15 years of deception; 9/11 reviewed

[Woobie]

No, but the lady pictured standing in the hole where the fireball occurred confirms that it had pretty much gone out and cooled down before the demolition occurred.



Did you try throwing that gas can through a steel beam yet to see how much of it vaporized in the initial explosive fireball? Let me know how much of it pooled, how long it burned, and when it had cooled enough to safely stand in the area again. All of that happened before the building demolished itself.

When I find a 10,000 gallon gas can I'll try it and get back with you.

 

[ATM]

Thermite is real? Holy crap, in that case I totally believe you.

I know you don't do things that way at the steel mill. I wasn't laying out the optimum method for melting steel. But it is impossible to deny there were electrical fires, and big ones at that. And it is not a stretch to say there was some serious arcing that took place as well.

Just long enough to trip the upstream circuit protection, typically measured in milliseconds. Enough spark to ignite a fire, sure, but not nearly enough to arc weld with.

You are trying to stretch quite a bit here.

When I find a 10,000 gallon gas can I'll try it and get back with you.

You find scaled demonstrations unacceptable? Why? Do the fundamentals change in this instance?

 

[ATM]

Its because the other theories are ridiculous. And because truthers bitterly cling to these other "explanations" that the rest of the argument that there were things covered up gets ignored.

Im sorry, but if you make a preposterous claim, I am going to view the rest of what you say a little more critically.

So you have successfully distracted those who want to talk about the real cover ups, and lost the trust of those who didn't but were willing to listen. Well done!

You completely lost me here. What other theories are preposterous? What preposterous claim have I made? What am I bitterly clinging to?

By responding to distractions, I am the distraction? I'm really not sure what you're trying to tell me here.

 

[cosermann]

You're seriously unaware of the molten metals documented in the WTC buildings and debris?. . . If you are not being disingenuous here, you are simply ill-informed. Steel and iron were most certainly melted - lots of it.

Some of the steel i-beams in my dad's business fire looked like they had been melted and had dripped almost like candle wax in spots.

It was pretty weird looking. I wish I had pics but back then we didn't walk around with digital cameras in our pockets like we do now.

 

[Woobie]

You completely lost me here. What other theories are preposterous? What preposterous claim have I made? What am I bitterly clinging to?

By responding to distractions, I am the distraction? I'm really not sure what you're trying to tell me here.

You have insinuated WTC was demolished. Given the lack of evidence, I find that preposterous. Oh yeah, they didn't test for it, lost the documentation, whatever.

Its your thread, bub. You don't see very reticent to continue the demolition discussion. And it has been a pillar of the Truther movement, which I find to be a major handicap for them.

 

[Woobie]

Just long enough to trip the upstream circuit protection, typically measured in milliseconds. Enough spark to ignite a fire, sure, but not nearly enough to arc weld with.

You are trying to stretch quite a bit here.



You find scaled demonstrations unacceptable? Why? Do the fundamentals change in this instance?

Well that depends on the manner of the circuit protection. Back then it was likely fuses on the big stuff.

But it if you don't like that explanation, welcome to the club. I don't think the demolition argument holds water at all.

The fundamentals Physics don't change. That is why when you put a lot of fuel in one container and spill it, you get big puddles and stuff. It's also why those puddles don't explode. Little containers don't make big puddles. Science: it's pretty cool.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

.

 

[Woobie]

Some of the steel i-beams in my dad's business fire looked like they had been melted and had dripped almost like candle wax in spots.

It was pretty weird looking. I wish I had pics but back then we didn't walk around with digital cameras in our pockets like we do now.

Nope, didn't happen. Somebody snuck in and sabotaged the building. Then hid the evidence from the fire investigator. Actually it was probably the fire investigator that did it.

 

[ATM]

Some of the steel i-beams in my dad's business fire looked like they had been melted and had dripped almost like candle wax in spots.

It was pretty weird looking. I wish I had pics but back then we didn't walk around with digital cameras in our pockets like we do now.

But we're discussing the WTC fireproof steel structural columns in an atmosphere NIST claimed couldn't have been hot enough to melt steel, a rather significant distinction.

 

[mikebol]

The theories I keep hearing all fall into ... "If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it MUST be duck." That doesn't withstand the stiff test for me. Interesting videos but the evidence provided is so paper thin, there are other plausible explanations to the "evidence" given.

I'm not saying it wasn't an inside job. For me, the evidence does not support it.

Mike

 

[JollyMon]

Then back to my question, ignoring the jet fuel side of this, who do you think was behind whatever happened?

I am going guess to say Bush and the evil War machine that just wants money to build up their forces

 

[HoughMade]

Lord knows that radical Islamic terrorists would never have tried anything like this.

 

[david890]

By all means, school me. Show how that would be plausible. That should be easy because ...momentum, right?

Each tower was 110 stories tall. AA11 hit the North Tower between the 93rd and 99th floors. So, at least 10 floors of structure remained above the point of impact. UA175 hit the SOuth Tower between the 77th and 85th floors, so at least 15 stories of structure above that point.

10 to 15 floors of structure dropping 10 feet will collapse the floor immediately below it. Add that to the moving debris, and the momentum increases.

Try a demonstration. Drop a small block of ice onto a large column of ice. Let's see how far the top block of ice demolishes the column beneath it.

All the way to the ground? You win.

If it stops shortly with minimal damage to both objects or, more likely, the block topples off the column (as we'd expect), I win.

Go!

A block of ice vs. several million tons of concrete and steel? Really?

 

[ATM]

You have insinuated WTC was demolished. Given the lack of evidence, I find that preposterous.

What do you mean by lack of evidence? The manner in which those three buildings fell simply screams demolition and refutes the implausible NIST explanation soundly. Have you seen this contrary evidence or would you like a link? Demolition is simply one of the easiest things to prove or disprove from the evidence the government couldn't contain. NIST didn't even attempt to disprove it which is rather telling as well. When you see other buildings demolished in a rather tidy fashion by demolition crews, do you ever wonder if maybe it just caught on fire and got weak? No, that would be preposterous.

Oh yeah, they didn't test for it, lost the documentation, whatever.

A bit more telling than that to be casually dismissed. NIST made the actual claim that they found no evidence of explosives. Only when questioned did they admit that they had not tested for evidence of explosives. That was an attempt to mislead, not casual oversight, another big flag that this was not an investigation but narrative crafting and support.

Its your thread, bub. You don't see very reticent to continue the demolition discussion.

Showing that the most plausible explanation was avoided on purpose serves to expose the effort to offer another conclusion despite where the evidence would lead. It disproves legitimate investigation and exposes agenda. That, my friend, is described as a cover-up.

And it has been a pillar of the Reuther movement, which I find to be a major handicap for them.

It is a major pillar because it is so blatant, the easiest to show people who are willing to see. The falser movement cant refute it, only dismiss it. That's not a handicap.

Look at how easily I hold my own on this one part of the puzzle against several naysayers. I can only hope discussion of other components of the cover up are more challenging if we ever get to them.

Really, you should either try defending NIST or abandon their fanciful theory that you once thought sufficient to adopt. There is plenty of contrary evidence on this one.

 

[ATM]

Then back to my question, ignoring the jet fuel side of this, who do you think was behind whatever happened?

Behind the cover-up? That had to come from the white house. Complicit co-conspirators. No doubt.

I still won't speculate on other whos in charge of whatevers, because that's the rabbit hole and achieves automatic dismissal. Minds close. Discussion over.

My purpose is to open minds.

 

[ATM]

Well that depends on the manner of the circuit protection. Back then it was likely fuses on the big stuff.

But it if you don't like that explanation, welcome to the club. I don't think the demolition argument holds water at all.

The fundamentals Physics don't change. That is why when you put a lot of fuel in one container and spill it, you get big puddles and stuff. It's also why those puddles don't explode. Little containers don't make big puddles. Science: it's pretty cool.

Fuses tend to clear faults even faster than breakers. I love that explanation. Please show the problem with the demolition argument. NIST couldn't.

And science didn't burn the lady standing where puddles should have still been burning. That is pretty cool.

 

[Alpo]

I would make this general observation. The North Tower was hit first at 8:46 a.m. The South Tower was hit at 9:03 a.m.

The South Tower collapses at 9:59. The North Tower collapses at 10:28. Both towers collapse in a reasonably similar manner. Why did it take longer for the first tower hit to fall?

The easy answer: There was more mass above the crash site on the South Tower than the North Tower.

The complex answer: The crash and subsequent loss of floor joists caused the perimeter walls to bow. The perimeter walls were designed to distribute approximately 30% of the building's weight, with load transfer redundancy with the inner core and lateral box columns along the perimeter. The crash stripped the building of its load margins. Because of the unique aspects of the perimeter/core construction, the building fell within itself (there were no lateral forces present subsequent to the crash, including negligible wind). An implosion of sorts. The South Tower fell first due to the significant increase in mass above the crash site when compared with the North Tower.

 

[ATM]

The theories I keep hearing all fall into ... "If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it MUST be duck." That doesn't withstand the stiff test for me. Interesting videos but the evidence provided is so paper thin, there are other plausible explanations to the "evidence" given.

I'm not saying it wasn't an inside job. For me, the evidence does not support it.

Mike

There are far better videos and resources available if you want evidence, support, refutations of refutations, etc.

I chose the video in the OP with a different purpose in mind.

 

[ATM]

Lord knows that radical Islamic terrorists would never have tried anything like this.

Tried? Sure, but they'd certainly never have succeeded so spectacularly without considerable inside help.

In fact, they couldn't have accomplished nearly what the government narrative claims at all - nobody could.

 

[Alpo]