RE: 911 - Al-Qaeda or Hoax?

RE: 911 - Al-Qaeda or Hoax? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Polls and Other Random Stupidity

Message

mnottertail -> RE: 911 - Al-Qaeda or Hoax? (11/1/2006 12:11:48 PM)
Yeah--- the movie showing the squibs is intriguing, gonna look at that some more-- in fact it was what I said about the yellow substance squirting out below the cantilever floor having nothing to do with with the building coming down (not that it wasn't a misfire and intended to assist in that function) and if that was organized we should see similar events occuring all over the building but the (apparent) squibbs shooting out the windows are doing just like that...........however, it flies in the face of logic to attach charges OR SET NEAR to the exoskeleton instead of the core to implode the fucking thing, but then that rules out thermite, it is not explosive in that manner, in and of itself. Oxygen is easy to come by.........they had the following sources for chimneys, the cabling corners, the huge basement connections into the sewers (possible source of much methane) and cabling tunnels (possible source of natural gas) and the elevators and central core............. Evidence of the connection (agreed not the additional sources of underground fuel) -- If I remember correctly manhole covers were blown off for several blocks around those buildings on the explosion part. The smoke/debris staying low and billowy (the volcanic theory) is another red herring, walk down the streets of the city that time of year and you will see that the air around tall buildings (especially fearsome in winter) will want to bounce you off the sidewalk it comes down so hard.............. So, still cogitating, and it's funner than crossword puzzles. Ron .........now it didn't really look like it imploded but pancaked down..........simple pancake theory has been debunked in my mind as explained by NOVA simulations......... Nevertheless, that fuckin' thing came down pancake and not folded in. So I am at a loss to explain these things, but they have caught my attention, and I will observe them until there is nothing more to be usefully learned from them. Ron

swtnsparkling -> RE: 911 - Al-Qaeda or Hoax? (11/1/2006 1:23:41 PM)
quote: And after each event, they take more and more of our rights away. Sissify I'm curious- what rights have you lost or have been taken from you.

Real0ne -> RE: 911 - Al-Qaeda or Hoax? (11/1/2006 1:38:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Yeah--- the movie showing the squibs is intriguing, gonna look at that some more-- in fact it was what I said about the yellow substance squirting out below the cantilever floor having nothing to do with with the building coming down (not that it wasn't a misfire and intended to assist in that function) and if that was organized we should see similar events occuring all over the building but the (apparent) squibbs shooting out the windows are doing just like that...........however, it flies in the face of logic to attach charges OR SET NEAR to the exoskeleton instead of the core to implode the fucking thing, but then that rules out thermite, it is not explosive in that manner, in and of itself. Oxygen is easy to come by.........they had the following sources for chimneys, the cabling corners, the huge basement connections into the sewers (possible source of much methane) and cabling tunnels (possible source of natural gas) and the elevators and central core............. Evidence of the connection (agreed not the additional sources of underground fuel) -- If I remember correctly manhole covers were blown off for several blocks around those buildings on the explosion part. The smoke/debris staying low and billowy (the volcanic theory) is another red herring, walk down the streets of the city that time of year and you will see that the air around tall buildings (especially fearsome in winter) will want to bounce you off the sidewalk it comes down so hard.............. So, still cogitating, and it's funner than crossword puzzles. Ron .........now it didn't really look like it imploded but pancaked down..........simple pancake theory has been debunked in my mind as explained by NOVA simulations......... Nevertheless, that fuckin' thing came down pancake and not folded in. So I am at a loss to explain these things, but they have caught my attention, and I will observe them until there is nothing more to be usefully learned from them. Ron yes in fact those squibs are huge compared to other building that have been brought down... the exoskeleton on that building was extremely strong intentionally and if you look carefully at the way it was designed it could take a hell of a lot of abuse including plane crashes and fires as a result fuel... remember they had a pretty bug fire in it back in 75 was it? and even tho it was several floors that fire did not bring anything down or even hurt the structure what so ever... i think we can agree however that the yellowish substance was certainly molten however and i think we can agree it was in the exact area of the floor supports as shown by the blue line. i do not have the reports handy but there were reports of little fires all over the building on several of the floors below. ron you can get thermite explosives for dropping buildings. Exactly what it is i am not sure. i am guessing it is an explosive somehow integrated with thermite. and they are used for cutting large beams. granted the kind of thermite you or i might make to play with in the back yard would not cause any kind of significant explosion. but the kind that does can be used to take out the core. pancaking buildings do not disintegrate. remember they did not find so much as a phone pad, everything was literally vaporized including 1100 people. when things pancake they get squished not vaporized. i can understand an explosion inside the building setting off a secondary methane explosion that would blow off those covers, but this rodrigues guy hauled one of his buds out who was NOT burned what so ever as one would be from a methane explosion but has several square inches of skin removed from the blast on the lower level. Dont for get to take note of the pic i put up showing the charge placed on the i-beam as an example of a typical demolition. you havent debunked that beam with the 3 circles to my satisfaction yet either. the reason being that nowadays they use huge sissor like backhoe looking cutters and with hydraulics clip most of that stuff up to the sizes used on wtc. sissors are quick one snip and done. Also as far as the slag is concerned on that one piece i do not know anyone who cuts from the inside to the outside which would be the only way the slag would end up on the outside using either plasma or gas. plasma is the cutter of choice now a days because they are fast and leave virtually no slag and slag when cutting is always left opposite the cutter head and the cutter head is always on th eoutside blowing in. No one cuts a huge chunk out of a beam so they can stick their arm and the cutter head inside to make a cut. it seems to me there is not way to tell by the slag in the pic exactly what created it, but modern demolition equipment used to cut up buildings today does not leave slag like that. lots and lots of anomolies for you to debunk! i dont think anything has been "actually" debunked to this point tho i think many good points have been made... oh yeh and i think everyone has already forgotten the nist report, hey thats a government report for all you people who only trust government reports!!!! anyway the nist report showed that the fire never got above 250 degrees centigrade! just hot enough to do a few eggs over easy! so if the fire did not get hot enough to do it what did?

