gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 25,327
Reasonable doubt...All truthers(and whoever esle) please read
- Thread starter tmd2_1
- Start date
The government did not have to say much since the terrorist left a trail as if they died on 911 and left all their stuff behind. Oops, they did.
911 is easy to figure out, the terrorists knew after the fact they would be,
You like delusional nonsense to explain an event. Like making up lies about who won the super bowl, 911 truth is making up lies about what happen on 911. I watched the game, 19 terrorists did it, fire caused the WTC to collapses because fire does this to steel...
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/woodbeambentsteel-full.jpg
The experts 911 truth have occur at a rate less than mental illness. Why do the experts prefer lies?
I don't listen to the government, I make up my own mind, you are using the government, MSM, and 911 to mislead yourself into delusional 911 claims. Wow, how do you fall for all the lies of 911 truth?
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 25,327
I've just realised you don't even know why metal glows when heated up. Your claim appears to be that aluminium will glow "right after heating" but then will turn silver while still molten.
I'm sorry, but no. That is... retarded. How long it has been since the metal was heated is totally irrelevant. All that matters is the temperature of the metal at that time.
The famous grappler photo
... has always intrigued me. Every time I look at the damn thing I feel like I'm about to recognise just what that object is. Or objects? Anyway :
Notice top centre, where there's an ingot-shaped piece in the jaws. Notice the very crisp transition from pink to black along the profile of that shape. This isn't the behaviour of metal, so I'd tentatively conclude that this part is actually pinched against the more orange object below it and, in fact, we're looking at more than one object here.
But then, if the lower object is red to yellow-hot metal, what can the other object be that it's able to withstand such temperatures (bearing in mind that they were also pretty close together in the pile)? Certainly nothing organic such as plastic or wood as they wouldn't survive these temperatures without burning or at least giving off a lot of smoke. It's certainly not glass. There also appears to be (it isn't clear in this enlargement) a tangle of wires in/around the lower object. This would be extremely mysterious if that object were melting steel.
Two separate metallic objects? Or is this thing/things not metal at all?
... has always intrigued me. Every time I look at the damn thing I feel like I'm about to recognise just what that object is. Or objects? Anyway :
Notice top centre, where there's an ingot-shaped piece in the jaws. Notice the very crisp transition from pink to black along the profile of that shape. This isn't the behaviour of metal, so I'd tentatively conclude that this part is actually pinched against the more orange object below it and, in fact, we're looking at more than one object here.
But then, if the lower object is red to yellow-hot metal, what can the other object be that it's able to withstand such temperatures (bearing in mind that they were also pretty close together in the pile)? Certainly nothing organic such as plastic or wood as they wouldn't survive these temperatures without burning or at least giving off a lot of smoke. It's certainly not glass. There also appears to be (it isn't clear in this enlargement) a tangle of wires in/around the lower object. This would be extremely mysterious if that object were melting steel.
Two separate metallic objects? Or is this thing/things not metal at all?
Last edited:
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 25,327
To me, at least, it seems obvious that the machine is picking up a mess of debris that includes concrete and lots of metal, and that some of the metal is very hot steel ~1,000 degrees C. It's certainly not molten, and I never realised anyone thought it was a single piece.
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
All of them were worth addressing.
No.
Not at all. What a nonsense comparison!
Everybody can tell from sight alone on a clear, bright day if an object closer than 1000 yards is a passenger plane or not, and everybody can tell from sight alone if that object hits a huge building or not. It takes absolutely zero qualification except having lived in the industrialized world for a few years. Kids can do it. School dropouts can do it.
Telling if something that glows is steel, or even only if it is molten: Not so. Not even experts can do that reliably by sight alone.
People have been trying on page after page after page after page after page after page after page after page after page to tech you that. You cannot be taught as you are unwilling to learn.
You have paraded an image on which you claim you see molten steel. There is indeed nothing molten in that image. What is shown there is pockets of fire on the surface of the debris, which puts some of the surrounding rubble in a yellow light. Yellow light means the temperature of the fire is several hundreds degrees below the melting point of steel. This is proof positive that there cannot be any molten steel in the image. In fact, there is no hint of anything molten, and no proof that anything in the image is steel.
Yet you see molten steel.
Why is that so? Because you have been told to see melting steel there.
Poisoning the Well logical Fallacy
Explain why inb the OJ Simpson trial, the notion of "reasonable doubt" was applied in such a flawed way as to make it incomparable to your quest here!
You have been told many many many many times that you don't know all that Lloyd said and you don't know what he replied to, even what he was talking about, because CIT edited the raw footage and only showed you what THEY want you to hear!
Why haven't you listened to good advice?
Why on earth should anybody give away advance information to the press about an event that the press would report about anyway once it happens? That ridiculous idea doesn't make any sense to start with. You must be assuming that this huge cabal is at the same time super smart and super stupid.
Because they didn't have a chance to see it earlier. It was breaking news, fed to them as they were speaking, and they commented live on a fed tape.
If you want to introduce that as evidence for the defense, you should name the suspect.
Greening does not believe that the research he was calling for would shed any light on the culpability of Al Qaeda.
Weak.
Idle talk. You won't do nothing.
Have you presented your evidence to any court yet, or any prosecutor? Has anyone in the truth movement done anything of the sort in the past 9 years? If not, why not? If yes, tell me how that went!
That's correct. That's because you have nothing.
Two things to shoot down your "evidence":
a) The person resembles Aziz, however it is not conclusive that this is Aziz. This sort of closely shaved hair on a slender man in a light blue shirt - many slender men in light blue shirts work in offices such as the Navy Annex, and some of them sport a closely shaved head.
b) The EXIF information of this picture shows the DateTimeOriginal as 2001:09:11 22:45:01. That's 10:45pm on 9/11 for you American types. How can you deduce from this that the photo was taken "3 to 5 minutes after the event"? AA77 crashed at 9:37am. If you theorize that only the hours are wrong on the time stamp, that would put the photo at 8 minutes after the event. However, we don't know when it was really taken, all we have is conjecture. Oh - and further down on that PfT page, they say "5-7 minutes after". Guesswork then, ok. Evidence dismissed as pure conjecture.
Oh and by the way: Ingersoll's photo series went on. Eight images later, he shot DSC_0412 with a time stamp of 22:48:49 - 3 minutes and 48 seconds later. That would put 0412 at 11 or 12 minutes after the event, at most, or 6 to 10 minutes after according to PfT. That photo shows Lloyd England's cab for the first time. It is seen again in DSC_0413 (22:49:20), DSC_0415 (22:52:35) and finally DSC_0420 (22:56:47) amd DSC_0421 (22:57:14), this time with Lloyd in the picture.
If DSC_0404 is evidence, then so are all the others, which clearly show that Lloyed erred about the position of his cab 7 years later in the CIT interview
I had this picture, along with all the others from the series, on my computer already from previous debates. Seems like it isn't quite as secret as you say.
Got evidence for the assertion "Any official sites that had it took it down"? To do so you would have to
- List all official sites that had it up
- Prove they had it up
- Prove they took it down
Huh? Be specific, what are you talking about? Any of the various attempts to earn money with 9/11 woo?
I have nothing to take back. Robertson didn't see any molten steel, and Robertson does not believe that there was indeed molten steel, and Robertson further does not believe that official story is wrong, even though firefighters told him they saw something "like little rivers of steel".
There is zero proof that any second hand verbal report of molten steel means that there actually was molten steel.
Even if there was molten steel down in the basement, when they made it down there many weeks after the collapses, there is no shred of logic or theory that could possibly link that molten steel to the reasons for collapse. Any steel that melted ON 9/11 would have resolidified very soon after. Any molten steel found weeks AFTER 9/11 must have melted for reasons unrelated to the collapse initiation.
There exists no theory that would explain collapse initiation and molten steels weeks later with the same cause.
Any discussion of alleged molten steel witnessed in the rubble therefore is not evidence with any bearing at all on the culkpability of Al Qaeda. It would have to be thrown out of your defense case.
Yes. And what has this got to do with the culpability of Al Qaeda? Nothing. Ask Ryan Mackey himself. He is active here on the forum.
Yes, strange things happen when you put a lot of noise on a little bit of signal. It is quite usual for magnetic recording tape to have these faint echos, as one loop of tape copies to the next loop. Frequencies may get lost in that process. If the high frequencies typical for female voices have more loss than lower ones, the voice may sound more male.
Any technology morphing voices would not use magnetic tape for analogous recording; it's a digital technology, no echo on neighbouring loops of tape. That artifact that your source found happened on the voice recorder in the home of CeeCee's family.
Meaning there were several. Right? What about the others? All faked? What about the family members who spoke to their loved ones live on the phone? All duped by voice morphing?
You admit you are running away from valid criticism.
It's a matter pf curiosity to me, though of course I agree it cannot be molten steel. The way the 'glowing' part blends right along into the mass of black material in the jaws of the grappler (which appears quite smoothly crumpled and bent, the way concrete wouldn't be
) especially. But I seriously doubt it's as hot as 1000°C as such temperatures are round the peak of those reached in open home and office fires. Frankly I have reservations about the whole veracity of the photo as it's presented by Truthers, wondering just how much it has been tweaked.NoahFence
Banned
You need to stop posting, and start reading. This stuff's been proven false a long, long, long, long, LONG long long
long
long time ago.
Sabretooth
No Ordinary Rabbit
So, eyewitnesses are good enough for "molten steel", but not good enough for a freakin' plane striking the Pentagon?
Good job, truther.
Animal
Master Poster
Your willful ignorance is astounding. There were no "horseshoe shaped beams" used in the WTC, in fact I have never seen a "horseshoe shaped beam" used anywhere......why? because it is an inefficient shape that would waste a lot of material for no purpose. Only trooofer logic demands that aluminum cladding be "horseshoe shaped beams" in order to preserve the troofer religious beliefs.
Fabulous point!
No... all the points were not worth addressing, some have been already answered and made no sense what's so ever.
Yeah I'm sure the average person can tell the difference between a military A/C and civilian especially when it's going 500 mph. Also all the eyewitnesses of explosions I guess you now have to be an expert to know what an explosion sounds like as well?
In terms of molten steel or aluminum go to this video here it says it all http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30OVAvg1aGQ
Lloyde said what he said...all I can really say about that.
WTC 7. Give up this is a building as you and others put it "everyone" knew was going to come down. Yet NIST (the experts) were baffled to explain it for years, and when they do...it has way to many holes for me to mention. Go here he does a good of explaining it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ArnYryJqCwU
Aziz is in the annex that picture is him looks just like him wearing the same thing...but you miss the bigger point, that this doofus, comes walking into the studio with a piece of evidence for a crime of this magnitude...and that is all ok? Why would the studio even let that guy in?
As for the hijackers still being alive go here...http://911review.org/Wget/members.fo...kers-alive.htm
http://allafrica.com/stories/200109240325.html
Molten steel weeks later..thermite reactions that didn't react, are now reacting...see jon cole he explains it much better then me.
Ceecee lyles...not saying all phone calls were fake, not even saying this one is. Simply saying it casts doubts as to who really made the phone call. When you a voice at the end...that seems to be saying "testing...testing" it is very suspicious. The first time I heard that after I downloaded myself and amplified it, I literally threw my head phones off....I couldn't believe what I was hearing. Don't believe me or the guy in the video..download it for yourself and see.
OJ..was a classic example of what defense attorneys do. They got the trial moved to an area that had a greater percentage of African Americans (please I am not racist don't say so.) Knowing they would be more sympathetic. They always look for jurors who have less education...doesn't matter where, they always do this. Then they admittedly took advantage of police and prosecution mistakes. Now what the police and prosecution did incorrectly, probably would not change the results of their findings. But they used it to cast some doubt on it.
One last point about Robertson. First he didn't say the fireman said he saw it.he said the fireman called him over. Then this whole debate, about "like" is absurd...totally absurd. I mean for you guys to go to this extent is unbelievable....see my previous post..i'll paste it for you.
Final post on Leslie Robertson admitting Molten steel:
I think what I'm about to say will sum it up.
I have seen some absurd things here...but to say Leslie Robinson was using like in a comparison way..has to take the cake. I mean number one when was the last time you ever heard anyone compare anything to a little river of steel? It just doesn't happen. It's beyond laughable. Number 2 look before and after he says it...he makes no comparison to anything. Nothing at all I mean how can you say he is making a comparison, when he doesn't compare it to anything?
What could the fireman have been calling him over to see? A little river of water? I mean there was a lot of it you know the millions of gallons of water that were dumped on it, but still couldn't out the fires out Something tells me he wouldn't have gotten that excited.
It was clear...he was saying something to the affect, that, I entered the the room, and then there was like a big explosion. I was driving along and a car like came out of no where. To suggest anything else is beyond absurd. It just shows the lengths you guys will go. If this wasn't such a
series subject...it would be hilarious...as it is now it's just sad. Sad that there are people out there that would go to these lengths to defend the official story.
Last edited:
That's right then how did one turn into a horse shoe after the event...see my other posts not going to post again.
NoahFence
Banned
Epic. Massive. Stupendous, hilarious, expected FACE PALM.
wow.
See previous posts all explained.
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
Lloyd said what? I have no idea what Lloyd said that made you think he admitted he was part of the inside jobby job conspiracy.
Quick response I don't have a lot of time. Guy posts an article saying the Chicago bulls one last night..that's fact. Same guy posts an article/editorial saying Michael Jordan is the best player ever. Opinion. I'm allowed to disagree with him, and think Oscar Robertson(or whoever) is the best player ever. Same thing applies here. The fact that he seems like he agrees with the official story only strengthens the validity of what he reported about Tomb
Ah yes, the old "it must be steel because they didn't test it for steel" routine.
The fact that you trust witnesses who claim there was molten steel without any testing being done and yet don't believe eye-witnesses who saw a plane hit the Pentagon shows how arbitrarily you choose to trust or mistrust witnesses.
It appears that you simply choose to trust those witnesses who confirm your beliefs and distrust those witnesses who do not. This is not the way of a truth-seeker. This is the way of a truth-denier.
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
No, it wasn't.
I've seen lots of military planes flying by at 500 mph, never once did I mistake them for civilian airliners.
And we do know that 4 civilian airliners went missing on 9/11, and no military aircraft did. We know that many parts of those civilian aircraft were found t the WTC, in the site near Shanksville PA, and at the Pentagon. Those sits also contained human remains, identified by DNA, of the passengers and crew and even the hijackers of those missing civilian airliners. How do you explain that Mr. Super 9/11 Researcher?
Last edited:
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 12,374
No, it wasn't.
I've seen lots of military planes flying by at 500 mph, never once did I mistake them for civilian airliners.
And we do know that 4 civilian airliners went missing on 9/11, and no military aircraft did. We know that manyparts of those civilian aircraft were found t the WTC, in the site near Shanksville PA, and at the Pentagon. Those sits also contained human remains, identified by DNA, of the passengers and crew and even ther hijackers of those missing civiloiuan airliners. How do you explain that Mr. Super 9/11 Researcher?
Prepare for "it was all planted" in 3...2...1...