splifchris
Well-Known Member
Yeah... I think "they" did it... loads of photographic evidence to back up this theory too
The great thermite debate.
- Thread starter hazyintentions
- Start date
Yeah... I think "they" did it... loads of photographic evidence to back up this theory too
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
doc111
Well-Known Member
Steel does in fact burn, just not in the conventional way most people think of things "burning". Steel loses much of its strength and begins to lose its shape at relatively low temps (around 500 C). Most STEEL SKYSCRAPERS are overengineered and most likely would not fail if they were only exposed to fire or even only exposed to a massive impact. These buildings were exposed to both. Planes hitting the buildings at 500 + mph probably weakened/damaged the structures and the ensuing fire further weakened the steel which eventually caused the catastrophic failure and subsequent pancake collapse. I don't get why this is so hard for so many people to believe or understand. I realize it's fun to speculate about many of the mysteries of 9/11 but the reality is we may never know fully what happened that day. There will always be those who believe it went down exactly as it was portrayed. Others will believe in some shadowy cover up and heinous conspiracy. No matter what evidence is produced there will be those who will not accept it. I personally don't care what anyone believes, but to act like these buildings could not have come down due to the impact of those jets and the fires that followed is simple ignorance.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101116122857.htm
Mr Neutron
Well-Known Member
...and as we learned earlier today, this is an example of ad lapidem and subjectivist fallacy.
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
nice strawman your sporting there..
after 10 years there has been more than enough evidence put before truthers.
tell me about it.
and to hear some of these nut jobs about the temp that jet fuel burn at, blah blah blah.
if you ever spent 30 seconds around planes, i spent 20 years around them, there are LOADS of other chemicals inside an airplane.
and every burnable substance on those planes were FUCKING VAPORIZED. which means YES they could ignite. fucking battery acid, liquid nitrogen, oxygen, hydraulic fuel, benzene, propane, jet fuel, and another dozen chemicals i am missing that could easily start fires on things in the building that would not normally burn.
fuck man get a grip, stay focused, stay focused
Mr Neutron
Well-Known Member
Wrong! A strawman "Misrepresenting a persons argument in such a way it would be easy to refute. Beating up the straw man." How did I misrepresent what he said?
You are exactly right (if you mean "there" instead of "they"). There is more than enough evidence to demand a REAL investigation. This has more to it than how buildings fall down.
I won't resort to calling people ignorant because they are too scared to accept reality or to attempt to insult someone by calling them a "truther". What the hell is wrong with wanting to know the truth, anyway? No I won't try to demean those who deny the facts and bury their heads even further into the ground.
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
Argumentum ad lapidem again and again and in great detail everything that truthers have put up has been shown to be clearly false
ignorant is a very fitting for someone who ignores truth in front of them
oh and i had already fixed my spelling mistake so no "win" there
ignorant is a very fitting for someone who ignores truth in front of them
oh and i had already fixed my spelling mistake so no "win" there
Mr Neutron
Well-Known Member
Well, if I am a truther then the people that say that as an insult must be anti-truthers. Wouldn't anti-truthers be liars?
That is an incredible statement. EVERYTHING that the "people who want to know the truth" have put up. Apparently you have not studied this very much. But then, why would anyone who accepts the 9/11 Omission Report bother to study the incident further?
You should know. If I am ignoring the truth, then why am I called a "truther"? hhmmmm?
Not when I started my reply, otherwise it would have showed up in the "quote". I am suspicious of people who cannot communicate clearly in their native language. It shows either ignorance, which you've already demonstrated by your closed minded rejection of valid questions or it is a sign of laziness, either way, information from such a source is dubious, at the very least.and i had already fixed my spelling mistake so no "win" there
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
my apologies bad spelling again, i really don't know whats wrong with me today. what i had originally meant to type was "Twoofer".
anyway you think you still have all the unanswered questions lets see what you got...?
smokebros
Well-Known Member
Unfortunately there is a lot of evidence that has proven 9.11 was covered up.
