9/11 Conspiracy Thread

[Carl Pickens]

Condescend much?

You and I have a difference of opinion.

No need for the attitude.

The entire fire was also covered in concrete dust.

Have you ever burned a large brush pile with logs and etc.? They will smolder underneath the ashes for days.... even with rain. I'm just saying that it's within the realm of possible based on the size and scope of two 110 story buildings

 

[TheDeeble]

Have you ever burned a large brush pile with logs and etc.? They will smolder underneath the ashes for days.... even with rain. I'm just saying that it's within the realm of possible based on the size and scope of two 110 story buildings

I remember in scouts when we left Sunday after a camping trip, our scoutmaster always had us pour gallons of water into the firepit to make sure there were no coals smoldering after we were gone. The thing was basically a big bowl of ash soup. You could stir that thing for an hour and you would still see smoke coming up.

 

[hndog609]

13 weeks?

I like this reference since in real time with the event (article dated Nov 1, '01) they were expecting this to burn for a very long time. They were right.

FIRE MAY SMOLDER FOR MONTHS

 

[Pacer92]

once again, you have not spent much time around fire have you? There is a reason Smokey the Bear is always saying "Only you can prevent forest fires".

You should put it out and then bury it under dirt/sand. the bigger the fire, the harder that is. not just from a size standpoint but because it sustains itself a bit.

We get that fire can sustain...like a campfire that’s rained on or put out with a hose pipe...overnight or 24 hours at the most...

The thing is...6 to 10 stories of either tower was hit by these planes...I’d venture to say that possibly 4-5 more stories above were burning...that’s still only 10-12% of the building that was affected by fire...with such large openings(without fire) where people could stand and wave for help...

Over 2 MONTHS later there is still smoldering and smoke?!

Amazing...

 

[hog88]

It's still amazing to me based on the vast amounts of water sprayed on the site by FDNY and the rainfall over the fall of 2001.

Not sure what the oxygen source / heat source that could have sustained it for that extended period of time.

Tire fires can last for years.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

So, the theory is that we allowed 5 jets to be hijacked, 2 of which we knew were going to hit both WTC main buildings. We felt this act of terrorism wasn't enough to gin up the American public, so prior to the hijackings we secretly loaded the buildings with thermite to bring them down in a controlled demolition. Although we knew no plane was going to strike WTC 6, we decided to demolish that one too, prior to the hijackings, of course. Do you guys even realize how absurd that sounds? How many people would have had to participate and keep their mouths shut? If you were going to do it why not make 'em topple and destroy a bunch more stuff and kill more people?

egggggggsactly

 

[ajvol01]

We get that fire can sustain...like a campfire that’s rained on or put out with a hose pipe...overnight or 24 hours at the most...

The thing is...6 to 10 stories of either tower was hit by these planes...I’d venture to say that possibly 4-5 more stories above were burning...that’s still only 10-12% of the building that was affected by fire...with such large openings(without fire) where people could stand and wave for help...

Over 2 MONTHS later there is still smoldering and smoke?!

Amazing...

Over 3 months actually.

CBS News | WTC Fires All But Defeated | December 19, 2001 23:22:25

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

This again. (and by again I mean we're nigh on 20 years...you think this hasn't been addressed by now?)

OK, forget what anybody "says". I'm asking you to believe your eyes. This is WTC tower footage. Take a breath, look closely, and tell me what you see. Look how the collapses start exactly at the damage line and how the collapse progresses exactly floor by floor, top down. MAKE yourself notice this...sequential, floor by floor, top down.



Now these are controlled demolitions.



Please tell me you can notice the obvious, obvious difference.

You answered nothing. I ask again, why have there been experts that have disputed the govts official explanations? I am not an expert and definitely could be wrong.

 

[bamawriter]

You answered nothing. I ask again, why have there been experts that have disputed the govts official explanations? I am not an expert and definitely could be wrong.

The number of experts that have disputed the government's official explanations make up what percentage of their various fields?

 

[LouderVol]

We get that fire can sustain...like a campfire that’s rained on or put out with a hose pipe...overnight or 24 hours at the most...

The thing is...6 to 10 stories of either tower was hit by these planes...I’d venture to say that possibly 4-5 more stories above were burning...that’s still only 10-12% of the building that was affected by fire...with such large openings(without fire) where people could stand and wave for help...

Over 2 MONTHS later there is still smoldering and smoke?!

Amazing...

again I don't think you understand how fires work.

you are making my point 10-12% was on fire while it was standing. then all 100% collapses into a hole, where there is apparently molten metal (extremely hot). Now the remaining 90-88% that wasn't burnt while standing is very very close to a source of extreme heat and any fires that remained, giving it a lot of stuff to cook thru. and with the low oxygen you aren't going to see it burn that remaining 90% very fast. low oxygen means its not going to burn very hot. lower temps consume less fuel, and spread slower than high temps, allowing it to burn for much longer.

pretty sure I also remember reading about gas fires after the collapse that took a couple days to be shut off with all the damage.

 

[LouderVol]

You answered nothing. I ask again, why have there been experts that have disputed the govts official explanations? I am not an expert and definitely could be wrong.

dude, we have experts that think the earth is flat.....
are you doubting the stupidity of mankind?

 

[hndog609]

You answered nothing. I ask again, why have there been experts that have disputed the govts official explanations? I am not an expert and definitely could be wrong.

What I did is even better. Your side of this is the one always saying not to be sheep and believe what your told, right? So now you, due to the incredible availability of information that exists today, get to look at the evidence yourself and and do some thinking. Those towers coming down look NOTHING like controlled demolitions. Saying there is "expertise" needed to make that observation is like saying one needs a mathematician to figure out 2+2.

So, as a person with eyes and the ability to think for himself you have a good question but are asking the wrong people so I'm asking you now. Knowing you've seen the difference exactly why the hell does anyone claiming to be a demolitions expert say it looks just like a controlled demolition?

 

[Carl Pickens]

I suppose it's possible that Bigfoot exists, but it's highly unlikely...... same with the 9/11 conspiracy theories

 

[Pacer92]

What I did is even better. Your side of this is the one always saying not to be sheep and believe what your told, right? So now you, due to the incredible availability of information that exists today, get to look at the evidence yourself and and do some thinking. Those towers coming down look NOTHING like controlled demolitions. Saying there is "expertise" needed to make that observation is like saying one needs a mathematician to figure out 2+2.

So, as a person with eyes and the ability to think for himself you have a good question but are asking the wrong people so I'm asking you now. Knowing you've seen the difference exactly why the hell does anyone claiming to be a demolitions expert say it looks just like a controlled demolition?

Looks NOTHING like controlled demolition?! C’mon man...it looks exactly like controlled demolition...

That’s like saying that the first and second shots on JFK looked nothing like they were shot from two totally different positions...

 

[hndog609]

Looks NOTHING like controlled demolition?! C’mon man...it looks exactly like controlled demolition...

That’s like saying that the first and second shots on JFK looked nothing like they were shot from two totally different positions...

WTF did you watch? OKOKOK...go to the demolition video and give me the time marker on which demolition cascaded, top down, floor by floor. What you'll see is this (forgive the quick and dirty graphics)





NOTHING like how the towers fell. The perfectly sequential top down floor by floor collapse resembles no controlled demolition I've (and I'm betting you've) ever seen. If you think the towers fell
"exactly like controlled demolition" then I can only assume you think this isn't pass interference.

 

[ajvol01]

again I don't think you understand how fires work.

you are making my point 10-12% was on fire while it was standing. then all 100% collapses into a hole, where there is apparently molten metal (extremely hot). Now the remaining 90-88% that wasn't burnt while standing is very very close to a source of extreme heat and any fires that remained, giving it a lot of stuff to cook thru. and with the low oxygen you aren't going to see it burn that remaining 90% very fast. low oxygen means its not going to burn very hot. lower temps consume less fuel, and spread slower than high temps, allowing it to burn for much longer.

pretty sure I also remember reading about gas fires after the collapse that took a couple days to be shut off with all the damage.

So you admit there was molten metal?

How did it get there?

 

[LouderVol]

So you admit there was molten metal?

How did it get there?

I have never refuted the molten metal. just the assertions you have made based on it.

I am guessing things got very hot.

 

[jvol1]

Does anyone know anything about secret societies and numerology? I've read bits and pieces about it, but I think the numbers in the date 9/11 have some significance to people somewhere. Evil things seem to happen on days with these numbers.

 

[utvolpj]

Does anyone know anything about secret societies and numerology? I've read bits and pieces about it, but I think the numbers in the date 9/11 have some significance to people somewhere. Evil things seem to happen on days with these numbers.

 

[jvol1]

http://images.fanpop.com/images/image_uploads/The-Number-23-jim-carrey-141970_450_296.jpg

 

[ajvol01]

I have never refuted the molten metal. just the assertions you have made based on it.

I am guessing things got very hot.

Let's forget about any assertions.

I am asking simple questions.

Where did the molten metal come from?

Was it steel?

 

[LouderVol]

Let's forget about any assertions.

I am asking simple questions.

Where did the molten metal come from?

Was it steel?

No idea, I don't know how many times I have to say it. Probably a mix of metals. Fair amount of copper and other metals in that building too. Probably not enough for what we see. Some of it is steel

 

[ajvol01]

No idea, I don't know how many times I have to say it. Probably a mix of metals. Fair amount of copper and other metals in that building too. Probably not enough for what we see. Some of it is steel

I have no intention to insult or frustrate you.

Just asking questions.

Seems like we agree on some of the details.

• Molten metal present at ground zero
• Some of the molten metal was steel

What could have caused the steel to melt?

Steel melts at approximately 2700 F.

• Jet fuel burns between 800-1500 F according to the link below.
• Wood fires burn between 300-1600 F depending on the type of wood

At What Temperature Does Jet Fuel Burn?

How Hot Is a Wood Fire?

What in all 3 WTC buildings could have been hot enough to melt steel / create the molten steel?

 

[LouderVol]

I have no intention to insult or frustrate you.

Just asking questions.

Seems like we agree on some of the details.

• Molten metal present at ground zero
• Some of the molten metal was steel

What could have caused the steel to melt?

Steel melts at approximately 2700 F.

• Jet fuel burns between 800-1500 F according to the link below.
• Wood fires burn between 300-1600 F depending on the type of wood

At What Temperature Does Jet Fuel Burn?

How Hot Is a Wood Fire?

What in all 3 WTC buildings could have been hot enough to melt steel / create the molten steel?

No idea what it was.

But it couldn't have been thermite, thermite creates an explosion. And then burns unlike typical fire. Find me something that looks like any of the videos of thermite you have shown at the WTC.

Think about what you are proposing with thermite.
1. No one noticed ALL that set up
2. As they didnt know where the planes would hit they would have had to put it everywhere. Everywhere.
3. They apparently did so, without being noticed, and were sitting there ready to flip just the correct switch for the exact floor.
4. The exact floor they couldn't have known from observation or even instrumentaion at the time of impact to time their explosion.
5. There is no other residue. Thermite needs an agent to kick it off. This is going to traceable.
5a. The "nano thermite" they used is a special type, that would stick out. Why leave a smoking gun?
6. If they didnt control from the outside and were just trusting to the plane fires to start how did it all go off at once?
7. They placed enough to collapse a tower, but none of it is visible in any of the videos. Any of them. We dnt see any burning. On the other side of the towers, on other floors. No burning.
8. After all the extra bombs placed al over to ensure collapse and targeting of the right floor, no trace of bombs was found. Give m some fuses or containers, or even the sources of the molten metal. Is it coming from a spring, can you show me the thermite melting the metal, or where it had been? Again real hard to miss.
9. No one has said anything. Anything. Bring up other covert opts if you want. Sure people dont talk at the time but 20 years later?
10. Why planes? Van bombs had been used before. Only would have had to bomb the bottom reaches of the columns away from eyes. The free fall would have been unquestionable by anyone. Planes and bombs and coverup is way over compllicated. Also a lot can go wrong with planes. If you believe the pilots they all say they couldn't have made those flights. So why bother with something that difficult? Every piece of this gets so convoluted it reads like a Bond script.

 

[ajvol01]

No idea what it was.

But it couldn't have been thermite, thermite creates an explosion. And then burns unlike typical fire. Find me something that looks like any of the videos of thermite you have shown at the WTC.

Think about what you are proposing with thermite.
1. No one noticed ALL that set up
2. As they didnt know where the planes would hit they would have had to put it everywhere. Everywhere.
3. They apparently did so, without being noticed, and were sitting there ready to flip just the correct switch for the exact floor.
4. The exact floor they couldn't have known from observation or even instrumentaion at the time of impact to time their explosion.
5. There is no other residue. Thermite needs an agent to kick it off. This is going to traceable.
5a. The "nano thermite" they used is a special type, that would stick out. Why leave a smoking gun?
6. If they didnt control from the outside and were just trusting to the plane fires to start how did it all go off at once?
7. They placed enough to collapse a tower, but none of it is visible in any of the videos. Any of them. We dnt see any burning. On the other side of the towers, on other floors. No burning.
8. After all the extra bombs placed al over to ensure collapse and targeting of the right floor, no trace of bombs was found. Give m some fuses or containers, or even the sources of the molten metal. Is it coming from a spring, can you show me the thermite melting the metal, or where it had been? Again real hard to miss.
9. No one has said anything. Anything. Bring up other covert opts if you want. Sure people dont talk at the time but 20 years later?
10. Why planes? Van bombs had been used before. Only would have had to bomb the bottom reaches of the columns away from eyes. The free fall would have been unquestionable by anyone. Planes and bombs and coverup is way over compllicated. Also a lot can go wrong with planes. If you believe the pilots they all say they couldn't have made those flights. So why bother with something that difficult? Every piece of this gets so convoluted it reads like a Bond script.

I'm honestly not trying to push your buttons.

However, it seems like you're taking all the 9/11 WTC truther theories that you're familiar with and assigning belief in those to me.

I asked you 1 simple question and you replied with a memo of 10 answers / suggestions / questions to things that I do not remember saying to you or anyone else in this thread.

The truth is that I simply don't believe the explanation/official story we've been given based on the contradictory evidence that exists.

To me, the molten steel is the key piece of evidence that forensically contradicts the official story of 9/11. Based on the official story - molten steel simply should NOT have been there. I don't claim to know what melted the steel, but I do know the jet fuel and building fires did not melt steel.

No matter if the fires burned for 5, 10 or 100 days at 1600 F it would not melt steel or explain molten steel.