The great thermite debate.

feff f said:

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.

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

Click to expand...

doc111 said:

I completely fail to see the point of your response to my post. My apologies.

Click to expand...

hazyintentions said:

"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.

Click to expand...

NoDrama said:

Has anyone ever met a former "Truther" who now believes in the official story?

Has anyone met a Truther who became that way after initially hearing the official story and doing some research? e.g. you thought the official story sounded pretty plausible, but after looking at evidence it seems that perhaps something is awry?

Click to expand...

doc111 said:

I can only say this about the passports; in my 15 years as a fireman I've see all kinds of weird shit. I've seen a bullet bounce off of a guy's skull , I've seen a guy shot in the face actually walking around, talking to the police and paramedics as if nothing had happened. I've seen people ejected from vehicles at over 100 mph get up and have hardly a hair out of place. What happens in the split second of any violent impact is often very complex and the outcome is dependent on many, MANY factors. Speed, angle of impact, hardness of objects, projectiles, shrapnel, fire.............the list goes on and on, but even with all of that shit going on in a few milliseconds, sometimes something makes it through seemingly unscathed. Isn't the world funny like that sometimes? lol!

Click to expand...

feff f said:

or vise versa?

Click to expand...

hazyintentions said:

Okay, you want to discuss the tail section issue of the plane hitting the pentagon and the physics of it? Well that's ok cause I aced honors physics with a 99.8 average (95 on one test, fucker).

So we agree a 737 hit the pentagon. Okay, so a jumbo jet traveling in access of 300 mph directly towards the face of the pentagon manages to be low and level eough to pass over the nearby interstate, low enough to knock down street lamps, an interstate at least a couple hundred feet from the pentagon. This plane must be traveling in a pretty straight line if it didn't hit the ground between the time it knocked over street lamps and hit the side of the pentagon.

Would you agree here?

Okay, so the plane hits the pentagon nose first, traveling at a high speed (let's say 350mph). Agreed?
As the nose hits the pentagon the nose crumbles absorbing the kinetic energy of the initial impact, well as the front of the plane grinds into the build immense stress is put on the thinner and more fragile tail section.

This leaves two scenarios, the tail section breaks off from the fuselage still traveling close to 350mph, well the longest 737 is 138 ft, so this peice of tail wing was traveling in the same low and straight path as the plane itself, meaning it's trajectory isn't towards the ground but would be straight towards the face of the building as would the rest of the plane.

I'm slightly buzzed so I'll leave it at that for you to depick.

I would like to ask you how the huge engines didn't punture the pentagon when a soft/hollow and sensor filled nose (albeit with a lot of force behind it) did?



No point, I simply found it ironic that that was in your signature while you completely disregard people who questions the events of 9/11 for all the unanswered questions. Seems like a contradiction because that quote infers nothing should be left as is and while people are questioning things you throw them out.


Too many unanswered questions. And with my lost faith on government I no longer doubt that possibility of involvement, after all we are STILL over there and this was the sole reason.

Click to expand...

hazyintentions said:

While I agree, this is a certain degree of uncertainty how did they end up ON TOP?

Remember the building stood for a long time. If you believe long enough to burn the building down then how can you (as a fireman) believe these passports survived inside a burning inferno started by jet fuel, 1800 degrees F is what I'd say is a safe bet. As a fireman you, if anyone, realize the destructive potential of such a fire. AND my other questions is how come they didn't find any of the passengers passports?

And keep in mind the terrorists were more than likely at the front of the plane as it crashed into the building, meaning them and their passports were the deepest inside the building, basically the middle of the inferno.



Is this your case? Your were suspicious and after reading all the "debunking" sites you became convinced?

Click to expand...

doc111 said:

Whoa there! I've NEVER disregarded anyone on this matter. I've listened to anyone and everyone who wanted to talk about their opinion on the matter and even some who didn't. I tend to believe MOST of the official story, I do not believe in the vast majority of the conspiracy theories. It just really frustrates me to have so many people dismiss the official story as completely implausible, especially as it relates to the planes and subsequent explosions/fires being the cause of the ensuing collapses. There are so many conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11, that alone makes me skeptical of there being a conspiracy at all. Things just don't go that perfectly in real life. Someone would've talked by now. You simply cannot cover up something so big without there being irrefutable proof. That proof hasn't been found yet or we would not be having these discussions nearly 10 years later.