Saraheli -> RE: 911 - Al-Qaeda or Hoax? (11/1/2006 2:34:21 PM)
ooops, wrong account open, she didn't sign out

Arpig -> RE: 911 - Al-Qaeda or Hoax? (11/1/2006 2:36:10 PM)
quote: got a pic? The only fires i saw were barely hot enough to lite a cigarette, do show us the blast furnace you are talking about, or is that just a passing off handed remark? Unfortunatly that might be a bit hard, given that those wood-fired blast furnaces were in use some 2500 year ago. Crude steel was made in about 500 B.C. Here's a link or two to back it up. First a wikipedia article (yes I realise that wiki isn't really a 100% reiable source, but it has been used here as evidence for basic science...however like another wikipedia link in a different thread, this one, regretably perhaps, has no mention of "Photonic Energy" either) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steel And one designed for children, so you should be able to read & understand it http://www.historyforkids.org/learn/science/steel.htm and you will note the following words "The steel industry has grown from ancient times, when a few men may have operated, periodically, a small furnace producing 10 kilograms, ", from the exerpt on this page: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-81447/steel. I think that should settle that. quote: 9/11 Rescuer Saw Explosions Inside WTC 6 Lobby In an exclusive Killtown interview, Ground Zero EMT Patricia Ondrovic talks about her harrowing day at the WTC on 9/11. Within minutes after the South Tower collapses, she witnessed the WTC 5 blowing up, cars exploding, and explosions inside the lobby of the WTC 6, all the while narrowly escaping with her own life. Just a question...since you are willing to believe that the government faked the whole hijacking aspect of the events of 9/11, then why do you not accept that it might be possible that this person is a plant or fake, or that the fireman's radio message mentioned earlier in this thread might be a fake. I mean since you have accepted that all the bereaved familiy members of the people who were not killed on the planes that were never hijacked because they never actually took off are all faking it, why is it not possible in your warped worldview that the "witnesses" who support your version of events might not, equally, be fakes and plants. Seems to me that if I was behind a plot that blew the fuck out of downtown New York and triggered a massive US invasion of two (so far) countries in my part of the world, it would be very much in my interest to plant a few rumours and a false witness statement or two to the effect that it wasn' the poor peace-loving non-violent Islamic fundamentalists behind the dastardly deed, but rather your own government....Gee if that's the case we should pull our military out of there and appologise for invading (not a bad idea in and of itself, but still one very much desirable from the al-qaeda point of view, you must admit. Kindly explain to me why every single "eyewitness" who says it wasn't a plane that hit the pentagon is credible, yet those "eyewitnesses" who say it was a plane are automaticly deemed to be liars. Why is it that the people who claim to have had family members die on the planes that crashed into the buildings are clearly government stooges who are operating under false identities, and the folks who say there is no proof the dead folks existed (despite the existence of social security numbers, drivers licenses, photographs and children who will attest to the fact that their mommy or daddy was real, despite the existence of passenger manifests and radar and ground control records of the non-existant flkights from the moment they took off, are somehow 100% credible. It seems to me that anything at all, no matter how patently absurd, that suggests some sort of plot you will accept as Gospel, and anything that counters that you view as by definition a lie. Ron has looked over your so-called evidence, and he has, based on his rather extensive personal experience and knowledge in the field of steelwork, determined that the girders that you claim to be solid evidence of a thermite charge are in fact a result of after the fact cutting with a torch. Yet you continue to insist that thermite was to blame, despite the fact that somebody who has a very open mind on the subject has told you that isn't the case. Why is that? This all brings to mind a line from the Talking Heads song Crosseyed and Painless: "Facts are simple and facts are straight Facts are lazy and facts are late Facts all come with points of view Facts don't do what I want them to Facts just twist the truth around Facts are living turned inside out Facts are getting the best of them Facts are nothing on the face of things Facts don't stain the furniture Facts go out and slam the door Facts are written all over your face Facts continue to change their shape" Anyway, as I have said before, in the words of the great Rule himself: "Again your ignorance disqualifies you as a participant in 9/11 discussions."

