World trade centre collapse, 9/11 conspiracy

Discussion in 'Conspiracies' started by someguy1, Nov 4, 2017.

  1. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,900
    Yep. Molten aluminum. The steel didn't 'flow.'
    Exactly. Aluminum melted. Why can't you understand that? It's not a difficult concept. You can even do it yourself.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,618
    Sigh. Nice bit of 'creative editing' there. So characteristic of torch bearers for the Official 9-11 Conspiracy Theory. I guess reading through and having to confront the clear findings in that methodical article - here it is again: http://www.consensus911.org/point-tt-6/ - was too much to expect. Good night to you too.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,900
    No editing needed.

    Aluminum melted, and was observed flowing. Steel did not flow. Not sure how I can make it any simpler for you.

    Ah well. Some people go to great lengths to feel like they are special, and are among the "enlightened" - above all the other "sheep." Good luck with that.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,439
    You tilt at windmills. I simply pointed out the fact that the description that has been massively publicized is that of the witnesses, not expert analysis. In any honest account of an event, that is most definitely important. I made no stand beyond that.

    You have not addressed my arguments. You have shifted to an emotional arena, and built straw men, attacking these hypothetical 'others' instead.

    Why not simply address the points I made?
     
  8. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,618
    No, one doesn't need to either be or feel special to see through the tissue of inconsistent lies which is the Official 9-11 Conspiracy Theory.
    And, even if as is obvious you won't deal here with the damming content of that article twice linked to now, do it privately. It just might turn you into a...closet Twoofer!
    Unless as seems obvious, you also have a rigid ideological commitment to everything PC Mainstream - like the Official 9-11 Conspiracy Theory.
     
  9. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,618
    See my reply to billvon last post.
     
  10. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,900
    Unlikely. I am too much into science to become a true believer.
     
  11. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,439
    So, while you're beating up a one-size-fits-all straw man, the actual arguments stand unchallenged. Noted.
     
    sideshowbob likes this.
  12. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,618
    This kind of deflection tactics I expected. Alex if you are still dithering on the fence after STUDYING everything I linked to, then too bad it was all a wasted effort. Enjoy your star gazing.
     
  13. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,514
    I did read it.

    Most interesting.

    There certainly are a few witnesses who call what they saw molten steel but the only way to tell would be to test the stuff they saw.

    I found the dismissal to the effect studying the steel was irrelevant most odd but engineers can be odd.

    The iron in the dust most odd.

    The melted moly I found interesting.

    But at the end of the day the engineers who inspected the steel say they found no evidence of melted steel.

    I have seen claims of thermite being found in the dust along with iron spheres but there was no reference to thermite in dust talked about in the link.

    Have you heard the thermite in the dust story?

    That story needs to be nailed down.

    If those making that claim can support it with evidence that would be something difficult to explain.

    I must say the more I look at no 7 coming down the more I think demo job...

    I am not an engineer but really you would think no 7 would show a tilt if it was fire.


    And then when you look at the vids of buildings under controlled demo no7 looks the same...the other thing is even under controlled demo not all building fall all the way or straight down.

    The other thing that has me wondering is that before the disaster not one building in the world had collapsed due to fire yet in one day we get three... that does make one wonder...if it does not it should irrespective of your final belief.

    And the loss of evidence and financial records that suited various criminals must cause one to wonder how misfortune for others was so fortunate for the criminals...who ever they were.

    And the loss of records seemed fortunate for someone with the Pentagon crash...

    I do find that I dont want to believe that the truth movement are correct but the sheer weight of this and that makes me shudder.

    The evil that an inside job suggests is incomprehensible...but so are black holes I guess.

    Over here the folk I talk to dont believe the official story but fact is not determined by a majority vote.
    No one can offer facts but they seem to think the collapse of no 7 was too good to be true.

    What would be good ... a debate in the unused debate section here☺.

    Anyways if it is an inside job you would have to compliment those who put it together as the alleged reasons they did it have all been accomplished and the majority or nearly the majority of the world accept it was just a terror attack.

    And really if there was anything to the inside job you could think there would be irrefutable evidence to have surfaced by now.
    And out of all I have looked at I cant decide..nor will I bother cause what do I know.
    But I wont go with feelings particulary after looking at no 7 come down and some guy saying to "pull it".

    Anyways this is old hat for me I am more interested in the new Atlantis site☺
    Play nice guys.
    Alex
     
  14. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,514
    I will stay on the fence☺.

    My feelings are no 7 looks like a demo.

    I guess if the truthers have it right the truth is just impossible to accept.

    The thought that the evil that truthers say is behind it all is just too much to bare.

    Thank you for your views I will read the links again and again later.

    Your effort is not wasted on me and I appreciate all you say and the implications...
    Alex
     
    Q-reeus likes this.
  15. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,900
    Exactly. Tell a guy that the iron must be melting, and show him a video of molten metal, and he will swear he saw molten iron. But at the end of the day, you have to have proof that what they saw was molten iron. And there is no such proof.

    The thermite story is a popular one. But keep in mind that thermite is just a mix of a metal powder and an oxidizer. For example, a common thermite mixture is aluminum powder and iron oxide (rust.) And after an aluminum airliner collided with a decades-old building at almost 600mph, there was a lot of both - in mass quantities.
    It did. It started tilting around 2pm; at that point firefighters noticed that one side of the building was beginning to bulge. By 3:30 creaking and groaning noises were heard inside, and the fire chief decided to pull his teams due to the risk of collapse. The facade then began to crack, and it finally collapsed at 5:20pm.

    A demolition job would have been over in seconds.
    Keep in mind that all three buildings had also been hit by tons of debris that severed critical structural members. Any of the three buildings could likely have survived the fire, or the impacts. They could not survive both.
    That was the aformentioned fire chief telling them to pull the team out.
     
  16. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,618
    Alex, you have noted some pertinent if bleeding obvious pointers to a so-called 'inside job' re 9-11 in #150, but what I quoted above tells me you have not really STUDIED ALL I linked to. Won't point yout to the specific passages, in which articles, exactly cover and overturn your negative claims above. Go back and read again - it's ALL covered - in the affirmative!
     
  17. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,514
    I have worked out what probably happened.

    The terrorists hit the buildings three became unsafe so secret teams were sent in to demolish them and that action needed to remain secret because not to do so would fuel conspiracy theories.
    Alex
     
  18. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,514
    I read it all but I have to read it a couple of times ... I think I said I plans for another read...my comprehension is not too bad but stuff like this does not sink in with one pass in my view.
    I have☺ and more.
    I get it.
    Alex
     
  19. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 70 years old Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,092
    ??? Sounds like the start of a conspiracy within a conspiracy

    Is it just not the case - hit by planes - due to type of construction - collapse?

    The act was well planned

    Don't think anything past "hit buildings with aircraft" was anticipated

    That alone would have been enough to claim success

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,514
    No you have to prove that it was not molten iron☺
    I used to make up a zinc dust and sulpher mix and occasionally alluminium and sulpher...both of which burnt fiercely but all simple available stuff.
    Maybe alluminium and plastic for example...my point I was trying to make is that is one story that should be explained...for the public so that rather than such a loose end out there nail it down...the things I have read said it was red on one side and grey on the other...that could be a paint...do they use alluminium like zinc dust in paint I wonder.
    I thought it was the owner of the building who said "pull it" so thanks for that.
    From what I saw it was over in seconds.

    If the building was buldging on one side a neat fall becomes more unlikely dont you think?

    Alex
     
  21. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,900
    I don't think so. The bulging indicated serious structural problems that weren't yet serious enough to bring it down. Buildings of that size aren't very strong in any direction but one; break enough structural members and it collapses like a house of cards, rather than tipping over like a tower of Pisa.

    In the case of WTC7 the "final straw" was column 79, one of a great many structural member keeping the building up. Once the fire got bad enough that it weakened the floor girders on floor 13 the floor collapsed, pulling out the support for column 79. Once column 79 started bucking the rest of the column supporting the building went quickly.

    https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/design/a3524/4278874/
     
  22. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,514
    The government have special secret teams ready for these situations☺.
    Thats what they want you to think.
    Thats what they want you to think.
    Thats what they want you to think.

    Hope you are enjoying yourself.
    Alex
     
  23. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,514
    So you cant prove it wasnt molten iron☺

    Thanks for taking the time to explain all that and thanks for the link I will read ot later as my photo stack is complete and so I will now be occupied with processing.

    Have a great day.

    Alex
     

Share This Page