. Would you agree that if...if it was a conspiracy, a scenario...where they are in WTC 7...they look and see "Oh crap some charges are going off we have to bring it down." Then they do so. Does that not at least make some sense? Is it what happened I can not answer...it is logical however. As I said I believe I have read every possible official explanation as to why the South Tower fell first...none satisfy me...I could see it tipping over before something happened to the north tower....but not to fall in pretty much the exact same way.
 
Last edited:
To Robert S. Mueller III

George W. Bush is now gone , where are all the security camera recordings?

Your time is up Mr. Mueller, which side are you on?


 
tmd2_1 said:
I'm not suggesting they were remote controlled from WTC 7..perhaps I don't know...but perhaps it was just a place where they kept in contact with the planes that were following. I don't know...I am not lecturing anyone..merely suggesting. To suggest I have done little research on 9/11 is completely not true. I have spent...many...many hours reading watching videos..from all points of view.
Click to expand...

I suspect that this is not true. Your knowledge has some rather large gaps in it, and your view of those who accept the conventional narrative is itself a conspiracist one. I think you need to look at some non-conspiracist sources.

tmd2_1 said:
I'll say most people who have not looked into 9/11 are unaware that the 2nd tower hit fell first, and are surprised to learn that is what happened.
Click to expand...

They are not us. Most, if not all, of us have studied it in considerable detail for a long time, and - not meaning any disrespect - we know a lot more about it than you do.

tmd2_1 said:
That was something molten pouring out of the south tower...meaning something was melting...everyone agrees that jet fires could not melt steel...so it was either aluminum or something that was melting the steel.
Click to expand...

Fires get hot. Copper, aluminium, window glass, lead - these all melt in fires. But we know one thing that stuff wasn't; it wasn't molten steel. We can tell from the colour that it wasn't hot enough to be molten steel. In fact, we know from the colour that it wasn't any hotter than would be expected in a building contents fire - which can get pretty hot.

Hotter, in fact, than jet fuel fires. Did you know that most of the jet fuel probably burned away in the first ten minutes, and that the really big fires were fuelled by the office contents? Did you know that fire resistance tests have repeatedly shown that normal building fires can weaken steel to a small fraction of its normal strength? Did you know that the collapse of steel structures due to fire is so common that, in some instances, firemen will actually play water on steel structures nearby to stop them heating up and collapsing, as they did when my son's school caught fire a few years ago?

We all know that.

tmd2_1 said:
Would you agree that if...if it was a conspiracy, a scenario...where they are in WTC 7...they look and see "Oh crap some charges are going off we have to bring it down." Then they do so. Does that not at least make some sense? Is it would happened I can not answer...it is logical however.
Click to expand...

Why even bother to ask? We know why WTC2 fell first. We don't need to make up fantasy reasons.

Dave
 
I think you would be surprised at what I have read...I won't say I have read every page of the NIST report or 9/11 commission report..but I have read most of it. I have looked at many threads here...and other places...believe me I have looked at many sources. In regards to what you said..there are many highly qualified individuals who will say that looks like molten steel...they won't say it is...just that it could be. After the fact...many reports of Molten Steel...in fact there is video out there where Jon Gross (lead NIST investigator) says he is unaware of any witnesses that saw Molten Metal..then they proceed to show many videos of people saying that is what they are seeing. Notice I say he said he doesn't know any witnesses that saw it...I'm not addressing if it was there or not...to me this is an outright lie or unbelievable negligence. He either knew or should have know about these witnesses. One can make an argument that when someone lies about a certain subject...why should you believe anything they tell you. So just throw out the whole NIST report. I won't say that..simply saying that someone could. Also come on steel frame collapses are common? I'm not someone who says it's never happened...I know they have for various reasons...but to say they are common? I wouldn't think so.
 
Last edited:
NoahFence said:
...
You know damn well what I'm asking for and what constitutes proof. Either help these people out and help prove it or shut your yapper.
Click to expand...

Actually, no, I do not know damn well what you are asking for, and I think you don't even know it yourself, not well enough anyway.


See, I know of course what you want to get at.

But you are offering money upfront. Your OP amounts to a legal document, whereby you make an offer for a contract. If anybody should agree to the terms of contract layed out in the OP, you may find yourself in a position where you will have to pay 1000 bucks because your offer is so ill defined that any number of things that do not address what you are trying to get at (but unfortunately failed to spell out).

Of course I am stubborn on purpose here. Strange you don't get it.
 
tmd2_1 said:
One can make an argument that when someone lies about a certain subject...why should you believe anything they tell you.
Click to expand...

Bearing in mind how many barefaced, blatant lies have been told by how many members of the truth movement, I can see why you wouldn't want to use that argument.

Molten steel is, in any case, a dead end. The substance falling from the tower is not just probably not molten steel; it's clearly and definitely not molten steel. There are a few people who claim to have seen molten steel in the rubble pile many days and weeks after the collapses, but their testimony is worthless; it's not possible to determine, by eye, that a substance is molten steel (although most of the time it's trivial to determine that it isn't). And, in any case, thermite reacts in seconds, and it's impossible to the point of absurdity for it to have maintained temperatures in the rubble pile beyond a few hours after the collapses. The only thing that could have maintained these temperatures is underground fires, so we know with absolute certainty that these were present; and, if they were able to maintain these temperatures, they were equally able to create them.

Simple explanation, no thermite. Always the case.

Dave
 
All you have to do is PROVE explosives can survive the impact of the aircraft and subsequent fire.
How is that in any way vague?

Just stop it.
 
Clearly tmd2_1 is another one of these 9/11 conspiradroids that thinks noone here has heard this song and dance before...
 
tmd2_1 said:
I think you would be surprised at what I have read...I won't say I have read every page of the NIST report or 9/11 commission report..but I have read most of it. I have looked at many threads here...and other places...believe me I have looked at many sources. In regards to what you said..there are many highly qualified individuals who will say that looks like molten steel...they won't say it is...just that it could be. After the fact...many reports of Molten Steel...in fact there is video out there where Jon Gross (lead NIST investigator) says he is unaware of any witnesses that saw Molten Metal..then they proceed to show many videos of people saying that is what they are seeing. Notice I say he said he doesn't know any witnesses that saw it...I'm not addressing if it was there or not...to me this is an outright lie or unbelievable negligence. He either knew or should have know about these witnesses. One can make an argument that when someone lies about a certain subject...why should you believe anything they tell you. So just throw out the whole NIST report. I won't say that..simply saying that someone could. Also come on steel frame collapses are common? I'm not someone who says it's never happened...I know they have for various reasons...but to say they are common? I wouldn't think so.
Click to expand...
Can you desist from employing dots and use proper sentences please? It looks untidy and it does not exactly fill one with confidence regarding your standard of education.
 
Last edited:
tmd2_1 said:
I think you would be surprised at what I have read...I won't say I have read every page of the NIST report or 9/11 commission report..but I have read most of it. I have looked at many threads here...and other places...believe me I have looked at many sources.
Click to expand...

This opening statement means little if you are having trouble comprehending what you read.

In regards to what you said..there are many highly qualified individuals who will say that looks like molten steel...they won't say it is...just that it could be. After the fact...many reports of Molten Steel...in fact there is video out there where Jon Gross (lead NIST investigator) says he is unaware of any witnesses that saw Molten Metal..then they proceed to show many videos of people saying that is what they are seeing.
Click to expand...

There are many more "qualified individuals" that will testify that "molten steel" isn't possible given the available temperature range of the fires. Explosives won't melt steel. Don't bother mentioning "thermite" in any of it's forms...the prep work required alone to have an effect on the collapse of the WTC borders on impossible. That, coupled with the fact that there is no evidence that thermite was present or ignited...

Quoting people who have little training or expertise in what "molten steel" looks like is just a shot in the dark to keep some preconceived delusion alive. It's not evidence.

Also come on steel frame collapses are common? I'm not someone who says it's never happened...I know they have for various reasons...but to say they are common? I wouldn't think so.
Click to expand...

Whether it's common or not should not be a base for guesswork.

Is it common for steel framed buildings to collapse? Probably not. Is it common to have fully fueled jets flown at high speeds into steel framed buildings? No.

For 9/11, you can't have one without the other. You can't ignore the first part of the equation and solve the question. That would be like trying to find your destination without a starting point.

Truthers ignore evidence, physics, and reality A LOT to fulfill some strange obsession...though it's never the "truth".
 