Click to expand...

doc111 said:

Those passports could've been blown blocks away out the other end of the buildings before any fire ever touched them. A lot of air was displaced as the buildings came down. They could've been sucked back up into the rubble pile. I don't know my friend. I don't have all the answers but anything is possible. It could have been a huge cover up or it could be just like "they" say it happened. We'll likely never know for sure.

Click to expand...

hazyintentions said:

Sorry I did not mean to step on your toes.

I will agree with you, let me try to make myself clear.

I KNOW terrorists hi jacked 737's and flew them into the Twin Towers, I know that had a perverse effect on the integrity of the building. Call we agree on that?

I know fire's raged those floors.

Now, this is where I differ.
When the first tower fell I feel straight into it's foot print at lightning speeds into the path of least resistance. The antenna on top of the building was the first sign of collapse.The antenna which is sitting directly on top of the core of the building, huge columns, started to fall FIRST. The building didn't start pancaking and then bring the core columns down, the core columns went first as evident by the antenna moving first.

Given the plane smashing into the side fo the building, if it should've fallen, it should've fallen like a tree with most of the damage on one side of the building, causing a weak spot. The top should've broken off like a tree timbering.

Then that fact that ALL 3 building fell in the same fashion is not coherent with 2 random attacks in different spots of the Twin Towers.

As for proof, I wonder that all the time. I walk around thinking " What if right now someone is walking around with the knowledge.." and then like an episode of 24 in my head I can just imagine the risk and pressure anyone who wanted to come forth would recieve. If a government as powerrful as ours was willing to commit such a treason than they could just as easily kill anyone with enough credible evidence to keep it just a conspiracy theory.


It's all conjecture but I'm not satisfied with the official report.



There is a possibility there. Just ask yourself, how likely is that? Just how likely is the passport situation?

Man there is just so many questions just like that, tons, that's why I'm on the fence. I'm going to wait it out. For now I will retreat to slight paranoia based on my reasoning skills as a young adult.

My gut has not failed me in my life and my gut says this is wrong..

Click to expand...

doc111 said:

The buildings fell in the manner they did due, mainly, to how they were constructed. People who got out mostly reported feeling like the buildings swayed side to side several feet. Steel has some elasticity to it which is one of the reasons it is an ideal material for building these types of structures. Engineers have to take into account a lot of factors like weather/wind loading, expansion and contraction due to temperature fluctuation, even impacting by aircraft. If the steel didn't have some elasticity it may break in the manner you suggested but they didn't. We all know this. We all saw the planes whether in person or on TV. We agree planes hit those buildings. Why would they have demo'd the buildings with thermite or any other material? They wouldn't have needed to have been brought down at all for the government or whomever may be responsible's goals to have been acheived. Many people were killed instantly when the planes hit. Millions of dollars in damage had been done and the buildings would've surely been closed down for a long time or even condemned. I admit, bringing them down made for a good show but wasn't really necessary for war to have been declared.

Click to expand...

sync0s said:

I dare any of you to download Microsoft Flight simulator, and successfully fly the plane 10 feet off the ground in an urban environment without touching the ground or hitting buildings. Add in to the equation of real life events/weather plus poorly trained "terrorists" that never spent time learning how to land. Yeah, you will see how skillful of a pilot that takes.

Click to expand...

hazyintentions said:

You Sim? Finally, someone who knows that even simulating flying a plane isn't like driving a car.

Don't forget the "plane" knocked over street lamp without touching ground. Pretty top notch for a guy who could hardly land a Cessna single prop just weeks before?
Oh , did I mention that the pilot flying the "plane" that crashed into the building was an Air Force veteran who had done a lot of work for CIA and the likes in his past?
If that doesn't ring any alarms then this is hopeless.

Click to expand...

Antidisestablishmentarian said:

As a person who trained to fly planes, in my personal experience you learn to land on your first flight. By the 4th or 5th flight I was landing it all by myself. Now it wasn't a 737, but shit, pilots are trained to land from the get go.

Click to expand...

smokebros said:

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.

Click to expand...

hazyintentions said:

"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.

Click to expand...

NoDrama said:

Has anyone ever met a former "Truther" who now believes in the official story?

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

sync0s said:

I sat down some of my friends before and none of them could get a boeing 747 off of the runway, or if they did they crashed a mile down. Funny shit.

Click to expand...