# 9/11 Big budget Truther movie set for 2013



## Inuhanyou (Oct 20, 2012)

> Sept. 11th was surely one of the most defining and poignant moments in American history. The events of that day have been rehashed in countless television specials and documentaries, but in 2013 audiences can expect something different. A 9/11 "truther" fim titled "September Morn" is set to hit theaters and it has two big Hollywood names at the helm.
> 
> Martin Sheen and Woody Harrelson will star in the 9/11 truther flick, according to Yahoo! Movies. The film will focus on some of the theories presented by the truther movement, a coalition of individuals who believe that the mainstream media has deceived the public about what really happened on Sept. 11, 2001.
> 
> ...






I just want to ask nutjobs like this one thing. If your so certain of your hypothesis, sit down in front of an eyewitness to the 9/11 attacks in New York City. And i want you tell them that the planes they saw run into those buildings are a figment of their imagination. That they didn't see any planes crash into those towers.

And i want you to sit down in front of a Family, who has lost their mother, daughter, son, father, uncle or niece, or nephew, and tell them that they never existed, and their flights were never hijacked. To tell each of these groups that they are liars, and are puppets of the state covering up "evidence of premeditated bombing".


This kind of fucking retarded idiocy really makes me sick to my stomach. I'm sorry but it just does, its a mental illness like man on the moon, HAARP levels of vomit educing garbage.


----------



## Mider T (Oct 20, 2012)

Why do people believe that any government in the world has the competence and resources to pull something that big off?


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Oct 20, 2012)

Just get Oliver Stone to direct. 80% of the country will believe there is a conspiracy.


----------



## Chelydra (Oct 20, 2012)

Do I go see this for the lulz like I did for Micheal Moors stupid movie on 9/11


----------



## Coteaz (Oct 20, 2012)

Hope it bombs. ()


----------



## Stunna (Oct 20, 2012)

Nah, it'll probably be a smash hit.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Oct 20, 2012)

Chelydra said:


> Do I go see this for the lulz like I did for Micheal Moors stupid movie on 9/11




I would never go see this movie, even if you had a gun to my head.  At the very least, Moore never advocates such drivel as to insinuate the event(9/11) is a government staged hoax like Truthers do. 

Of course if you can, i'd look for actual records and non spun accounts and just skip going to the movies entirely.


----------



## Blue (Oct 20, 2012)

Seems like Martin Sheen has been talking to his son about tiger blood and being an adonis warlock.


----------



## Chelydra (Oct 20, 2012)

Its not like I would go to this movie for records... its just I love watching and making fun of such horrible films such as these.

What cheesy arguments will they use? Will they play rap music in conjunction with a bunch of taliban fighters on an APC while its trying to drive away? Cheesy stuff like that makes these movies entertaining.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Oct 20, 2012)

Well documentary films are known to be horrible, like 2016. The only real outliers are ones like Frost/Nixon which puts some flair and creative direction into it.


----------



## Mider T (Oct 20, 2012)

2016 wasn't a bad movie.  The message it tried to present was stupid and ill-planned but the movie itself actually was pretty good.  Similar to Birth of a Nation.


----------



## makeoutparadise (Oct 20, 2012)

More propaganda for Taliban recruiters and Pakistani politicians


----------



## Inuhanyou (Oct 20, 2012)

Mider T said:


> 2016 wasn't a bad movie.  The message it tried to present was stupid and ill-planned but the movie itself actually was pretty good.  Similar to Birth of a Nation.



I disapprove of propaganda by default, so it may be just me to disregard entire movies in that manner. Only lies and truth after all. 

I think that documentary type movies, are much more vile and much more damaging than your average run of the mill biased movie, as they try and pretend to be informative or journalism.

Whereas movies like Gone with the wind for example, can be enjoyed as movies without having someone try and hammer into your brain that what they are telling you is correct.


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Oct 20, 2012)

This always leads me to ponder how future generations will treat 9/11 without worrying about offending survivors or close living relatives.



