Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Fourbrick said:
Come on, Tam. You don't really think that the Wright Brothers were the first to fly a "man made construction" do you? There's even doubt that they were the first to fly a "powered heavier than air" machine.
Click to expand...

Don't know what it has to do with the topic, but there is little doubt that the Wright Brothers were the first to fly a self-powered, heavier-than-air, aircraft carrying a pilot. The only serious competition was Samuel Pierpont Langley and Alberto Santos Dumont.

The reason is, unlike all the other would-be pioneers, their aircraft was replicated and its claimed flying characteristics verified. Including test flights of an aircraft made as close as possible to the original.

This way, one doesn't have to look at their drawings and think, "well, yeah, if we assume this lack of detail is actually done this way, and if this doesn't break, and the winds are perfect, and freakin' Chuck Yeager is at the controls, then it might fly." Those kinds of excuses, or lending undue weight to eyewitness claims, just aren't enough.

There's a lesson here for the Truthers, so maybe this is relevant after all. What divides science from witchcraft is simply that which can be verified. The Wright Flyer has been.
 
bill smith said:
If nanothermite incendiary was used in WTC7 it would not sound at all like the conventional explosive controlled demolition that we all know and love, But it would look pretty much exactly the same. Just no explosions.
Click to expand...

So we're back to the Hush-A-BoomTM technology again.

Got proof? LOL J/K...I know you don't have any.
 
bill smith said:
Nanothermite incendiary just goes 'ssssssssssss' Normal explosive like C-4 or RDX go 'BANG'.
Click to expand...

,,, and since incidiaries rely on heating metal up to make it fail IT TAKES TIME, thus the extended 'ssssssssssss' and thus it is also impossible to precisely co-ordinate dozens of columns to fail at the same time. Such timing is only possible with explosives.

There are explosives that use nano ground thermitic materials. These explosives will produce higher temperature gasses and faster gas expansion. They still very much go BOOM, you just need less of it to produce the same BOOM and have the same explosive effect as C-4 or RDX.

Same ol' same ol', the persons who do not accept the common narritive of Sept 11/01 need closely timed severing of columns meaning explosives, but to get around the lack of boomies they claim incindiary which means no close timing..........

Unless,,,,,, the thermite was planted in such a way, in WTC 7 for eg., so as to cause a heavy girder to come away from its column seat and fall on another floor where thermite had been used to weaken the floor beams and girders there thus leaving this column with no lateral support for several floors thus allowing it to buckle thus causing a vertical progression of floor failures to the roof top east penthouse, thus causing impact damge to and subsequent failures horizontally through the core thus removing the core columns from load carrying, thus severly destabilizing the structure while much more load is then transfered to the cantilever trusses over the older Con-Ed building causing these trusses to fail and thus transfering the entire load to the perimeter frame which then also failed at or near the floor of initial thermite heating induced failure.

Sounds a lot like the NIST report except for the thermite part, which is not proven anyway.

Of course it would be difficult to determine whether heating of that girder was caused by thermite or the office fires. What we do know is that we all saw the large area office fires and no one at all saw the white hot spattering thermite burn.
 
Last edited:
jaydeehess said:
Of course it would be difficult to determine whether heating of that girder was caused by thermite or the office fires. What we do know is that we all saw the large area office fires and no one at all saw the white hot spattering thermite burn.
Click to expand...

That "white hot spattering thermite burn" was obscured by the thick smoke from all those office fi... oh wait...
 
bill smith said:
This is a good day TAM. I'm expanding exponentially my collection of debunkers who think that WTC7 looked like a controlled demolition..
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to expand...

Maybe you'd count me in too bill.

I too saw the similarity to the controlled demolitions that I have seen.

OTOH I also noted the similarity to the (fewer) building collapses I have seen caused by fire.

Given that I have learned about the fires in the buildings but have been shown no evidence at all for explosives or any other cause of these collapses I safely presume that the office fires themselves caused the collapses.

I am not willing to invoke magic (unknown and unproven methods)
in order to have the collapse of these structures fit a politically motivated prejudice.
 
Bell said:
That "white hot spattering thermite burn" was obscured by the thick smoke from all those office fi... oh wait...
Click to expand...

[bill] don't you mean the smoke produced by all the hundreds of smoke pots also planted in the building[/bill]

whoops, smoke obscures the view from the south much more than from the north. On the north side its the smoke and flames from the office fi.... oh wait ...
 
Last edited:
jaydeehess said:
[...] we all saw the large area office fires and no one at all saw the white hot spattering thermite burn.
Click to expand...

This point isn't brought up enough to the thermite crowd. Thermite burns like an arc welder...the flash is, very literally, physically blinding. You absolutely cannot stare at the flash.

We've all seen, in person or even on TV, how the light is given off. Very bright, white light that is visible for miles...even in daylight. And that is just one arc welder at work!

The amount of burning thermite being theorized here would be a light show of EPIC proportions. Entire levels of WTC7 would be lit up like a Pink Floyd show. The brilliant flashes of light would have been reflected off of every nearby building. Every single camera pointed at WTC7 would have seen the flashes.

Can we please throw away this stupid "thermite killed WTC7" theory?
 
bill smith said:
What about you Chewy ? Do you think that WTC7 looked like a controlled demolition ?
Click to expand...

No, I don't think it looked like a "CD" because 1 element is missing, sounds of explosives. And no, the videos I've seen weren't editted in anyway, shape or form. Except if it's a Truther video, then I know explosive sounds were editted in to make a lie.
 
bill said:
If nanothermite incendiary was used in WTC7 it would not sound at all like the conventional explosive controlled demolition that we all know and love, But it would look pretty much exactly the same. Just no explosions
Click to expand...

But bill smith. Never before in the history of man has thermite ever been used in the controlled demolition of a large skyscraper. Never before in history has any building ever been demolished with thermite. So if I'm following your logic, about fire, thermite/nano-thermite is a non-starter. You and your other CD believers have cornered yourselves embarassingly for the last 9 years... :)
 
Grizzly Bear said:
But bill smith. Never before in the history of man has thermite ever been used in the controlled demolition of a large skyscraper. Never before in history has any building ever been demolished with thermite. So if I'm following your logic, about fire, thermite/nano-thermite is a non-starter. You and your other CD believers have cornered yourselves embarassingly for the last 9 years... :)
Click to expand...

Ohh, so if it hasn't happened before that means it can't happen. Now where have I heard that before?
 
Red... you missed my point spectacularly.... Wait for bill to respond and once I sort things out with him I'll give you a lovely exercise to try
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
9/11 Chewy Defense said:
No, I don't think it looked like a "CD" because 1 element is missing, sounds of explosives. And no, the videos I've seen weren't editted in anyway, shape or form. Except if it's a Truther video, then I know explosive sounds were editted in to make a lie.
Click to expand...

do you often watch music? or do you more often listen to paintings? ;)
 
Grizzly Bear said:
Red... you missed my point spectacularly.... Wait for bill to respond and once I sort things out with him I'll give you a lovely exercise to try
Click to expand...

Well, I didn't read your entire exchange. I just watched you use an argument, sarcastically or not, that is often assailed here, which sarcastically or not, kind of makes your point moot.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom