The 100% Impossible 9/11 Inside Job

An elevator is not going to shake the base structure of these buildings. Kerosene igniting is not going to shake the base structure of these buildings.

There you go again, comparing two numbers when you don't know either of them. How much energy will a falling elevator, or a kerosene fuel/air deflagration, release? How much energy is needed to produce the effects observed? You don't know the answer to either question, yet somehow you magically know that one is bigger than the other. How does that work?

Dave
 
An elevator is not going to shake the base structure of these buildings.

these were big elevators. drop one 110 stories, and that thing will make quite a crash.

and yes, the freight elevators did go the whole length of the building.
 
RE: color of molten aluminum:

Whether or not it's glowing has to do with its temperature, not its material state.

As its temperature increases:
-Steel glows before it melts
-Aluminum melts before it glows
 
How can you possibly say I'm ignoring that fact when I specifically addressed it and rebutted it in on the previous page? And you have the nerve to use huge colored fonts to boot? Ignore.

Ignoring something is not rebuttal. The large coloured font is to catch your attention,in the absence of shiny objects to dangle.
 
[...] but people saw actual steel beams melting.

Now, that's an interesting statement. Did any of these people who watched the beams while they were actually melting mention anything about the intense white glow that nearly blinded them as the thermite packed around inside the beams spluttered and blazed? Did any of them suffer blast wounds or burns from the explosives (or maybe nanothermite?) that were going off in front of their very eyes? Were doctors pulling iron-rich microspheres out of their skin for days afterwards?

You've put yourself in a tricky position here, tempesta29. Either you own up and say that you made up the bit about saying people saw the beams melting, or you have to explain why they failed to report anything at all about what it was that melted them. I know truthers can pretend explosives can't be picked up on a video camera a couple of hundred yards away with a straight face, but are you really going to pretend that someone can watch an explosion or a thermite burn and not notice it?

Dave
 
Last edited:
Your writing is juvenile. I suspect it's because you sense the weakness of your argument. An elevator is not going to shake the base structure of these buildings. Kerosene igniting is not going to shake the base structure of these buildings. One fire fighter said it looked as though a bomb had gone off in the lobby. Your theories are not consistent with the actual event.

http://sites.google.com/site/911stories/insidethenorthtower:witnessaccounts,lobb

And this is just a partial copy from the page linked to above,
[FONT=arial,sans-serif]Lobby & 3rd floor: Firefighter Peter Blaich
As we got to the third floor of the B stairway, we forced open an elevator door which was burnt on all three sides. The only thing that was remaining was the hoistway door. And inside the elevator were about I didn’t recognize them initially, but a guy from 1 Truck said oh my God, those are people. They were pretty incinerated. And I remember the overpowering smell of kerosene. That’s when Lieutenant Foti said oh, that’s the jet fuel. I remember it smelled like if you’re camping and you drop a kerosene lamp.

The same thing happened to the elevators in the main lobby. They were basically blown out. I do’nt recall if I actually saw people in there. What got me initially in the lobby was that as soon as we went in, all the windows were blown out, and there were one or two burning cars outside. And there were burn victims on the street there, walking around. We walked through this giant blown-out window into the lobby.

There was a lady there screaming that she didn’t know how she got burnt. She was just in the lobby and then next thing she knew she was on fire. She was burnt bad. And somebody came over with a fire extinguisher and was putting water on her.

That’s the first thing that got me. That and in front of one of the big elevator banks in the lobby was a desk and I definitely made out one of the corpses to be a security guard because he had a security label on his jacket. I’m assuming that maybe he was at a table still in a chair and almost completely incinerated, charred all over his body, definitely dead. And you could make out like a security tag on his jacket. And I remember seeing the table was melted, but he was still fused in the chair and that elevator bank was melted, so I imagine the jet fuel must have blown right down the elevator shaft and I guess caught the security guard at a table, I guess at some type of checkpoint. http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/9...gz/blaich.html


Brian Reeves, a 34-year-old security guard, was nearly killed while making the rounds in the lobby of 1 World Trade Center on September 11. He started to run after hearing an explosion that he said sounded like a missile, but he was knocked down by a fireball that roared down the elevator shaft.

Reeves suffered third-degree burns to 40 percent of his body before he was able to pat out the flames. He was one of 20 critically-injured patients rushed to New York Presbyterian’s burn unit that day. http://www.ny1.com/pages/RRR/911special_survivors.html


Ronnie Clifford and Jennianne Maffeo
At around 8.45am, Ronnie walked into the lobby of the Marriott, which was connected to the lobby of the north tower by a revolving door. As he was checking his yellow tie in a mirror, he felt a massive explosion, followed several seconds later by a reverberation, a warping effect that he describes as the "harmonic tolerance of a building that's shaking like a tuning fork". He peered through the revolving door into the lobby of the north tower. It was filling with haze. People were scurrying to escape what had become a "hurricane of flying debris".

Then the revolving door turned with a suctioning sound followed by a hot burst of wind, and in came a mannequin of the future. A woman, naked, dazed, her arms outstretched. She was so badly burned that Ronnie had no idea what race she was or how old she might be. She clawed the air with fingernails turned porcelain-white. The zipper of what had once been a sweater had melted into her chest, as if it were the zipper to her own body. Her hair had been singed to a crisp steel wool. With her, in the gust of the door, came a pungent odour, the smell of kerosene or paraffin, Ronnie thought.

Then the mannequin became a person, crying for help. Ronnie had little idea what had happened to her, or where exactly she had come from, but he knew that whoever she was, she was his responsibility now.

With no medical training, Ronnie Clifford scarcely knew what to do with the helpless woman who stood before him. He sat her down on the cool marble floor, then dashed into the bathroom and ran water into a clean black garbage bag that he found. He hurried back out and dribbled the contents over her body. Then he sat down on the puddled floor and tried to comfort her. Despite her condition, she was lucid.

He took out a pen and notepad and jotted down her information. Her name was Jennieann Maffeo. She was Italian-American, from Brooklyn, single, 40 years old. She worked for USB PaineWebber. She was an asthmatic, she said, and had an extreme intolerance to latex. She could not adequately describe what had happened to her.

She had been standing outside the north tower next to a man she knew, waiting for a bus, when she heard a loud crash above. In an effort to protect them from falling debris, a security guard herded everyone inside the tower's lobby. Suddenly, she told Ronnie, something bright and hot enveloped her, a vapour maybe. She thought it could have dropped down the elevator shaft. She was worried about the man who'd been next to her. Surely he was dead, she feared.

“He thought he was the lucky one, but then tragedy struck” Irish Independent, Sept. 11, 2002. (The above is an excerpt. Ronnie Clifford was able to get Jennieann Maffeo to an ambulance. She died in the hospital on October 12, 2001.) http://www.unison.ie/features/911oneyearon/stories.php?ca=261&si=823151


I have a badly burned lady at the lobby of …they need an ambulance ASAP…One World Trade Center. [/FONT][FONT=arial,sans-serif](Port Authority Transcript WTC Ch. 15 EMS direct line, p. 5)[/FONT][FONT=arial,sans-serif]

[/FONT]
 
Your writing is juvenile. I suspect it's because you sense the weakness of your argument. An elevator is not going to shake the base structure of these buildings. Kerosene igniting is not going to shake the base structure of these buildings. One fire fighter said it looked as though a bomb had gone off in the lobby. Your theories are not consistent with the actual event.

It's called parody, my friend. I'm ridiculing your position, because it seems the most appropriate response.

Just look at the refusal to accept causality that you are displaying, coupled with further bare assertions, without any quantification.

1) 'An elevator is not going to shake the base structure of these buildings' Explain that using energy calculations (ie quantify). Otherwise we can safely ignore this as a baseless bare assertion.
2) 'Kerosene igniting is not going to shake the base structure of these buildings' Again, examine the physics of an ignited fuel-air mixture, and its explosive capabilities.

Now, a skeptic examining your assertions will quickly conclude that you have not provided any evidence in support. On the other hand, we can demonstrate that an elevator did crash, and that immediately following the basement explosions burned people were witnessed and jet fuel was present.

There is no way for you to logically dismiss causality here. You can go ahead and dismiss it, but you then abandon logic and destroy a sincere discussion.

Hence the parody. Your repeated assertions are nothing more than a joke.
 
Last edited:
Because aluminum was not even remotely as abundant as steel. You ever wonder why we never hear about reports of large pools of silvery molten metal in the rubble? We certainly would have had there been abundant and contiguous volumes of the material. It is highly improbable most if not all witnesses of molten steel didn't also see steel beams in states of heat near a liquid state. Where there is molten steel, there is a steel beam dripping.

Well by tonnage it was not as common but each building was clad on the outside with aluminum. You assume that the molten Aluminum would be silver but it would not be if impurities are mixing in with it. Once again it should be pointed out to you almost all of the steel for the WTC towers was recovered intact.



This is one of the "ground zero meteorites". It's comprised of formerly molten steel and concrete.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc_meteorite.wmv

There's a 9/11 display here in NYC that houses some of these "meteorites".
http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/gun_notice.jpg

Sorry the video did not work for me on this computer so I will have to view it when I get home. I have seen images of these compacted floor sections and honestly I cannot tell how much of the embedded steel is melted. Some of it does not appear melted at all.

Sorry but I don't get the point of your second image. In fact the whole "meteorite" thing is just a red herring anyway because there were not many of them and they mostly are comprised of cement with steel embedded in it. It is not very good evidence of molten steel and definitely not good evidence of a large amount of molten anything.
 
An elevator is not going to shake the base structure of these buildings. Kerosene igniting is not going to shake the base structure of these buildings.

Here's what you have to do when making claims like this, if you want to be taken seriously.

First, demonstrate that the base structure of the buildings shook.

Second, demonstrate that falling elevators and kerosene ignition cannot cause this.

Remember, things aren't true just because you say they are.

One fire fighter said it looked as though a bomb had gone off in the lobby. Your theories are not consistent with the actual event.

You still don't understand what a simile is, do you?
 
I claim that locomotives cause tornadoes. Is it a coincidence that people are always hearing them when a tornado is around? I think not.

I think it's the other way around. Tornadoes cause locomotives. Where else would they come from? There's no way people MAKE locomotives. If they did, then where are the boxes they came in? You don't see them around.
 
Here's what you have to do when making claims like this, if you want to be taken seriously.

First, demonstrate that the base structure of the buildings shook.

Both people in the basement levels and and in the lobby were shaken, some off their feet. All involved reported these explosions were below them. No eyewitness reported this lower level explosions above them, therefore they were very deep in the sub-levels, possibly at the bottom.

Second, demonstrate that falling elevators and kerosene ignition cannot cause this.

Come on man. Prove I can't fly. Seriously?

You still don't understand what a simile is, do you?

In what way did I demonstrate a lack of comprehension of a simile? It's Latin, and it means likeness. I did not say "he said it looked like a bomb went off therefore a bomb went off". I'm really tired of dealing with what is obviously a lack of attention paid.
 
I think it's the other way around. Tornadoes cause locomotives. Where else would they come from? There's no way people MAKE locomotives. If they did, then where are the boxes they came in? You don't see them around.

Hmmmm. The plot coagulates...
 
I did not say "he said it looked like a bomb went off therefore a bomb went off". I'm really tired of dealing with what is obviously a lack of attention paid.

Cherry picking quotes and misinterpreting similes is the entire basis of your position about eye witness accounts. You have NO other evidence.
 
It's called parody, my friend. I'm ridiculing your position, because it seems the most appropriate response.

Just look at the refusal to accept causality that you are displaying, coupled with further bare assertions, without any quantification.

1) 'An elevator is not going to shake the base structure of these buildings' Explain that using energy calculations (ie quantify). Otherwise we can safely ignore this as a baseless bare assertion.

Are you making the claim that a falling elevator is capable of shaking the base structures of the Twin Towers? I just want to be clear here: is this the claim you're making?

2) 'Kerosene igniting is not going to shake the base structure of these buildings' Again, examine the physics of an ignited fuel-air mixture, and its explosive capabilities.

Kerosene is not a high explosive. Do you not understand how massive these structures were? Kerosene and elevators and knocking people off their feet? I can't believe you would attempt to dignify such an idea by writing it, but here we are.

Now, a skeptic examining your assertions will quickly conclude that you have not provided any evidence in support. On the other hand, we can demonstrate that an elevator did crash, and that immediately following the basement explosions burnt people were witnessed and jet fuel was present.

There is no way for you to logically dismiss causality here. You can go ahead and dismiss it, but you then abandon logic and destroy a sincere discussion.

Hence the parody. Your repeated assertions are nothing more than a joke.

And this exploding elevator in the basement, it knocked people off their feet in the lobby, blew all the lobby windows out, knocked marble tiling off the walls?

Is this your claim? I was just to get straight what your claim is. And if so, how many flaming elevators are you claiming exploded?
 

Back
Top Bottom