Real0ne -> RE: 911 - Al-Qaeda or Hoax? (11/1/2006 3:22:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig quote: got a pic? The only fires i saw were barely hot enough to lite a cigarette, do show us the blast furnace you are talking about, or is that just a passing off handed remark? Unfortunatly that might be a bit hard, given that those wood-fired blast furnaces were in use some 2500 year ago. Crude steel was made in about 500 B.C. Here's a link or two to back it up. <snip> I think that should settle that. It settles nothing at all! It shows you did not look into this objectively of correctly assimulate data from our government frankly. Once again as i stated: oh yeh and i think everyone has already forgotten the nist report, hey thats a government report for all you people who only trust government reports!!!! anyway the nist report showed that the fire never got above 250 degrees centigrade! just hot enough to do a few eggs over easy! btw, my grandpa had one of those wood "blast" funaces as you put otherwise more commonly known to us mortals as a forge, in the shed in the back yard... quote: 9/11 Rescuer Saw Explosions Inside WTC 6 Lobby In an exclusive Killtown interview, Ground Zero EMT Patricia Ondrovic talks about her harrowing day at the WTC on 9/11. Within minutes after the South Tower collapses, she witnessed the WTC 5 blowing up, cars exploding, and explosions inside the lobby of the WTC 6, all the while narrowly escaping with her own life. quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig Just a question...since you are willing to believe that the government faked the whole hijacking aspect of the events of 9/11 i never said any such thing, i limited my conversation to the building falling. quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig then why do you not accept that it might be possible that this person is a plant or fake or that the fireman's radio message mentioned earlier in this thread might be a fake. what possible motive would hundreds of individuals without a mutual motive have to do this? who would fund it? Its takes money to pay people off. These things were all said in the heat of the moment by people scared as hell, not some strategist in an office building. those are not question i am looking for an answer to but statements as that will only drag this off the building and we are just getting started with the building aspects of it. quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig I mean since you have accepted that all the bereaved familiy members of the people who were not killed on the planes that were never hijacked because they never actually took off are all faking it, why is it not possible in your warped worldview that the "witnesses" who support your version of events might not, equally, be fakes and plants. Well for all i know you might be a fake or a plant. as far as the planes and all the deaths that occured from it, i have a friend, that is a stew friend who i talked with later that day and already everyone in the industry knew it was bullshit. She told me "that just a ruse r1". quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig Seems to me that if I was behind a plot that blew the fuck out of downtown New York and triggered a massive US invasion of two (so far) countries in my part of the world, it would be very much in my interest to plant a few rumours and a false witness statement or two to the effect that it wasn' the poor peace-loving non-violent Islamic fundamentalists behind the dastardly deed, but rather your own government....Gee if that's the case we should pull our military out of there and appologise for invading (not a bad idea in and of itself, but still one very much desirable from the al-qaeda point of view, you must admit. well i am not into the politics of it here but sticking more to what makes buildings fall down. but in anything like this you always want to look at who had what to gain motive and resources. but that has nothing to do with buildings falling down with only 250 degrees centigrade heat, bombs blowing up, fires all over on the lower floors, molten "something" pouring out the side of the buildings, nothing bigger than 2 square inches left from the contents, blast squibs ahead of the fall, can i stop now? quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig Kindly explain to me why every single "eyewitness" who says it wasn't a plane that hit the pentagon is credible, yet those "eyewitnesses" who say it was a plane are automaticly deemed to be liars. well thats pretty simple. when the statement given by an observer does not match the physical evidence at the scene that leaves lots of room to question lots of things. but again that has nothing to do with wtc falling quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig Why is it that the people who claim to have had family members die on the planes that crashed into the buildings are clearly government stooges who are operating under false identities, and the folks who say there is no proof the dead folks existed (despite the existence of social security numbers, drivers licenses, photographs and children who will attest to the fact that their mommy or daddy was real, despite the existence of passenger manifests and radar and ground control records of the non-existant flkights from the moment they took off, are somehow 100% credible. again see my entry on the american airline stews statement... this takes the conversation again far away from the building which is my original question. quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig It seems to me that anything at all, no matter how patently absurd, that suggests some sort of plot you will accept as Gospel, and anything that counters that you view as by definition a lie. i have accepted nothing but what my knowledge, observations, and conclusions have produced from the evidence at hand. as i originally stated i had problems the second i seen the building come down and how the building came down as i stated above and many other places. quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig Ron has looked over your so-called evidence, and he has, based on his rather extensive personal experience and knowledge in the field of steelwork, determined that the girders that you claim to be solid evidence of a thermite charge are in fact a result of after the fact cutting with a torch. Yet you continue to insist that thermite was to blame, despite the fact that somebody who has a very open mind on the subject has told you that isn't the case. Why is that? Oh did i forget to mention that i am also a state certified welder? OOOoooops???? Well actually used to be. i have not been in the biz for several years but have battle wounds as a result of being to lazy to wear a leather apron sometimes LOL quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig Anyway, as I have said before, in the words of the great Rule himself: "Again your ignorance disqualifies you as a participant in 9/11 discussions." Then i suggest that you do not waste even one more second of your precious time on this thread and move on to a more intelligent conversation and let us dummies talk our stooopidity and do the ignorant things that us ignorant and unqualified people do.