1. The Government recovered 2 passports at ground zero that belonged to the 2 of the hijackers that hit the Wold Trade Center. (How is this possible?)
2. There was no plane that hit the Pentagon.
3. September 10, 2001, Donald Rumsfeld reports $2.3 Trillion dollars missing from the Pentagon. The documents were destroyed in the attack.
4. The steel used to construct the WTC melts at 3,000 degrees F. Jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt the steel in 23 minutes to collapse the building. The fuel reached around 2,000 degrees F at it's hottest point.
5. WTC building #7 collapsed into its own footprint though it was never struck. Video shows it was blown up demolition style. Larry silverstein actually ordered them to "pull it".
6. Recordings from the NYFD, you can hear fireman saying they can control the fire and calling for minimal equipment to one of the floors where the plane hit. They also heard explosions throughout the building, multiple times. This disputes the claim that jet fuel caused the building to burn the structure enough to collapse it.
All this information is available online. You can see Larry Silverstein on PBS talking about it, you can listen to interviews on scene with the firefighters talking about multiple explosions. Though these clips were never re-aired, you have to find them on youtube. It was executed with military precision, it was a false flag. No Doubt about it.
And really, the passports? cmon man.
1. The Government recovered 2 passports at ground zero that belonged to the 2 of the hijackers that hit the Wold Trade Center. (How is this possible?)
2. There was no plane that hit the Pentagon.
3. September 10, 2001, Donald Rumsfeld reports $2.3 Trillion dollars missing from the Pentagon. The documents were destroyed in the attack.
4. The steel used to construct the WTC melts at 3,000 degrees F. Jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt the steel in 23 minutes to collapse the building. The fuel reached around 2,000 degrees F at it's hottest point.
5. WTC building #7 collapsed into its own footprint though it was never struck. Video shows it was blown up demolition style. Larry silverstein actually ordered them to "pull it".
6. Recordings from the NYFD, you can hear fireman saying they can control the fire and calling for minimal equipment to one of the floors where the plane hit. They also heard explosions throughout the building, multiple times. This disputes the claim that jet fuel caused the building to burn the structure enough to collapse it.
All this information is available online. You can see Larry Silverstein on PBS talking about it, you can listen to interviews on scene with the firefighters talking about multiple explosions. Though these clips were never re-aired, you have to find them on youtube. It was executed with military precision, it was a false flag. No Doubt about it.
And really, the passports? cmon man.
sync0s
Well-Known Member
The only thing you need to know that validates government cover up is the Bush administration consistently saying there was no warning of such an attack being followed by many countries including France, Russia, England, and many more saying they constantly warned the US government. In a murder trial, evidence of covering evidence makes you an accessory.
mexiblunt
Well-Known Member
http://youtu.be/hZEvA8BCoBw New stuff!
smokebros
Well-Known Member
excellent post. It lead me to this [video=youtube;3pL0M5ST8jY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pL0M5ST8jY[/video]
hazyintentions
Well-Known Member
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"-Edmund Burke
^Sound familiar?^
Good video, more people with reputable experience who are uneasy/unconvinced about this.
Who here wants to explain the pass ports? If you believe the planes brought the building down without any assistance besides the fires they caused then how did two passports A) survived the initial impact of a jumbo jet smashing into a skyscraper B) survive the massive fireball of jet feul that was the result of such an impact and C) how did they manage to land right near the top of the remnants of 110 stories worth of steel,concrete, etc, etc. ? HOW DID 2 PAPER PASSPORTS SURVIVE WHAT A 100+ STORY BUILDING COULDN'T?
I know the plane did a ton of damage and killed many people but those building should not have come down; there is also WAY too many people blow whistles for this to be a open and closed case. Why did 99% of the building get destroyed before any investigation ever occurred? WHY wouldn't our government want to find out every little tiny detail about the attack, damage, and collapse if they had nothing to do with it?
No, I can't call it. Somethings wrong.
Many people who "rebuttal" or "debunk: the theories don't get specific enough, when they attack people who say they heard explosion they immediately make the assumption that said explosions where TNT/dynamite and if they did happen the would be infinitely noticeable (which is true) but what about using well placed thermite "box" cutter charges? As shown in the first video in my original post thermite is much more discrete but can also produce "gun shot" sounds and well as "explosion" sounds just not in every single incidence.
Also, I may have missed something but how to they explain the amounts of iron rich spheres in the dust? They certainly can't be made through burning aluminum. Or how about there were actually small pieces of thermitic material found who's element profile matched that of military grade thermite?
That's not even the least of my questions.
How did a terrorist who barely survived in flight school flying Cessna's, who was actually kicked out before he got his license a few weeks before 9/11, manage to suddenly gain enough skill and knowledge to make a 330 turn in a fully loaded 737 and fly mere feet over an interstate , low enough to knock over light poles without hitting ground, also manage to fly into the only part of the Pentagon that was reinforced for a plane attack?
Or I could go a step further and ask if a plane even HIT the pentagon why didn't the engines smash through the walls as well? The hole from impact was very circular if I remember correctly.
This:
versus this:
Why didn't the "terrorist" fly into the pentagon from the top ? It's common knowledge that would've done the most damage.
Or why is it that the United 93 crash had 2 crash sites 6 miles away from eachother?
I've made my argument, now rebuttal!
EDIT: OH, by the way, I worked building steel structure for a while my doubts aren't completely unfounded.
neut, its okay to be wrong. you are wrong on this one. no biggie, easy to get caught up. own it. and move on.
911 was done by terrorists taking over cockpits, and flying planes into buildings. the USA, not bill clinton, gwbush or barak obama would have authorized something like that. stop. you are making yourself irrelavant.
keep up the fight.
hazyintentions
Well-Known Member
Well said Mr.Neutron
Can you answer my questions? Wait, that' is right, you didn't try; yet, knowing as you are strongly opinionated about people like me who aren't sure about 9/11 I am pretty sure you went through my reply here or you didn't so your just too lazy to either answer this in your own words or didn't bother reading it which, if that's the case, show that your not here to debate only to mock.
okay, i am pretty drunk and very high, jock horror soil indoor, anyway, give me your exact question, and i will try to answer it.
your pictures dont even take simple physics into consideration. for instance, red line around plane, your conclusion is that tail should have broken wall. physics dictate that tail section may have slammed into the ground 40 feet before the building. the unbroken glass, ever seen the table cloth trick? seriously only one quick notice, but the pictures are full of stupid junior high schoolish arguments."The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"-Edmund Burke
^Sound familiar?^
Good video, more people with reputable experience who are uneasy/unconvinced about this.
Who here wants to explain the pass ports? If you believe the planes brought the building down without any assistance besides the fires they caused then how did two passports A) survived the initial impact of a jumbo jet smashing into a skyscraper B) survive the massive fireball of jet feul that was the result of such an impact and C) how did they manage to land right near the top of the remnants of 110 stories worth of steel,concrete, etc, etc. ? HOW DID 2 PAPER PASSPORTS SURVIVE WHAT A 100+ STORY BUILDING COULDN'T?
I know the plane did a ton of damage and killed many people but those building should not have come down; there is also WAY too many people blow whistles for this to be a open and closed case. Why did 99% of the building get destroyed before any investigation ever occurred? WHY wouldn't our government want to find out every little tiny detail about the attack, damage, and collapse if they had nothing to do with it?
No, I can't call it. Somethings wrong.
Many people who "rebuttal" or "debunk: the theories don't get specific enough, when they attack people who say they heard explosion they immediately make the assumption that said explosions where TNT/dynamite and if they did happen the would be infinitely noticeable (which is true) but what about using well placed thermite "box" cutter charges? As shown in the first video in my original post thermite is much more discrete but can also produce "gun shot" sounds and well as "explosion" sounds just not in every single incidence.
Also, I may have missed something but how to they explain the amounts of iron rich spheres in the dust? They certainly can't be made through burning aluminum. Or how about there were actually small pieces of thermitic material found who's element profile matched that of military grade thermite?
That's not even the least of my questions.
How did a terrorist who barely survived in flight school flying Cessna's, who was actually kicked out before he got his license a few weeks before 9/11, manage to suddenly gain enough skill and knowledge to make a 330 turn in a fully loaded 737 and fly mere feet over an interstate , low enough to knock over light poles without hitting ground, also manage to fly into the only part of the Pentagon that was reinforced for a plane attack?
Or I could go a step further and ask if a plane even HIT the pentagon why didn't the engines smash through the walls as well? The hole from impact was very circular if I remember correctly.
This:
versus this:
Why didn't the "terrorist" fly into the pentagon from the top ? It's common knowledge that would've done the most damage.
Or why is it that the United 93 crash had 2 crash sites 6 miles away from eachother?
I've made my argument, now rebuttal!
EDIT: OH, by the way, I worked building steel structure for a while my doubts aren't completely unfounded.
you are intelligent people, dont get caught up in this 911 conspiracy and destroy all your integrity. it wasnt an inside job. it was done by terrorists......focus
doc111
Well-Known Member
I completely fail to see the point of your response to my post. My apologies."The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"-Edmund Burke
^Sound familiar?^
Good video, more people with reputable experience who are uneasy/unconvinced about this.
Who here wants to explain the pass ports? If you believe the planes brought the building down without any assistance besides the fires they caused then how did two passports A) survived the initial impact of a jumbo jet smashing into a skyscraper B) survive the massive fireball of jet feul that was the result of such an impact and C) how did they manage to land right near the top of the remnants of 110 stories worth of steel,concrete, etc, etc. ? HOW DID 2 PAPER PASSPORTS SURVIVE WHAT A 100+ STORY BUILDING COULDN'T?
I know the plane did a ton of damage and killed many people but those building should not have come down; there is also WAY too many people blow whistles for this to be a open and closed case. Why did 99% of the building get destroyed before any investigation ever occurred? WHY wouldn't our government want to find out every little tiny detail about the attack, damage, and collapse if they had nothing to do with it?
No, I can't call it. Somethings wrong.
Many people who "rebuttal" or "debunk: the theories don't get specific enough, when they attack people who say they heard explosion they immediately make the assumption that said explosions where TNT/dynamite and if they did happen the would be infinitely noticeable (which is true) but what about using well placed thermite "box" cutter charges? As shown in the first video in my original post thermite is much more discrete but can also produce "gun shot" sounds and well as "explosion" sounds just not in every single incidence.
Also, I may have missed something but how to they explain the amounts of iron rich spheres in the dust? They certainly can't be made through burning aluminum. Or how about there were actually small pieces of thermitic material found who's element profile matched that of military grade thermite?
That's not even the least of my questions.
How did a terrorist who barely survived in flight school flying Cessna's, who was actually kicked out before he got his license a few weeks before 9/11, manage to suddenly gain enough skill and knowledge to make a 330 turn in a fully loaded 737 and fly mere feet over an interstate , low enough to knock over light poles without hitting ground, also manage to fly into the only part of the Pentagon that was reinforced for a plane attack?
Or I could go a step further and ask if a plane even HIT the pentagon why didn't the engines smash through the walls as well? The hole from impact was very circular if I remember correctly.
This:
versus this:
Why didn't the "terrorist" fly into the pentagon from the top ? It's common knowledge that would've done the most damage.
Or why is it that the United 93 crash had 2 crash sites 6 miles away from eachother?
I've made my argument, now rebuttal!
EDIT: OH, by the way, I worked building steel structure for a while my doubts aren't completely unfounded.
