• 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.
NoahFence said:
So it's a trust issue?

If someone were to actually go ahead and prove this, it would be as obvious as the nose on your face. There is no wiggle room. Proof is proof.
Click to expand...

I already showed you (in broad outline) how your challenge can be easily met.

Please donate the 1000 bucks now, or I'll consider you in breach of contract.
 
Dave Rogers said:
Oystein, we're supposed to be a monolithic bloc of government supporters who always agree with each other. Didn't you get the memo?

Dave
Click to expand...

I stopped opening my mail ever since envelops mailed from police, pawn shoo and taxman increased in numbers :D

Would you care to address the OP, rather than give the newbee the 9/11 101?
 
Oystein said:
I stopped opening my mail ever since envelops mailed from police, pawn shoo and taxman increased in numbers :D
Click to expand...

Just think of all those unclaimed lottery winnings, though...

Oystein said:
Would you care to address the OP, rather than give the newbee the 9/11 101?
Click to expand...

Challenges along the lines of "Prove to me that [XXXXX]" are rarely worthwhile, as we see from all the ones currently running; they involve a postulate of impartiality that's never valid. However, it is a good point that WTC1/2 explosive CD theories require explosives to have been placed in the part of the buildings that were impacted by airliners and then burned for a significant period, and also require those explosives to have survived that treatment in a fit condition to operate correctly. It's pretty much an appeal to magic, because it postulates explosive devices of an unknown type, with unknown properties, that are specifically different to those of all known explosives. So it's worth noting that the burden of proof is still firmly in the conspiracist camp.

Personally I wouldn't demand proof with a reward. I'd simply ask to see a plausible existence theorem, from anyone proposing a CD theory, for any device that could exhibit the properties required for whatever hypothesis they're advancing, however tenuous. None has so far been offered.

Dave
 
Amazing you know exactly what I did. I can't believe it. It couldn't be that I was looking at a site that I knew had the information on and copied and pasted the first time the name appeared. That would just to easy of an answer...I'm suppose to know how to spell everyone's name I'll keep that in mind. I knew what the site said how the spell the guys name correctly is not what I was looking for, and shouldn't be important to anyone.

As for the second part of what you said, I really can't even believe you wrote that. That was nothing Mr. Loizeaux said that was 911 myths opinion, as to the question of molten steel. I was giving examples of what I believe were qualified people saying they saw (whether it be in a picture or not) molten steel. If anything it was you who cherry picked (though I am not saying you did) and did not realize he said he saw a picture and video of it.

As I said if you can look at the Cole video and not think thermite could have been used you never will. Cole said it best...there's some people you can't convince.
You're right every time there is "maintenance" going on in a building every one there makes sure to give it a close up inspection. They also couldn't have done some of the work late at night when no one is there. What would be the challenge in that? Do right smack in the middle of the day.

All of this is beside the point the lead NIST investigator was caught lying about the subject. To me and I hope to everyone this is a big deal.
 
For all your prickish patting yourself on the back, you still haven't proven it, kiddo.

Assumptions backed up by evidence.... What language do you want that in?


It's pretty much an appeal to magic, because it postulates explosive devices of an unknown type, with unknown properties, that are specifically different to those of all known explosives. So it's worth noting that the burden of proof is still firmly in the conspiracist camp.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

Please donate the 1000 bucks now, or I'll consider you in breach of contract.
Click to expand...
lol
"breach of contract" -- well better than what I consider you at this point, :rule10:
 
Last edited:
tmd2_1 said:
I apologize for wall texting or however you want to put it. I will try to do better.

Really? Thermite can't be used to cut steel beams? Simply check out Jon Cole's videos he clearly demonstrates that it can. Strangely that what is pouring out during his experiments....looks much like what we see right before the South Tower collapses. Is it Thermite(in the towers that is) I don't know..but it could be.

In regards to what is more likely molten aluminum or thermite...I really can't begin to answer that. I've seen many photos and videos of plane crashes (meaning the debris on the ground) but I have never seen anything like that.) Granted none of them flew into skyscrapers.

My biggest problem with the whole NIST report, is they do exactly what many of you claim truthers do. They looked at one and only one explanation for the collapse..and worked backwards from that. Nothing else was even considered.

I gave plenty of evidence to my thoughts. They are all plausible and logical, is it what happened..I don't know...but it could have happened.

I have never seen a satisfactory answer as to why the South tower fell first. My thought is that it could tip over before the North tower fell, but to fall in almost the exact same manner...it just seems highly unlikely.

I also gave evidence that Jon Gross(lead NIST investigator) either blatantly lied or was grossly negligent. He said that he knows of no witnesses that reported molten metal. When there were many that reported that they saw it. Notice I am not addressing whether or not there was molten metal...but he said he knows of no witnesses that said there was. It is clearly untrue. One could argue that if someone is caught lying about a subject, you would not have to accept anything that person says on that subject.

He being the lead investigator for NIST, as such their greatest representative, one could argue that why should anything in that report be believed. I will not say that here..simply stating that someone could make that argument. Yes I know their have been lies by those in truth movement...but come on you can not compare the two. This is the leader of what is to be the official explanation versus people that... who knows what their motivation might be. Many people do have good intentions, and simply have questions as to the events to that day. That is not excuse for those who have lied..lying and deceiving should never be tolerated.
Click to expand...

You're quite right that NIST only looked for evidence to confirm the official story as confirmed by Michael Neuman of NIST himself.


Reporter Jennifer Abel:"..what about that letter where NIST said it didn't look for evidence of explosives?"

Michael Neuman [spokesperson at NIST, listed on the WTC report]: "Right, because there was no evidence of that."

Abel: But how can you know there's no evidence if you don't look for it first?

Neuman: "If you're looking for something that isn't there, you're wasting your time... and the taxpayers' money."
 
Last edited:
tmd2_1 said:
Let me state this...my point in any of this is not whether or not there was molten steel...or molten anything for that matter. I am saying John Gross was asked a direct question (I'm paraphrasing) What about the reports of Molten Steel? He stood there and said I am aware of no eyewitness accounts of molten steel. When there clearly were (eyewitness accounts that is). It's a clear lie or he is grossly negligent. Given that he has lied on this subject, why should one believe anything he or for that matter NIST(him being the lead investigator) has to say?
Click to expand...
I asked you twice already why you think Gross should have known about reports of molten metal and why he should have cared.

This is the 3rd time I'm asking you, do you intend on answering it? What is the significance of molten metal in the pile weeks after 9/11?
 
I answered it the first time... first of all Steel was the question. Second, if there was molten steel it had to be something other then just jet fuel or office supplies. Something like thermite. Why is it important..it's pretty obvious, if there was molten steel the whole NIST report and hypothesis would be in question.
 
tmd2_1 said:
I answered it the first time... first of all Steel was the question. Second, if there was molten steel it had to be something other then just jet fuel or office supplies. Something like thermite. Why is it important..it's pretty obvious, if there was molten steel the whole NIST report and hypothesis would be in question.
Click to expand...
You're not getting it at all. How does molten metal (you have no evidence it was steel, not that it even matters at this point) in the pile weeks after 9/11 have any bearing on the collapse of the towers weeks earlier?

Are you claiming steel melted by thermite stays molten for more than a few minutes after the thermite burns out? Or that there was such a ridiculous amount of thermite available that it burned for months?

What is your claim?
 
tmd2_1 said:
I answered it the first time... first of all Steel was the question. Second, if there was molten steel it had to be something other then just jet fuel or office supplies. Something like thermite. Why is it important..it's pretty obvious, if there was molten steel the whole NIST report and hypothesis would be in question.
Click to expand...

So would the thermite hypothesis, because it's impossible for thermite to still have been reacting weeks after the collapse. You've seen the Cole video; how fast did it burn? How would you slow it down so it kept going for several weeks? Because that's what your line of argument demands, whether you like it or not; you're claiming that eyewitness reports of molten steel weeks after the collapse are evidence that thermite caused the collapse.

Dave
 
WildCat said:
I asked you twice already why you think Gross should have known about reports of molten metal and why he should have cared.

This is the 3rd time I'm asking you, do you intend on answering it? What is the significance of molten metal in the pile weeks after 9/11?
Click to expand...

I would say that Gross was in intimate contact with Leslie Robertson who was in charge of the building of the Towers wouldn't you ? Leslie said he saw molten steel in the basement
 
tmd2_1 said:
Amazing you know exactly what I did. I can't believe it. It couldn't be that I was looking at a site that I knew had the information on and copied and pasted the first time the name appeared. That would just to easy of an answer...I'm suppose to know how to spell everyone's name I'll keep that in mind. I knew what the site said how the spell the guys name correctly is not what I was looking for, and shouldn't be important to anyone.
Click to expand...

Stop trying to play the victim. You're quote-mining just like every other truther that I've seen flow through here. Somebody called you out on it, and now you're upset. Get over it.

You are still missing the point, by a lot.

It doesn't matter if "witnesses" saw melted steel, metal, or cheese. It doesn't matter if Goss lied about knowing there were "witnesses".

It doesn't prove the existance of thermite or any other demolition material. Period.

As I said if you can look at the Cole video and not think thermite could have been used you never will. Cole said it best...there's some people you can't convince.
You're right every time there is "maintenance" going on in a building every one there makes sure to give it a close up inspection. They also couldn't have done some of the work late at night when no one is there. What would be the challenge in that? Do right smack in the middle of the day.
Click to expand...

Occam's Razor. Look it up.

All of this is beside the point the lead NIST investigator was caught lying about the subject. To me and I hope to everyone this is a big deal.
Click to expand...

So when you found out that your parents lied to you about Santa Claus, did you automatically discount everything else they told you?
 
Last edited:
It's become painfully apparent that despite the efforts of a few massively intelligent dolts, it can't be proven that explosives can survive the events of 9/11 in such a manner that they'd be a useful tool in taking down the towers. As expected, my money is quite safe.

Mods can close this thread now should they so choose. From here on out it'll just be another name for the general discussion thread......
 
tmd2_1 said:
I answered it the first time... first of all Steel was the question. Second, if there was molten steel it had to be something other then just jet fuel or office supplies. Something like thermite. Why is it important..it's pretty obvious, if there was molten steel the whole NIST report and hypothesis would be in question.
Click to expand...

Open a physics book.

Steel, if melted, will solidify in seconds at ambient air temps. The amount of thermite needed to create flowing pools of molten steel would be i-m-p-o-s-s-i-b-l-e to to obtain, prepare, and ignite without a great many people noticing. Not to mention the lack of evidence of it's presence.

I'm starting to think you're just trolling...because you are blatantly ignorant of the obvious.
 
bill smith said:
I would say that Gross was in intimate contact with Leslie Robertson who was in charge of the building of the Towers wouldn't you ? Leslie said he saw molten steel in the basement
Click to expand...

And Leslie has a magic ability to determine what a molten material is with a mere look, and is never and couldn't possibly ever be wrong about what the molten material he saw actually was?

Come on now...
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom