Was 9/11 an inside job?

[Architect]

Oh the irony.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

I'm learning that a lot of people are idiots.

And I'm learning that you have been listening to a lot of them and taking what they say for granted before coming here...

 

[Relax]

Why on earth would someone reinforce a structure that they are planning on demolishing soon after. That's like slapping a new coat of paint on a car headed for the crusher. It's not looking so good for you IRT critical thinking skills.

NIST clarified itself in the letter at the bottom of the page. Did you read it?

It wouldn't make sense if they were actually reinforcing it would it?

 

[BasqueArch]

Coles's thermite experiments.


1) What Cole proved was that you needed a steel tube collar for the thermite to burn inside the steel tube columns, none which were found by the forensic engineers or first responders.

2) What Cole proved was that the steel tube thermite containers would have left the telltale suspicious signs of a melted seam at the tube columns, above the column base plates, no signs which were found by the forensic engineers or first responders.

3) What Cole proved was that the steel tube thermite containers magnesium initiators needed to be electrically wired in order to fire, and that none of these devices or systems were found by the forensic engineers or first responders.

4) What Cole didn’t disprove was that fire alone could have weakened the structure.

5) What Cole proved was that to melt the bolts you needed steel thermite devices for the thermite to melt the bolts inside the steel tube columns, none which were found by the forensic engineers or first responders.

6) What Cole proved was that the steel tube thermite bolt melting containers would have left the telltale signs of a melted bolt at the tube columns base plates, no signs which were found by the forensic engineers or first responders.

7) What Cole proved was that the bolt melting steel tube thermite containers magnesium initiators needed to be electrically wired in order to fire, and that none of these suspicious devices or systems were found by the forensic engineers or first responders.

8) What Cole proved was that the "explosive thermate" paint chips he mentions were not used in his thermite device.

9) What Cole proved was that his modest thermite devices could not have produced the rivers of "molten steel" he mentions.

10) What Cole didn’t disprove was that the tube columns connecting bolts failed by shear, punch through, bending or tension.

11) What Cole didn’t disprove was that iron microspheres could have been produced by other means.

12) What Cole proved was that his steel thermite devices were not necessary nor were used to cause the collapse of WTC1,2.

 

[Architect]

Relax

Have you read either the Arup or Edinburgh University studies?

 

[Oystein]

Relax, the question you were to answer was "What evidence do you have that structural steel melted in-situ, presumably leading to the collapse?". But I don't find your reply compelling: The evidence you present is not really evidence for your claim. So some more questions back at you:

Before

How do you know this is steel? And how do you know it's structural?
There are several good reasons to believe that this is NOT steel, the most obvious of which is the colour: That stuff glows yellow to orange red, indicating a temperature of no more than 1000°C. That's still more than 500°C away from the melting point of steel. Molten steel always glows white hot, never orange, never yellow.

Some leaking inside as well.

How do you know you see steel there? There are good reasons to conclude that what you see there is NOT steel. The chief reson would be: Many materials inside an office building would melt much sooner than steel, particularly aluminium, and also lots of the stuff used to hang ceilings from the floor trusses. If it was hot enough inside behind those windows to melt steel, those ceilings would already be gone.

After days or weeks after to be precise.

How do you know you see anything molten in those images? In the left, I see a simple surface fire, maybe some paper, wood or plastic burning. On the right, they pull out some steel (probably) that is red-hot, or well below 1000°C. Again, that is far away from the melting point of steel.
Also, that picture ws taken a long time after the collapse. If thermite had been fired before or during collapse to melt structural steel and destroy the towers, it would have dispersed widely during the collapse, and if not, cooled very soon after collapse and long before this photo. You see, when they weld rail with thermite, the steel is cool and strong enough for a train to rum over it 45 minutes later. So how do you explain that the thermite, that was used before noon on 9/11, could keep liquid metal above 1500°C for days and weeks? I want a scientifically sound explanation for that. This means that you need to be aware of the energy density of thermite, specific heat of steel, and be generally aware of some thermodynamics.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

It wouldn't make sense if they were actually reinforcing it would it?

So you're postulating that... what? Do you have any evidence for whatever it is or are you just pulling it out of... thin air?

 

[leftysergeant]

capable of melting steel... a feet jet fuel could not accomplish, and now ordinary office supplies can?

Of course not. No steel melted. Some Nazi piece of crap claims that it did happen, and a couple of fire fighters mistook molten brass for molten steel.

It is a damned rare fire in which some sort of metal does not melt.

I'm assuming that there was no huge bank of UPS batteries owned by the fuji bank there as the official story states it as melted aluminum... something I already gave a reason for discrediting. first time I've heard of a bank of batteries being stored conveniently next to the open hole the airplane debris left.

It is irrational of you to think that such banks of batteries would not exist.

I like to think I think critically alot.

It appears that you do not, at all.

 

[Oystein]

I already wondered that myself, and I figured that they probably already had a pre-determined spot about roughly where the plains would hit. In fact I'd find it completely ludicrous if they didn't have that in foresight. And explosives being pre-maturely set off due to shock would perfectly explain the 'dust puffs/pressure points' we see before the pile of rubble reach those levels. Good luck finding those in natural collapses. ...

Ah, see this is an element for the kind of "full theory" that you eventually ought to have. You know, a narrative that strings together all the bits and pieces you throw at us.
I think you will find that, when you try to weave such a story, it becomes extremely complicated, and difficult to stay consistent.

...
I have heard that many of the people who survived the collapse/demolitions of the towers are experiencing health issues which could be related to therm*te explosives, I have not taken it upon myself to research into it though. ...

When you research therm*te to debate your therm*te theory with me, you might want to include this, too.
- What is thermite?
- Which constituents of thermite, or products of a thermite reaction, would be major health hazards?
I hope you realize that at this point you are merely speculationg, with a strong bias towards a certain outcome.

 

[leftysergeant]

Coles's thermite experiments.


1) What Cole proved was that ...

Dude! You're getting sloppy. You left out the fact that the snivelling little idiot proved that his thermite leaves a bloody obvious chalky deposit all over the steel.

 

[BasqueArch]

Dude! You're getting sloppy. You left out the fact that the snivelling little idiot proved that his thermite leaves a bloody obvious chalky deposit all over the steel.

Pops, you're right !
13) What Leftysergeant said.

 

[Relax]

Well, I see a discrepancy between two of the videos you posted, and the claims you made therein:
1.) Jonathan Cole allegedly shows how thermite could be used. Now we know that he does in fact use thermite there, and cuts vertical steel there. But there is no sound of explosions!

This isn't the sound of explosions?

16 seconds in... a controlled demolition the sounds I'm hearing in the twin towers are similar, only louder and quicker.

2.) You hear explosion sounds as the south tower comes down - but thermite, as the Cole video shows, is no explosive! Yet you say what happens at the WTC lobby is the same as what happens in the Cole video.
Do you notice this internal inconsistency in your argument?

I'm not just talking about the Lobby, I'm talking about the entire thing. From inside once the collapse gets closer, to the outside also when the 'collapses' get closer.

I would reply to the rest but I'm tired, and gonna go get some rest. I may reply to it later, one loses their drive for debate when they're tired.

 

[Architect]

Relax, you seem to be arguing from incredulity rather than analysis. Can I encourage you to do more research before posting material covered umpteen times before?

 

[BasqueArch]

This isn't the sound of explosions?

16 seconds in... a controlled demolition the sounds I'm hearing in the twin towers are similar, only louder and quicker.

No, it isn't the sounds of explosive explosions. You've just proven yourself wrong.
This is proof positive of cognitive confirmation dissonance incredulity bias.

I'm not just talking about the Lobby, I'm talking about the entire thing. From inside once the collapse gets closer, to the outside also when the 'collapses' get closer.

I would reply to the rest but I'm tired, and gonna go get some rest. I may reply to it later, one loses their drive for debate when they're tired.

Or painfully demonstrably wrong.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

This isn't the sound of explosions?

No. Not at all. That is the sound of a collapse. Explosions at that close of a range would be much sharper and distinctive. What you hear there is a rumble growing louder as the collapse front gets closer, much like a freight train as it gets closer to you before it goes by. Your other video has the same rumbling sounds (collapse) along with the much sharper sounds of explosives (missing in your first video).

I'm not just talking about the Lobby, I'm talking about the entire thing. From inside once the collapse gets closer, to the outside also when the 'collapses' get closer.

The key part is the part in bold. Namely that therm*te is not an explosive. It never has been described as such by the people who work with it and like-type materials and never will be. It doesn't produce anywhere near the amount of gasses at the speed or volume required to be considered as any type of explosive (the gasses are where the explosive energy, as both sound and pressure waves, comes from). You can buy thermite on the internet right now with no background check at all. You can't do that even with the common low explosives like black powder or smokeless powder that you will find in small arms ammunition.

 

[DGM]

I noticed the poll doesn't have the actual cause of the collapse but, #3 is close enough.

 

[triforcharity]

...exactly how much difference do you really think fire resistant steel would make?

Alot.

and how much money do you think this guy had to experiment or use compared to what the government could use?

Very minimal. But, to claim it's even remotely accurate in terms of the WTC events, is absurd.

I regress digress; fire resistant is NOT therm*te resistant. He was proving a point, that NIST was obviously lying and did not even conduct proper experimentation.

Bull ****. (BTW, the word is digress)

Tons of firefighters who were actually there and eyewitnesses would like to disagree with you.

That is from the Naudet brothers' film. But, no person said the word explosion.

But, maybe you can tell me about these firefighters who believe there were explosives in the towers.

Can you quote me some quotes?

(he he he he.......this aught to be good. NOBODY TELL HIM!!!! )

If that's the case shouldn't the lobby have been set on FIRE?

What was in the lobby that was flameable, other than the people? (Which, BTW, there were dozens of burn injuries when FDNY got there)

I mean this is jet fuel here, it managed to burn for 48 minutes straight and MELT steel

No, it most certainly did not.

without depleting itself on the floors 70 feet above,

I think your math is off, number one.
And, secondly, do you realize that an office has tons of stuff in it, all of which is flameable?

and yet only lasted a few seconds on the lobby and set nothing on fire?

What was in the lobby that was flameable?

 

[Sam.I.Am]

(he he he he.......this aught to be good. NOBODY TELL HIM!!!! )

*snicker*

 

[triforcharity]

Now you're disregarding the entire point. I'm fairly certain that he was making an example and that therm*te can indeed get the job done regardless of steel size.

Really? So, it could have cut one of the core box columns, some weighing many hundreds of pounds per foot?

Citation needed.

I see a green plant in the video, plant = flammable. plant not set on fire.

The flame would have had to last long enough to boil off the water in the plant, before it was able to set it on fire.

Jet fuel sticks and burns regardless if marble.

Do you know what a fuel-air explosion is?

You could spill gasoline on marble, light a match, watch it burn and you have black spot, no black spots.

Go educate yourself a little bit on fuel-air explosions.

lobby = devoid of fire except supposedly the people... me thinks there are tons of firefighters here.

How much stuff was in the labby that was flameable?

How do you know there are tons of firefighters here?

Why they no put out people on fire?

They did.

And office contents manages to heat up enough to bend fire resistant steel.

Yes. Especially when the SFRM was know to have problems,
http://media.corporate-ir.net/media_files/Event/2002/jun/nist/pcs2/nist-public2.htm

And also when a 767 was parked into the side. SFRM is not designed to withstand that kind of trauma.

 

[triforcharity]

Before
Some leaking inside as well.
After days or weeks after to be precise.

Wow. The first one is most likely aluminum, or something of the sort. We've seen this all before.

The second one, is embers from the fire.

The third one, the image on the left is paper, and the image to the right is not molten metal. Hot metal? Yes. Molten? No. Molten metal doesn't have square edges.