Zensee -> RE: 911 - Al-Qaeda or Hoax? (11/1/2006 3:35:53 PM)
Arpig, ignorance may disqualify us from drawing definitive conclusions about this topic but it must not prevent us from joining a discussion of the significant mysteries still surrounding the catastrophic and coincidental collapse of those three buildings. 0

Saraheli -> RE: 911 - Al-Qaeda or Hoax? (11/1/2006 3:58:41 PM)
This damn thing keeps signing in her account when I open the message boards.....[:@]

Arpig -> RE: 911 - Al-Qaeda or Hoax? (11/1/2006 4:00:18 PM)
RealOne, you are correct. You have kept your discussion pretty much to the collapse of the buildings. I used the fast reply function, and I apologise for the confusion caused by the impression that I was replying directly to you. My question was more generally posed, it was directed at the 9/11 conspiracy believers in general, not specifically at you. Oh and as for the "blast" furnaces...you used that term yourself, so I just repeated it. And since you knew very well what these were, why did you ask for some evidence of their existence. A bit of intellectual dishonesty on your part methinks, or is just that you can't keep your own untruths straight in your mind...."what a tangeled web we weave, when first we practice to decieve" eh? And as for my repeated closing statement, you did not call Rule on it when he used it to simply browbeat somebody who disagreed with him, I assume you feel it is entirely appropriate to use it. However, if you do feel it is inappropriate, then kindly explain to me why you did not mention it when Rule first used the line? Can anybody say "double standard"? I do not believe that al-qaeda was responsible for the WTC disaster because the US government says so (I am not a US citizen, as a foreigner I have quite a good understanding of the US government's ability to lie), I believe it for two reasons: 1. It fits all the facts better than any other scenario. It also satisfies Ockham's razor...it fits without having to do all the mental gymnastics involved in the conspiracy theories. 2. The al-qaeda spokesmen have admitted that they were behind it. I will readily concede that it is entirely possible that Bush & Co. were well aware of the impending attack and did nothing to stop it, hell I will even concede that they (or at least parts of the administration) were in on the whole thing right from the start. Myself, I don't believe that the buildings were supposed to come down, not in the plans of the islamicists, nor in the minds of their american co-conspirators (if any existed), but that, as so often happens when any plan is implemented in the real world,something went terribly wrong. If you see your government as a sinsiter enemy, capable of executing, what even you must admit, would have to be a vast, globe-spanning conspiracy involving thousands, if not tens of thousands, of conspirators, then you have a far higher estimate of the capabilities of the US governments covert operations capabilities than is justified by the present record, or that of the past. That is the 3rd reason I don't accept the conspiracy theories, they are simply beyond the capability of the US government's covert agencies to pull off without fucking them up. It is not blind reliance on Government reports or spin that brings me to believe that it was indeed a bunch of fundamentalist muslims acting at the behest of OBL that carried out the attacks pretty much in the manner they are said to have done. It is that rarest of human attributes: common sense.

Arpig -> RE: 911 - Al-Qaeda or Hoax? (11/1/2006 4:03:12 PM)
quote: Arpig, ignorance may disqualify us from drawing definitive conclusions about this topic but it must not prevent us from joining a discussion of the significant mysteries still surrounding the catastrophic and coincidental collapse of those three buildings. 0 It was not me who first formulated this insulting formula. If it bothers you, then take it up with its author: Rule. I figure if its ok for your side to say, its ok for me to say it as well.

Real0ne -> RE: 911 - Al-Qaeda or Hoax? (11/1/2006 4:25:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig RealOne, you are correct. You have kept your discussion pretty much to the collapse of the buildings. I used the fast reply function, and I apologise for the confusion caused by the impression that I was replying directly to you. My question was more generally posed, it was directed at the 9/11 conspiracy believers in general, not specifically at you. no problem quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig Oh and as for the "blast" furnaces...you used that term yourself, so I just repeated it. And since you knew very well what these were, why did you ask for some evidence of their existence. A bit of intellectual dishonesty on your part methinks, or is just that you can't keep your own untruths straight in your mind...."what a tangeled web we weave, when first we practice to decieve" eh? problem: that was not my vernacular. i was refering to a previous post referring to anothers vernacular in my comment on it... again it helps to read if you wish to understand this conversation. i do not always use the standard conventions of illustrating a quote. i hope that helps you untangle this web of deceit. quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig And as for my repeated closing statement, you did not call Rule on it when he used it to simply browbeat somebody who disagreed with him, I assume you feel it is entirely appropriate to use it. However, if you do feel it is inappropriate, then kindly explain to me why you did not mention it when Rule first used the line? Can anybody say "double standard"? rule did not use that statement refering to one of my posts. tho i did try to diffuse it and if you had read through all the posts you would have seen it, i have no intention of going back through them all to quote myself. quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig I do not believe that al-qaeda was responsible for the WTC disaster because the US government says so (I am not a US citizen, as a foreigner I have quite a good understanding of the US government's ability to lie), I believe it for two reasons: 1. It fits all the facts better than any other scenario. It also satisfies Ockham's razor...it fits without having to do all the mental gymnastics involved in the conspiracy theories. 2. The al-qaeda spokesmen have admitted that they were behind it. I will readily concede that it is entirely possible that Bush & Co. were well aware of the impending attack and did nothing to stop it, hell I will even concede that they (or at least parts of the administration) were in on the whole thing right from the start. Myself, I don't believe that the buildings were supposed to come down, not in the plans of the islamicists, nor in the minds of their american co-conspirators (if any existed), but that, as so often happens when any plan is implemented in the real world,something went terribly wrong. If you see your government as a sinsiter enemy, capable of executing, what even you must admit, would have to be a vast, globe-spanning conspiracy involving thousands, if not tens of thousands, of conspirators, then you have a far higher estimate of the capabilities of the US governments covert operations capabilities than is justified by the present record, or that of the past. That is the 3rd reason I don't accept the conspiracy theories, they are simply beyond the capability of the US government's covert agencies to pull off without fucking them up. It is not blind reliance on Government reports or spin that brings me to believe that it was indeed a bunch of fundamentalist muslims acting at the behest of OBL that carried out the attacks pretty much in the manner they are said to have done. It is that rarest of human attributes: common sense. well again all of this just takes us into the politics of it all and i do not want to get into it at least till we can hammer out more issues regarding this building... but till then, if then ever happens, something for you to think about, and this is just a side note for you if you want to do your own research, ob wanted by the us government since 1998 was claimed to be in an american hospital in due bai during the 911 disaster... again i do not wish to debate this, but only to bring it to your attention if you wish to reseach it yourself as i have no opinion on it either way.

philosophy -> RE: 911 - Al-Qaeda or Hoax? (11/1/2006 4:27:48 PM)
......very interesting thread...although i have read through it i have not followed all the links as i fear my limited engineering knowledge wont be up to the task. However, one or two of the claims here do seem somewhat nonsensical. One poster seems to claim that there were no bodies on the planes that crashed into the WTC. As other posters on these fora seem to know people who knew people on those planes i find that argument weak. Nevertheless, even supposing that thermite bombs helped bring down the buildings it doesn't necessarily follow that the US government were behind it. A belt and braces approach by the terrorists would explain it........the US government may well want to cover it up, but not because they did it....more because it would expose their intelligence gathering abilities to even more ridicule if bombers had actually got into the buildings beforehand. Covering up mistakes does not necessarily imply culpability for the bombings themselves.

Zensee -> RE: 911 - Al-Qaeda or Hoax? (11/1/2006 5:11:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig quote: Arpig, ignorance may disqualify us from drawing definitive conclusions about this topic but it must not prevent us from joining a discussion of the significant mysteries still surrounding the catastrophic and coincidental collapse of those three buildings. 0 It was not me who first formulated this insulting formula. If it bothers you, then take it up with its author: Rule. I figure if its ok for your side to say, its ok for me to say it as well. Does it matter who coined it when you continue to use it with purpose? I'm not represented by a side although I am obviously of the opinion that the official explanation leaves more unanswered questions than solutions. I do not automatically accept every theory and assertion on "my side" any more than I accept the blithe assurances or ridicule of the "other side". There's plenty of bullshit flowing in both directions. That doesn't mean it is all bullshit, all the time. I don't celebrate living in a world where criminals in elected office and the corner office keep the world in a state of strife and fear because it's is good for their bottom line. I don't like living in a pathocracy where, for some reason, sick fucks seem to be empowered rather than filtered out. I don't like but I don't shy from it either. Z. 0

Sinergy -> RE: 911 - Al-Qaeda or Hoax? (11/1/2006 5:53:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne First started, note the bright yellow (HOT) fire compared to the cabling (COLD) fire on the left: can see its dripping off of something: Can see its coming from what appears to be a ceiling: Now its the same temperature as as the plastic fire on the left as it has burned out and began to cool: Coincidentally the building collapsed about (guessing) 7 seconds later. Ron that would be one hell of a lot of glass to have in a nearly a cube shape to pour out that long and all come from the same spot... windows stand up and that should have burned down if that were the case. yet it is all concentrated on the ceiling just about where the next floor mount would be. I admit that is curious and that it is indicative of an explosive that went of - or igniting and burning - prematurely. As for melting glass: what I understand from fire is that the glass does not melt, but shatters and is blown out. On the other hand, I can well imagine that if the fire is truly very hot and localized, that nearby glass will melt instead of shatter. I have googled: Glass "melts at 2600-2900 °F (1425-1600 °C) depending on its composition". I have also googled: "Thermite/thermate burns well over 1000C more than steel's melting temperature". And: "Steel melts at around 1370 °C". I have also googled: "Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). " So jet fuel cannot have molten mnottertail's glass, but thermate most certainly will. If there is molten glass, then most certainly there also will be molten steel. Perhaps you could now google the temperature when high voltage electric cable shorts out. All it has to do is start the steel burning and the rest is history. Im still having trouble understanding how all this thermate got into the concrete structure of the building unnoticed by anybody. But that is just me, and I could be wrong. Sinergy

CrappyDom -> RE: 911 - Al-Qaeda or Hoax? (11/1/2006 6:10:10 PM)
Since you guys can't prove me wrong, I think it was aliens who did it, since y ou can't prove I am wrong, I must be right? I think Bush and most of those around him deserve to be hung as traitors but to imagine that gang of morons conceiving and executing a plan to mine four buildings with explosives, thermite, and god knows whatever else, all without being detected is horsehit. I don't even think they could get them to go off on the same day. And bottom line is WHY? So they can then secretly offload passengers somewhere? These people wouldn't care if 100,000 Americans died today as long as their profits were protected, why would they go through such an eloborate consipiracy when Al Queda was working overtime to do it for them. All they had to do was step aside and let it happen, which is EXACTLY what they did..

stef -> RE: 911 - Al-Qaeda or Hoax? (11/1/2006 6:13:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy Im still having trouble understanding how all this thermate got into the concrete structure of the building unnoticed by anybody. That just means the government's mind control lasers are doing their job. ~stef

Real0ne -> RE: 911 - Al-Qaeda or Hoax? (11/1/2006 6:53:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy Perhaps you could now google the temperature when high voltage electric cable shorts out. All it has to do is start the steel burning and the rest is history. Im still having trouble understanding how all this thermate got into the concrete structure of the building unnoticed by anybody. But that is just me, and I could be wrong. Sinergy Eeek! sin it cant happen that way. First steel does not burn in the conventional sense, and you need to pump in pure oxygen to get it to boil for lack of a better term. Steel boils like lava from a volcano is the best comparison i can think of... So thats the first problem. Next there is not an office building in the world that is fused heavy enough to melt 36"x16"x2"thick iron beams. the conductors required to carry that kind of juice based on a short circuit would be humongolous! like to the tune of a 3 wire bundle woudl be over 10 foot tall with power company fusing well into the millions of amps, that is based on a short circuit as you stated not a controlled induction heating sition which is entirely different from a short. last how did they get it in there? try this on for size: http://69.28.73.17/thornarticles/powerdown.html http://www.serendipity.li/wot/forbes01.htm This is a great shot of a controled demolition, the imploding type, what does it remind you of? http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc-7_1_.gif

Real0ne -> RE: 911 - Al-Qaeda or Hoax? (11/1/2006 8:02:47 PM)
Woah thar hosey! Now here is one i didnt think of... check this photo out... what if just what if they had a steel canister attached to those planes loaded up with thermate? i could nearly envision the plane going through the outer mesh wall and it would have to stop near the center because it would hit the core. plane meets steel steel wins. then what if upon the crash fire ignites that canister somewhere near the core of the building and this thermate starts gurgling its way down putting holes in everything all the way down then when the building finally falls keeps it molten for weeks after even tho they sprayed umteen million gallons of water on it to cool it off? http://www.rense.com/general41/fus.htm now i dunno about you guys but that duuna looks like a typical passenger jet ta me... what if those jets were nothing more than a delivery system to get "something" to the upper levels? another thought just crossed my mind... it could have also been homing equipment to home in on a beacon from the owers... lots of possibilities, but the nagging question is "what is it"?

Arpig -> RE: 911 - Al-Qaeda or Hoax? (11/1/2006 8:49:47 PM)
OK R1, I don't know about that blurry blob in the photo, but the possibility of there being some serious explosives onboard the plane is indeed an intriguing one. And in and of itself it doesn't discount it being al qeada that did it, I mean various terrorist groups have managed to smuggle large amounts of all sorts of stuff into all sorts of supposedly secure places. This idea has a lot going for it, as it does explain a lot of the things that people have been questioning regarding the WTC. I like this theory actually [:)] (Now there's something neither you nor I thought we would see eh? me agreeing with you...will wonders never cease)

Rule -> RE: 911 - Al-Qaeda or Hoax? (11/1/2006 9:16:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne check this photo out... It has the shape of an engine. The corresponding one on the other wing is hidden by the fuselage of the plane. How many engines was that plane supposed to have?

Page: << < prev 10 11 [12] 13 14 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875