NoahFence said:
All you have to do is PROVE explosives can survive the impact of the aircraft and subsequent fire.
How is that in any way vague?

Just stop it.
Click to expand...

1. Put them behind those columns not in the path of the plane. We know that humans survived there without major injuries, so well protected explosives could, too.
2. Put them in fire- amd heat-resistant boxes that are rated to not exceed temperature X inside after having been exposed to temperature Y on the outside for 1 hour. Many safes have such ratings. Do I need to google some?

Please donate your 1000 bucks to Gage now. Thanks.
 
1. Put them behind those columns not in the path of the plane.
Click to expand...

You're assuming you know what columns those are. I said assumptions aren't proof, didn't I?

Put them in fire- amd heat-resistant boxes that are rated to not exceed temperature X inside after having been exposed to temperature Y on the outside for 1 hour. Many safes have such ratings. Do I need to google some?
Click to expand...


Sure. Have at it. If you're not too busy, perhaps you can also link to a source (you know, the evidence part?) that has these magical explosives inside the magical box, attached to an identical steel column, then blown - after being subjected to the violence of a 757 going 500 mph....that'll be pretty good proof.
 
NoahFence said:
You're assuming you know what columns those are. I said assumptions aren't proof, didn't I?
Click to expand...

*sigh*
Put them near ALL columns then. Those not in the path of the plane will survive the aircraft impact.

Or - wait! YOU are assuming I do NOT know what columns those are!

NoahFence said:
Sure. Have at it. If you're not too busy, perhaps you can also link to a source (you know, the evidence part?) that has these magical explosives inside the magical box, attached to an identical steel column, then blown - after being subjected to the violence of a 757 going 500 mph....that'll be pretty good proof.
Click to expand...

I have to pick up my g/f now. Also too lazy to shove that evidence down your throat.
However, if you know the first thing about safes that store valuables, you know that most of them are built for 2 purposes:
a. keep burglars out
b. protect content from destruction by building fires
Are you denying that boxes can be built that maintain temperatures <X after 1 hour when outside you have temperature Y? Notice How I carefully avoid making any assumptions about what X and Y are. You told me not to. So if I can show you there exists a box that keeps its contents below 50°F for an hour when it's 84°F outside, I win the challenge. Same with X = 70°C and Y=600°C. Etc. An example for the first would be a thermos jug, an example for the latter said money safe.
 
You told me not to.
Click to expand...

Assumptions don't equal proof.

Assumptions backed up by evidence can.

I suppose I was giving you and truthers the benefit of the doubt, that you'd figure out that nugget by yourself. I'll not make that mistake again.
 
So if I can show you there exists a box that keeps its contents below 50°F for an hour when it's 84°F outside, I win the challenge.
Click to expand...

Hardly. I suggest you back off trying to pat yourself on the back for your superior intellect and actually read and digest what's written.
 
Witnesses said they saw Molten metal. If you want to see how thermite could have worked..check out Jon Cole's videos. He does a much better job of explaining it then I will. Trust me I understand everything I read, and videos I watch. Again Cole says like I do..could have been used...not that it was...but that it can not be ruled out. If you want to say planes don't usually fly into building then what about WTC 7. No plane...in essence that was no different then office fires in the past. Yet it some how fell. Don't say it was because of damages from the North tower...you know as well as I do...it was not that damaged, certainly not damaged enough to fall. How could it damage it's core columns. Again I am not a truther at least not in the way you use that term. Maybe a questioner is what I would call myself. I thought the original question was asking for a way to connect all the dots. I provided it, what I believe is a plausible logical reason for what happened that day. Did it happen? I can't tell you..I will say it could happen. It explains a lot of things those who support the official theory point out, at the same explains holes in the official story. In my estimation looking at all the evidence I have seen, this is where the preponderance of the evidence lies. That doesn't mean I believe the official story is totally impossible. Another mistake I think is made by certain people...is that people want there to be a conspiracy. I don't think that is true, in fact quite the opposite. Just pretend for one second in your minds that there is a conspiracy. Think about what that means? Think about how scary that is....do you think people want that? I know I don't...I don't anyone else that does either. There may be some that want to feel smart...or think they are in on something I suppose...but those type of people will not put in the type of effort...that many good intentioned people have.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom