All 9/11 ideas welcomed here

[israelside]

QFE. In order for a device to cut horizontally through a steel beam it must use pressure to force the thermite along a horizontal path.

You think it could have been done on 9/11?

 

[beachnut]

ok jonny I see what you mean now that it couldn't burn all the way through the column. Well bombs are a much more likely device then...don't see how wtc7 fell so quick without some sort of device to pull it down.

Gravity

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

You think it could have been done on 9/11?

Given that no evidence has been presented that such a device exists, no I do not think it could have been done.

 

[Par]

So you believe that the columns were wrapped in a kind of "cup" of, say, carbon that had a thermate reaction in it, which would then melt the steel?

Except that the steel would be melted at the base of the surrounding material, allowing the thermate reaction to progress downward, and not melt the rest of the steel column.

They clamped thousands of thermite-filled, remote-controlled, sealed, spring-loaded, carbon conical iris values around the columns. What could be simpler?

 

[Blackwell]

They clamped thousands of thermite-filled, remote-controlled, sealed, spring-loaded, carbon conical iris values around the columns. What could be simpler?

Trained suicidal chimps with hacksaws.

 

[Belz...]

I have heard there atleast 4 from some friends I know in the DOD (who was there on 911 and said a plane did hi)

Hearsay, then.

My statements have a basis in reality you joker...

Of course. Hearsay exists.

proving a negative is nearly impossible unless you have 100% evidence

Proving that there WERE other cameras is not proving a negative, Side.

I still think wtc7 fell straight down haha.

I don't know what's so funny about it.

 

[Belz...]

why can't you admit you just don't know or whatnot?

There's lots of things I don't know. I don't jump to the conclusion that it means anything.

Again, what substance melts much slower than steel?

Careful, now. You've already been stundied for that.

If you don't know just say it, stop trying to belittle my point just because you don't like me.

Oh, look. It's teething. Look, man. I don't like you because you're spewing nonsense. Get to doing some research, and we'll talk.

just a bunch of overblown egos we are stroking here arn't we?

Blah, blah, blah. Go away, and bring back some evidence, wiull you ?

 

[JonnyFive]

To be fair, I should probably clarify that the ability of a material to conduct heat would also factor into its ability to melt. Steel is a relatively good conductor of heat, although there are certainly better conducters that might have marginally higher melting points but melt slightly "faster" due to their greater ability to conduct thermal energy. However, I think it's fair to say that the substances I mentioned are all going to melt slower than steel in similar conditions.

Now, if we're done with the thermite, we can talk about explosives.

Israelside, in a standard controlled demolition, explosives are used only to weaken the supporting structure enough to allow gravity to pull the structure down. The problem is that the actual speed of collapse isn't going to be any greater than a structure that's falling because its supporting elements have failed for other reasons.

There are several engineers, and at least one architect (handily using the screen name "Architect") on this forum that can explain it all far better than I can.

Is there anything, other than collapse speed, that leads you to believe explosives were used? A series of loud reports in sequence before collapse? Visible flashes from explosive charges? Reports of people moving in and out of the building with large quantities of unknown packages?

Do you believe that explosives were a possibility for the twin towers, or only WTC 7? If so, why? If not, why?

 

[Belz...]

Those other ideas are outrageous, a device to secure thermate to a beam (which now exisists by the way) could have been used in a priliminary trial on the wtc...that's not proof but it's not so outrageous to think like you want us to believe. No you are ignoring the question...I asked WHAT SUBSTANCE DOES MELT SLOWER you have no idea right? Why can't you just say that Jonny? If a substance melts slower than steel then u can wrap the thermate in that substance in order to weaken the column, do i have to keep repeating this? These are not just wild fantasies i am talking about, but legit things that could have happend and you know it!! Now answer it or say you don't know.

Argument from ignorance.

ok jonny I see what you mean now that it couldn't burn all the way through the column. Well bombs are a much more likely device then...don't see how wtc7 fell so quick without some sort of device to pull it down.

Argument from incredulity. The vast majority of the world's experts in these matters CAN see how 7 WTC fell so quick without some sort of device to pull it down.

 

[israelside]

To be fair, I should probably clarify that the ability of a material to conduct heat would also factor into its ability to melt. Steel is a relatively good conductor of heat, although there are certainly better conducters that might have marginally higher melting points but melt slightly "faster" due to their greater ability to conduct thermal energy. However, I think it's fair to say that the substances I mentioned are all going to melt slower than steel in similar conditions.

Now, if we're done with the thermite, we can talk about explosives.

Israelside, in a standard controlled demolition, explosives are used only to weaken the supporting structure enough to allow gravity to pull the structure down. The problem is that the actual speed of collapse isn't going to be any greater than a structure that's falling because its supporting elements have failed for other reasons.

There are several engineers, and at least one architect (handily using the screen name "Architect") on this forum that can explain it all far better than I can.

Is there anything, other than collapse speed, that leads you to believe explosives were used? A series of loud reports in sequence before collapse? Visible flashes from explosive charges? Reports of people moving in and out of the building with large quantities of unknown packages?

Do you believe that explosives were a possibility for the twin towers, or only WTC 7? If so, why? If not, why?

How many steel frame skyscrapers have fallen down on itself (for the most part atleast if you dont think so) with no help of CD's. In wtc7's case it did have damage and some fires...but it does seem odd that the designers wouldn't have made it stronger to hold up the building in case a catastrophic event like 9/11.

I think wtc7 is the best case for a CD...the upper corner of the building looked like a few demolitions were set right before the building came down have you seen those? I don't know about reports of packages...but like you say as long as crucial beams are taken out I dont see the need for a large quantity of explosives...anyone here is a CD expert and can give us some numbers on this with your experience? I just can't tell really if any of the buildings had thermate or explosives...I can't prove it so i really can't hold to saying they were in any building, however wtc7 looks eerily similar to a CD if you look at the multiple camera angles. Can't you agree that it looks similar to a CD even if you think it wasn't.

Has NIST come out with their final report yet testing for bombs in the building? I guess their findings are as good as any.

 

[israelside]

So beachnut, to you everyone on here is either a "troofer" or a "debunker" no one can be in the middle...or ever change their position right? Life really is not as clear cut as you imagine...even the greatest debunker in the world probably has some conspiracy theories he thinks are plausible why? Because ultimately the world is evil and we can't truely trust everyone around us to seek our best interest...or anyone's true best interest...at times yes, but most of the time their interest is their own because deep down we are all selfish by nature.

 

[israelside]

Ill finish that up by saying that..at the end of the day whether you are extremely self giving or not we all are alone...just us and God. So by that fact we all must be selfish in the end, granted we can care about others along the way and even seem to be totally self giving but when we die everyone has to think about themselves more than anything, simply because it's out choice if we are going to believe in Jesus or not, be saved or not..this is for another forum, but really God covers all topics If you say God does not belong in 1 topic then really that denies who God is.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Ill finish that up by saying that..at the end of the day whether you are extremely self giving or not we all are alone...just us and God. So by that fact we all must be selfish in the end, granted we can care about others along the way and even seem to be totally self giving but when we die everyone has to think about themselves more than anything, simply because it's out choice if we are going to believe in Jesus or not, be saved or not..this is for another forum, but really God covers all topics If you say God does not belong in 1 topic then really that denies who God is.

http://www.blasphemychallenge.com/

 

[Pardalis]

Taboire!

 

[Civilized Worm]

ok jonny I see what you mean now that it couldn't burn all the way through the column. Well bombs are a much more likely device then...don't see how wtc7 fell so quick without some sort of device to pull it down.

Bombs don't pull things.

 

[JimBenArm]

Bombs don't pull things.

Did you say pull? Are you Silverstein in disguise?
Conspiracy!!!!

 

[Belz...]

How many steel frame skyscrapers have fallen down on itself (for the most part atleast if you dont think so) with no help of CD's.

Irrelevant. Something doesn't need to have happened before in order to happen.

In wtc7's case it did have damage and some fires...but it does seem odd that the designers wouldn't have made it stronger to hold up the building in case a catastrophic event like 9/11.

Why would they ? You said yourself that it NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE.

I think wtc7 is the best case for a CD...the upper corner of the building looked like a few demolitions were set right before the building came down have you seen those?

Yes. Why would you want to blow charges AT THE TOP of the building ?

I just can't tell really if any of the buildings had thermate or explosives...

That's okay. They had neither.

however wtc7 looks eerily similar to a CD if you look at the multiple camera angles.

Yeah. From certain angles tomato juice looks eerily similar to blood.

Can't you agree that it looks similar to a CD even if you think it wasn't.

Of course. The building fell down.

So beachnut, to you everyone on here is either a "troofer" or a "debunker" no one can be in the middle...or ever change their position right?

Those who claim to be in the middle often end up having being truthers for a while. I guess they're not as concerned with the truth as they claim.

 

[Belz...]

Ill finish that up by saying that..at the end of the day whether you are extremely self giving or not we all are alone...just us and God. So by that fact we all must be selfish in the end, granted we can care about others along the way and even seem to be totally self giving but when we die everyone has to think about themselves more than anything, simply because it's out choice if we are going to believe in Jesus or not, be saved or not..this is for another forum, but really God covers all topics If you say God does not belong in 1 topic then really that denies who God is.

Who is this "God" of which you speak ?

 

[JonnyFive]

How many steel frame skyscrapers have fallen down on itself (for the most part atleast if you dont think so) with no help of CD's.

I think the WTC's case is a perculiar one, considering the damage done to the towers and the uncontrolled nature of the fires. The whole "first time in history" thing is something of a red herring, in that respect. 9/11 was an unprecedented event, and to try to claim this somehow suggest CD is, at best, somewhat lazy.

Here is a good debunking page on this topic, which includes links to information on other fires in steel framed structures that did collapse. If nothing else, this should illustrate that steel is in no way immune to the effects of fire.

In wtc7's case it did have damage and some fires...but it does seem odd that the designers wouldn't have made it stronger to hold up the building in case a catastrophic event like 9/11.

You can't just "ma[ke] it stronger" ad infinitum. There are real, physical limits to what a tall building can survive. In the case of WTC 7, it was able to survive collapse for long enough to evacuate everyone inside. From a disaster management point of view, I think that's an ideal outcome.

Also, bear in mind that WTC 7 was damaged by debris from the towers as they collapsed. It wasn't structurally sound.

I think wtc7 is the best case for a CD...the upper corner of the building looked like a few demolitions were set right before the building came down have you seen those? I don't know about reports of packages...but like you say as long as crucial beams are taken out I dont see the need for a large quantity of explosives...anyone here is a CD expert and can give us some numbers on this with your experience? I just can't tell really if any of the buildings had thermate or explosives...I can't prove it so i really can't hold to saying they were in any building, however wtc7 looks eerily similar to a CD if you look at the multiple camera angles. Can't you agree that it looks similar to a CD even if you think it wasn't.

It looks "similar" in some ways because it collapsed due to the force of gravity, which is the main force acting on a building in a real CD.

However, some of the key elements of a CD are absent. most notably, you can't hear or see any charges.

Why would they need to demolish WTC 7 and then not tell anyone, anyway?

I thought you'd given up on thermate.

Has NIST come out with their final report yet testing for bombs in the building? I guess their findings are as good as any.

No, I don't think they have. Their job isn't the "test for bombs" anyhow, it's to help explain collapse initiation.

Ill finish that up by saying that..at the end of the day whether you are extremely self giving or not we all are alone...just us and God. So by that fact we all must be selfish in the end, granted we can care about others along the way and even seem to be totally self giving but when we die everyone has to think about themselves more than anything, simply because it's out choice if we are going to believe in Jesus or not, be saved or not..this is for another forum, but really God covers all topics If you say God does not belong in 1 topic then really that denies who God is.

Sorry, I really haven't seen any convincing evidence for God. Certainly not the "God" of Christianity. If you have some, I guess you can start another thread in the religion sub forum.

I'm really not sure what that had to do with this topic, though.

 

[beachnut]

So beachnut, to you everyone on here is either a "troofer" or a "debunker" no one can be in the middle...or ever change their position right? Life really is not as clear cut as you imagine...even the greatest debunker in the world probably has some conspiracy theories he thinks are plausible why? Because ultimately the world is evil and we can't truely trust everyone around us to seek our best interest...or anyone's true best interest...at times yes, but most of the time their interest is their own because deep down we are all selfish by nature.

Middle of the road for lies and misinformation about 9/11. I guess not. Change a position based on lies and no evidence. How can someone make a mistake in the first place. Most people base their factual statements of events based on facts and evidence that support them. They also list why or why not the points of evidence are valid and why they could be invalid. Example, I hear a gun shot in the next room. I go in the next room and find a paper bag. Oops the sound was the bag being ruptured and making a loud sound.

I can not think of one CT in the whole world I believe. Name one that I missed. The moon landing happen, this is one reason I was an engineer. Watergate was not a CT, it was a conspiracy. It really happened and lots of people told on them and a lot of people when to prison. Ron Brown died in an aircraft accident along with my friend; that was not a CT. I have seen CT propagated due to someone political biases. I have seen CT propagated due to stupidity. There are day to day actual conspiracies to sell products, but we all should know Kool-aid will not help you break down walls. The 9/11 CT junk may sound cool, but it is not based in fact. Conclusion of the 9/11 truth movement are lies, and not supported by the misinformation and made up stuff of a few people making profits, or spewing lies due to their political biases.

Oh, the world is evil? You mean people. I have yet to find the evil world stalking me, or that dangerous curve in road actual come after me and crash my car.

So you ignore 19 terrorist (the evil guys) who came up with a surprise attack that was so simple and caught us off guard. And you prefer the made up lies of 9/11 truth. You have chosen poorly. If you noticed, "we", in the form of flight 93 passengers actually solved 9/11 when they stood up and attacked the cockpit! They figured out 9/11 in a few minutes and you have essential messed up every single fact about 9/11 and come the the wrong conclusion after 5 years. Flight 93 passengers were correct, you are wrong. I am not sure if I had been on flight 93 if I would have figured it out with a different set of people. But given 5 or 6 years I would be ashamed to be on the side of 9/11 truth where only lies can be found. Over 5 years and no sign of intelligent life found in the 9/11 truth movement in regard to 9/11 events. End of story. FF