Inuhanyou said:


> I just want to ask nutjobs like this one thing. If your so certain of your hypothesis, *sit down in front of an eyewitness to the 9/11 attacks in New York City. And i want you tell them that the planes they saw run into those buildings are a figment of their imagination. That they didn't see any planes crash into those towers.*
> 
> And i want you to sit down in front of a Family, who has lost their mother, daughter, son, father, uncle or niece, or nephew, and tell them that they never existed, and their flights were never hijacked. To tell each of these groups that they are liars, and are puppets of the state covering up "evidence of premeditated bombing".
> 
> ...



The trouble with this line of thought is that there are survivors of 9/11 who say it was a conspiracy. So do you want to sit them down and tell them why they’re wrong?

Not saying 9/11 was a conspiracy though.


----------



## Blue (Oct 20, 2012)

> The trouble with this line of thought is that there are survivors of 9/11 who say it was a conspiracy. So do you want to sit them down and tell them why they?re wrong?


Yes?

Why shouldn't I?


----------



## Disquiet (Oct 20, 2012)

Perhaps they'll use that big budget to research some actual facts this time.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Oct 20, 2012)

MbS said:


> The trouble with this line of thought is that there are survivors of 9/11 who say it was a conspiracy. So do you want to sit them down and tell them why they’re wrong?




I tell anyone who is clearly wrong on something that they are wrong. My reference in the post was mainly referring to those who actually saw the planes smash into the buildings instead of just reacting to the explosion like i'm sure every person involved who believes its a conspiracy think. I was also referring to the family members who had other family members on the line when they told them explicitly that they were being hijacked by an unknown agent.  I was talking about the people who saw the plane smash into the pentagon and also the families of the people who died in the crash of Pennsylvania at the same time. The people who have the definitive proof. You don't need government records for that.

The only argument we've all seen is "it was a remote detonation by bomb otherwise how could X building have fallen", well, if your logic is faulty, expect to be called out. Its called gravity


----------



## Blitzomaru (Oct 20, 2012)

Reminds me of that south park episode about 9/11 conspiracy. basically said that 1 out of ever 4 believe 9/11 was a conspiracy. therefore 25% of people are stupid.


----------



## Mael (Oct 20, 2012)

Ed Asner I am fucking disappointed in you.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Oct 20, 2012)

As you should be


----------



## Hitt (Oct 20, 2012)

Jesus Christ do we need to resurrect this horseshit and give the "truthers" another day in the sun?

It's easy to break this crap down every time.  With, you know, actual HARD EVIDENCE.  But CTers naturally don't bother themselves with such "trivialities".


----------



## Revolution (Oct 20, 2012)




----------



## CandyCocaine (Oct 20, 2012)

Wait, I'm mildly confused.
People are suspecting 9/11 didn't happen_* at all*_? Or are they just trying to figure out _*why *_it happened?


----------



## Revolution (Oct 20, 2012)

^^
People are saying 9/11 was either an inside job, or a conspiricy that the towers were blown up, or something else crazy.


----------



## Petes12 (Oct 20, 2012)

lol really. 10 years too late guys!


----------



## drache (Oct 20, 2012)

and it will fail as hard as all the other ones


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Oct 21, 2012)

Points if he finds someway to blame Obama.


----------



## TSC (Oct 21, 2012)

We all know the jews did it......Like everything else.


----------



## WT (Oct 21, 2012)

Mider T said:


> Why do people believe that any government in the world has the competence and resources to pull something that big off?



The worlds biggest and most powerful government couldn't surely have the resources.

It was them backwards luddites and their dying crippled leader from somewhere in Afghanistan, you know the guys who dont have guns but throw stones


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Oct 21, 2012)

White Tiger said:


> The worlds biggest and most powerful government couldn't surely have the resources.
> 
> It was them backwards luddites and their dying crippled leader from somewhere in Afghanistan, you know the guys who dont have guns but throw stones


This is a new step on down the stupid stairs for you if you're serious. 

Bin Laden was rich and very smart. The plan he used didn't have very much in the way of resources. All they needed was planes and box cutters. The behavior of hijacked crews and what they're taught did the rest. 

Hell, the idea was from a book. 

For the US to have pulled this off we would have needed to make these dummy planes, cover it all up and make sure none of the people involved lived or wanted to tell. It would be too dangerous and everyone at the top of the plan had too much to lose.


----------



## Mider T (Oct 21, 2012)

White Tiger said:


> The worlds biggest and most powerful government couldn't surely have the resources.
> 
> It was them backwards luddites and their dying crippled leader from somewhere in Afghanistan, you know the guys who dont have guns but throw stones



Yeah.  Hijack planes, crash them into buildings, mission accomplished.  As opposed to plant bombs in multiple buildings without anyone seeing, somehow pay off numerous people to hijack planes and crash them into different locations, detonate bombs at impromptu times, keep such a plan from all levels of government for years before, during, and after?  You act as if the levels of difficulty would be the same.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Oct 21, 2012)

Its absolutely ridiculous


----------



## Sunuvmann (Oct 21, 2012)

I can understand the aspersion towards Trutherism.

Given the authoritarian actions taken by the Bush administration, in the name of national security, there are a lot of parallels with when the Nazi's burned the Reichstag and used that as a legitimization for getting absolute power. And they blamed it on a dutch communist.

So truthers see the parallels as a possibility.

I think they're wrong, that Bush and co. were just incompetent, but I can understand the sentiment.


----------



## AfterGlow (Oct 21, 2012)

Oh look, a movie catering to 1/4th of the American population :risu


----------



## The Weeknd (Oct 21, 2012)

"truther"


----------



## WT (Oct 21, 2012)

Mider T said:


> Yeah.  Hijack planes, crash them into buildings, mission accomplished.



Although I don't believe in these conspiracy theories, you act as if Governments aren't able to do that.


----------



## AfterGlow (Oct 21, 2012)

White Tiger said:


> Although I don't believe in these conspiracy theories, you act as if Governments aren't able to do that.



A conspiracy is only as strong as its weakest link, the more people involved, the weaker it is.

Ten years gone by, and out of thousands and thousands of people the retards claim to have been involved, not a single person has breathed a word to anyone?

Keep dreaming, no government anywhere would be able to pull it off and keep it under wraps.


----------



## Lord Glacial (Oct 21, 2012)

Conspiracies will always survive...like the Moon Landing...the Roswell incident...9/11 was an Inside Job...and Obama is a Muslim, Kenyan, foreigner. 


Because they will always be crazies.


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Oct 21, 2012)

Inuhanyou said:


> I tell anyone who is clearly wrong on something that they are wrong. My reference in the post was mainly referring to those who actually saw the planes smash into the buildings instead of just reacting to the explosion like i'm sure every person involved who believes its a conspiracy think. I was also referring to the family members who had other family members on the line when they told them explicitly that they were being hijacked by an unknown agent.  I was talking about the people who saw the plane smash into the pentagon and also the families of the people who died in the crash of Pennsylvania at the same time. The people who have the definitive proof. You don't need government records for that.
> 
> The only argument we've all seen is "it was a remote detonation by bomb otherwise how could X building have fallen", well, if your logic is faulty, expect to be called out. Its called gravity



I’ve come to the conclusion that it is easier for conspiracy theorists (American as almost always the case) to accept that 9/11 was orchestrated by their own government then accept that the good ol’ US of A could be have been delt such a devastating blow by ‘foreigners’.

A quick glance through cafe threads will show a small cluster of American’s simply cannot accept that the US can be touched by anything.

That wounded pride was why George Bush Jr., man with all the charisma of a wet towel, was able to so efficiently stroke public anger to invade Iraq despite the dubious claim of ‘weapons of mass destruction’.

So I wouldn’t be surprised if most truthers turned out to be registered Republicans.


----------



## Oil Can (Oct 21, 2012)

^
Yeah, this is basically accurate.

Its like when you lose a game to someone you weren't supposed to so OBVIOUSLY the other person cheated... And now I'm reminded of why I am going to hate this November -_-


----------



## Inuhanyou (Oct 21, 2012)

MbS said:


> I’ve come to the conclusion that it is easier for conspiracy theorists (American as almost always the case) to accept that 9/11 was orchestrated by their own government then accept that the good ol’ US of A could be have been delt such a devastating blow by ‘foreigners’.
> 
> A quick glance through cafe threads will show a small cluster of American’s simply cannot accept that the US can be touched by anything.
> 
> ...



I agree with your analysis partially. That is probably the explanation for many conspiracy theorists, but not all.  There are others who correlate the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq as the motive for whatever reason(oil, land grab, imperialist aggression, the military industrial complex) , citing the 'coincidental' nature of the 9/11 attacks and Bush's push to war not too long after. And its not just Americans who say this, a lot of people in the middle east say this as well, of course they would since we were the ones who attacked them.

Also I'd only say that anger across the board was what gave Americans 90% support to invade Afghanistan at the time.  From what i remember of that time however, citizen support for Iraq was born out of something else entirely, which was fear. 

I can distinctly remember fearmongering about WMD, nuclear mushroom clouds ala cold war style and global destruction being drilled into the heads of the citizens rather shamelessly almost every day leading up to the war and during it, also using very dubious ties to Afghanistan to try and connect Iraq to Afghanistan. 

Its why most people separate initial Afghanistan support from initial Iraq support almost implicitly. Afghanistan invasion was almost unanimously supported by everyone. Iraq invasion was criticized by the smarter(and much smaller) elements of society, while the conservatives drilled them as "un-American" for not supporting the administration.


----------



## ShadowReij (Oct 21, 2012)

I truly do wonder how  the mind of these people work. It's either the government is too incompetent or the government is this powerful master manipulator organization.


----------



## Mael (Oct 21, 2012)

You're partially right, MbS, that it's very much a pride thing amongst some of them.

Others however were just forever suspicious.  They're the ones who questioned the moon landing or some believe Ronald Reagan personally orchestrated crack to destroy the black community.  The government is always up to something, in their minds, weakness or not so it's only natural they'd believe that soldiers in uniform could be security for bankers (wrong) or that 9/11 was purely a false flag plot.


----------



## Onomatopoeia (Oct 21, 2012)

I just hope they have the good taste not to release it on 9/11...who am I kidding. 




Mael said:


> Ed Asner I am fucking disappointed in you.



Maybe all that time he spent portraying Granny Goodness has warped his mind. I'm sure Granny would support the Birthers, if only for the sake of causing chaos.


----------



## Mael (Oct 21, 2012)

Onomatopoeia said:


> I just hope they have the good taste not to release it on 9/11...who am I kidding.
> 
> Maybe all that time he spent portraying Granny Goodness has warped his mind. I'm sure Granny would support the Birthers, if only for the sake of causing chaos.



Chaos? Hmmmm...if anything Lord Darkseid despises chaos.


----------



## vampiredude (Oct 21, 2012)

Some folks need the reassurance that there are some higher powers at play, powers who control everything. 

Or else the world would just be a terrible place inhabited by people actually wanting to hurt us for stupid reasons like pride or religion,

and who would want that?


----------



## Zhariel (Oct 21, 2012)

So fucking tired of hearing about 9/11. Probably once a week I see a commercial reminding me to never forget. Like I have a god damn choice at this point?


----------



## The Pink Ninja (Oct 21, 2012)

Inuhanyou said:


> Well documentary films are known to be horrible, like 2016. The only real outliers are ones like Frost/Nixon which puts some flair and creative direction into it.



Frost/Nixon was an adaptation of a stage play, not a documentary. Not even a dramtisation of real events.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Oct 21, 2012)

The Pink Ninja said:


> Frost/Nixon was an adaptation of a stage play, not a documentary. Not even a dramtisation of real events.


----------



## The Pink Ninja (Oct 21, 2012)

You know who also dramatized events?

Your mother


----------



## AfterGlow (Oct 21, 2012)

Everybody knows that Nixon wasn't tripped up or exposed in that interview, the movie makes it seem that way but it's simply not true.



> Aitken recalls that "Frost did not ambush Nixon during the final interview into a damaging admission of guilt. What the former president 'confessed' about Watergate was carefully pre-planned.


----------



## Mael (Oct 21, 2012)

The Pink Ninja said:


> You know who also dramatized events?
> 
> Your mother


----------



## Mider T (Oct 21, 2012)

Funny how I got repped and negged for the exact same post.

For the poster who negged me, the "cavemen" weren't trying to cover up a mass conspiracy as apart of a decade-agenda, they were simply trying to kill, unlike what you imply the government was trying to do.



White Tiger said:


> Although I don't believe in these conspiracy theories, you act as if Governments aren't able to do that.



You overestimate the government.  Common problems should be a piece of cake if they could orchestrate something like this.


----------



## Mael (Oct 21, 2012)

Sounds like the same Alex Jones retards who are so empty-headed that just about anything that's off the norm is deemed the truth.

Occam's Razor, you fucking idiots.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Oct 21, 2012)

How many times does this need to be debunked?  Conspiracy theorists piss me off because no matter how much evidence you give against the conspiracy they just ignore it or brush it off as "well thats what the conspiracy wants you to believe".  On top of that if you don't have evidence directly against the conspiracy they view that as evidence in favor of the conspiracy.


----------



## Mael (Oct 21, 2012)

I think we should shoot 'em.


----------



## αce (Oct 21, 2012)

Truthers are like my dick.
It never calms down.


----------



## PikaCheeka (Oct 21, 2012)

I always have to laugh a little when I see the words "documentary" and "Hollywood" so close to one another in a paragraph like that.


----------



## Revolution (Oct 21, 2012)

PikaCheeka said:


> I always have to laugh a little when I see the words "documentary" and "Hollywood" so close to one another in a paragraph like that.



Documentaries have become *Mockumentaries* in the last ten years.


----------



## Palpatine (Oct 21, 2012)

Asner and Harrelson?

Why? You guys are talented!


----------



## Mael (Oct 21, 2012)

Palpatine said:


> Asner and Harrelson?
> 
> Why? You guys are talented!



I always knew Woody was a bit off the norm but I'm disgusted in Ed Asner.  Officer Cosgrove and Granny Goodness believing in the truther claim just shakes me to the core.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Oct 21, 2012)

Its sickening to the stomach isn't it


----------



## NarutoxKakashi (Oct 21, 2012)




----------



## drache (Oct 21, 2012)

^

sadly that does not suprise me, remember something like 30% of Americans seriously Obama is from Kenya and 40 some percent aren't sure evolution is really science


----------



## Golden Circle (Oct 21, 2012)

> I just want to ask nutjobs like this one thing. If your so certain of your hypothesis, sit down in front of an eyewitness to the 9/11 attacks in New York City. And i want you tell them that the planes they saw run into those buildings are a figment of their imagination. That they didn't see any planes crash into those towers.


There's a youtube video shot from an apartment where they say that the second one was a military plane due to its painted-over windows.

Carry on.


----------



## Mael (Oct 21, 2012)

Israel behind 9/11 attacks?  Jesus...


----------



## Revolution (Oct 21, 2012)

I find it sad that 25% of the people "don't know" because its basically another way of saying "NOT Al Queda"



drache said:


> ^
> 
> sadly that does not suprise me, remember something like 30% of Americans seriously Obama is from Kenya and 40 some percent aren't sure evolution is really science





Rainbow Dash, are you saying you agree that military planes hit?


----------



## drache (Oct 22, 2012)

^

remember my training is statistics as part of my degree


----------



## Golden Circle (Oct 22, 2012)

Sarahmint said:


> Rainbow Dash, are you saying you agree that military planes hit?


I'm saying that there's enough doubt out there to be suspicious of TheOfficialStory(tm).

Not specifically military though.


----------



## Mael (Oct 22, 2012)

Rainbow Dash said:


> There's a youtube video shot from an apartment where they say that the second one was a military plane due to its painted-over windows.
> 
> Carry on.



But you don't have any actual, factual, hard evidence, do you?

Thought so.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Oct 22, 2012)

Rainbow Dash said:


> There's a youtube video shot from an apartment where they say that the second one was a military plane due to its painted-over windows.
> 
> Carry on.



And..what of the people on the plane who were on the flights who were hijacked?  Were they secret military operatives willing to die for this big coverup? Or are you saying that the civilian's were crashed into buildings by government sponsors who dressed up as Al Qaeda terrorists and crashed those planes into the buildings.

That doesn't make any sense


----------



## Golden Circle (Oct 22, 2012)

Mael said:


> But you don't have any actual, factual, hard evidence, do you?
> 
> Thought so.


[YOUTUBE]0gKBCvumOe8[/YOUTUBE]Start at 11:45.

btw, all I saw was youtube vid. don't hate me. 




EDIT: okay, just found another one
[YOUTUBE]55Zq-KPjJYM[/YOUTUBE]Start at 3:00


----------



## Mael (Oct 22, 2012)

So you have no evidence.

I love how the camera says Sept. 10, 2001.

You have no evidence, Rainbow Dash.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Oct 22, 2012)

It's 2012...I thought I wouldn't have to deal with this truther shit anymore.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Oct 22, 2012)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> It's 2012...I thought I wouldn't have to deal with this truther shit anymore.



Dude, there are still people looking for the "second shooter" with JFK (1963).

Or who will talk to you for hours about the graphical flaws that prove the moon landing was faked (1969).

While I'll grant the 9/11 conspiracy depends on a lot more details than either of those, I doubt we're finished hearing about it by a long shot.

(Booth was a plant, Lincoln was assassinated by time-traveling alien vampires)


----------



## The Pink Ninja (Oct 22, 2012)

What I don't get is, if the government is powerful enough to stage these attacks withotu discovery why would they need to do so?

Why would they care or need to care about the will of the people? They could do pretty much whatever they want. WHy not stage a small incidentthat does less damage to the USA and that won't be seen by a zillion people?

The Idea Israel behind it just fucking anti-semitism. Israel is going to potetnially start a war with their greateatest benefactor and ally? Who gives them three billion dollars a year? And to take down iraq, a country that was no threat to them after first Gulf War and sanctions ruined it?

Please.


----------



## Mael (Oct 22, 2012)

The Pink Ninja said:


> What I don't get is, if the government is powerful enough to stage these attacks withotu discovery why would they need to do so?
> 
> Why would they care or need to care about the will of the people? They could do pretty much whatever they want. WHy not stage a small incidentthat does less damage to the USA and that won't be seen by a zillion people?
> 
> ...



Remember the Iranian attacks on Israelis recently?  We had fucking clods coming out of the woodwork screaming false flag, especially here.


----------



## kokodeshide (Oct 22, 2012)

I'm curious to know when these theories were proved wrong?

The hardest things to contest are.

The free fall of the towers.
People hearing explosions.
Molten steel.
White smoke.
And most specifically the destruction of tower 7. That's the hardest one to contest.


----------



## Mael (Oct 22, 2012)

kokodeshide said:


> I'm curious to know when these theories were proved wrong?
> 
> The hardest things to contest are.
> 
> ...



Do we need to go into this?  Are you a truther?


----------



## Cheeky (Oct 22, 2012)

"It's time you knew the truth."




itwaswitches.com


----------



## kokodeshide (Oct 22, 2012)

Mael said:


> Do we need to go into this?  Are you a truther?



I'm an I-have-no-fucking-idea-what-happened-er
Shit on both sides doesn't make any sense.


----------



## Mael (Oct 22, 2012)

Oh shit...SoG in the house.

Tinfoil is go.


----------



## kokodeshide (Oct 22, 2012)

Is that all? Or is there something smart you want to say?


----------



## Chelydra (Oct 22, 2012)

LOL what a bad shop of that youtube video. A B-52


----------



## The Pink Ninja (Oct 22, 2012)

Mael said:


> Remember the Iranian attacks on Israelis recently?  We had fucking clods coming out of the woodwork screaming false flag, especially here.



Israelis killing Israelis seems pretty unlikely.

Plus what would they need false flags for? Everyone is still gonna do what they gonna do.


----------



## Son of Goku (Oct 22, 2012)

Interesting. Looking forward to it. 




The Pink Ninja said:


> Why would they care or need to care about the will of the people? They could do pretty much whatever they want. WHy not stage a small incidentthat does less damage to the USA and that won't be seen by a zillion people?



Wow... 

Do you even understand your own question? What would be the point of a small incident?



> The Idea Israel behind it just fucking anti-semitism. Israel is going to potetnially start a war with their greateatest benefactor and ally? Who gives them three billion dollars a year? And to take down iraq, a country that was no threat to them after first Gulf War and sanctions ruined it?


I agree that blaming Israel to be behind it is lunacy. Involved in some way, maybe.

But risking war with the US is really nothing new for Israel. -> "USS Liberty".



Anyway: As to be expected the average moronic NFler puts everyone who disagrees with or even only questions his/her beliefs in one big bag and starts bashing. The term "Truther" describes someone who is looking for the truth, not someone who believes he already got it - that would be those morons who watch CNN and feel well-informed. These so called "Truthers" are as diverse as they come. But they all share a common belief: The official story is bullshit, only to what degree is in question.




kokodeshide said:


> Is that all? Or is there something smart you want to say?



I wouldn't hold my breath.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Oct 22, 2012)

Son of Goku said:


> Anyway: As to be expected the average moronic NFler puts everyone who disagrees with or even only questions his/her beliefs in one big bag and starts bashing. The term "Truther" describes someone who is looking for the truth, not someone who believes he already got it - that would be those morons who watch CNN and feel well-informed. These so called "Truthers" are as diverse as they come. But they all share a common belief: The official story is bullshit, only to what degree is in question.



It's great how you say something and then stoop right down and shit all over it. 

"Truthers are as diverse as they come..." 

And they're as nutty as squirrel shit.


----------



## Son of Goku (Oct 22, 2012)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> And they're as nutty as squirrel shit.



You sound like an expert. Thanks for sharing your eating habits...


----------



## Mael (Oct 22, 2012)

kokodeshide said:


> Is that all? Or is there something smart you want to say?



No you are just unsure...that's better than being a truther.  As long as you're not spitting Zeitgeist and Loose Change like it's canon fact the same way Ron Paul thinks Bretton-Woods is brilliant then you're fine.

SoG?  I'm shocked you were released from banland.  I figured the tinfoil crazy would have eventually faded but nope.


----------



## AfterGlow (Oct 22, 2012)

Mael said:


> SoG?  I'm shocked you were released from banland.  I figured the tinfoil crazy would have eventually faded but nope.



He'll probably be gone soon enough, I glanced two posts he's made and I've already found a rule infraction/bannable offence. So a mod can have him kicked out *like that*, if they feel like it.


----------



## Chelydra (Oct 22, 2012)

I can't see how people can think the government pulled off 9/11 it requires 1000s of people to keep their involvment an absolute secret, and we all have seen thats impossible, after all if the government was so competient the prisoner abuse at abu greib would have never made the public  And that invoved what maybe 10 people at most? Plus whom ever tried to cover it up....


----------



## AfterGlow (Oct 22, 2012)

Chelydra said:


> I can't see how people can think the government pulled off 9/11 it requires 1000s of people to keep their involvment an absolute secret, and we all have seen thats impossible, after all if the government was so competient the prisoner abuse at abu greib would have never made the public  And that invoved what maybe 10 people at most? Plus whom ever tried to cover it up....



And that's why no sane person on this planet thinks the government was behind 9/11.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Oct 22, 2012)

kokodeshide said:


> And most specifically the destruction of tower 7. That's the hardest one to contest.



See this is the one that still makes no sense to me whatsoever.  Why exactly would this all powerful conspiracy need to destroy tower 7?  A building NO ONE was paying any attention to until it fell.


----------



## Chelydra (Oct 22, 2012)

Tsukiyomi said:


> See this is the one that still makes no sense to me whatsoever.  Why exactly would this all powerful conspiracy need to destroy tower 7?  A building NO ONE was paying any attention to until it fell.



Especially since it would have been evacuated once people saw what was going down with A and B tower.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Oct 22, 2012)

Tower 7 was the MOST important.


----------



## kokodeshide (Oct 22, 2012)

Tsukiyomi said:


> See this is the one that still makes no sense to me whatsoever.  Why exactly would this all powerful conspiracy need to destroy tower 7?  A building NO ONE was paying any attention to until it fell.



Who knows. But it still fell somehow, in ways that don't make any sense.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Oct 22, 2012)




----------



## Tsukiyomi (Oct 22, 2012)

kokodeshide said:


> Who knows. But it still fell somehow, in ways that don't make any sense.



Are you a structural engineer?  If not then your opinion on what makes sense about structures standing doesn't really mean much does it?

The conspiracy theorists are the ones saying that the conspiracy took down that building.  So they have to answer the question of WHY?

If there was something in that building they wanted to hide then the logical thing to do is NOT bring attention to it.  Destroying it would only make the entire world look at it and say "hey whats going on over here?".


Haha pretty much.  I know a few people who are big on the chemtrails conspiracy theory.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Oct 22, 2012)

I like how much like the phenomena of everyone become a rogue fucking political scholar around election season, everyone suddenly turns into doctors of structural engineering when they talk about the 9/11 conspiracy--even though anyone with an actual paper degree from a college that has walls and more than six students says otherwise.


----------



## kokodeshide (Oct 22, 2012)

Tsukiyomi said:


> Are you a structural engineer?  If not then your opinion on what makes sense about structures standing doesn't really mean much does it?
> 
> The conspiracy theorists are the ones saying that the conspiracy took down that building.  So they have to answer the question of WHY?
> 
> If there was something in that building they wanted to hide then the logical thing to do is NOT bring attention to it.  Destroying it would only make the entire world look at it and say "hey whats going on over here?".



Are you a structural engineer? Did that building free falling look accurate to you? Physicists and engineers have both said what happened to tower 7 was impossible from just a few fires that spread. A building cannot free fall like that without controlled demolition.

If they wanted to hide something in the building they would have destroyed it and taken all the pieces away where no one could find it...which is what happened.

I don't know what happened, and neither do you. It might have been the most amazing fluke in the history of engineering. 

I am not a structural engineer, but I do study Nano tech in college and as a result have taken physics classes. The Physics do not make sense. A building is not going to free fall like that without assistance. Tower 1 and 2 are different subjects but tower 7 just doesn't make sense.

I don't want to sound all conspiratorial but just a few things need to be answered or explained.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Oct 22, 2012)

kokodeshide said:


> Are you a structural engineer? Did that building free falling look accurate to you?



No I'm not, and neither are you.  So don't lecture me on what "looks accurate".

And how could the building be "free falling" when you can clearly see pieces of debris falling FASTER?  Were there little mini jet packs on those pieces of debris to make them fall FASTER than the "free falling" building?



kokodeshide said:


> Physicists and engineers have both said what happened to tower 7 was impossible from just a few fires that spread. A building cannot free fall like that without controlled demolition.



No credible engineers have said that.



kokodeshide said:


> If they wanted to hide something in the building they would have destroyed it and taken all the pieces away where no one could find it...which is what happened.



Bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit.  If this conspiracy was so powerful then they could have simply REMOVED what they wanted to hide.  Why would they need to destroy the entire building?  All that does is make everyone examine that building closer.



kokodeshide said:


> I don't know what happened, and neither do you. It might have been the most amazing fluke in the history of engineering.



Actually I know exactly what happened.  A couple of planes were hijacked by religious extremists and flowing into the towers.  The combined trauma caused by the impact, explosion and subsequent fires weakened the structure to the point where it could no longer stand and thus the towers fell, the debris from their collapse hit critical structural points in building 7 which combined with fires in THAT building eventually weakened it enough that it also fell.

You're the one claiming something more extraordinary than that happened.  So I'm waiting to hear your PROOF.  Questions are not proof.



kokodeshide said:


> I am not a structural engineer, but I do study Nano tech in college and as a result *have taken physics classes.* The Physics do not make sense. A building is not going to free fall like that without assistance. Tower 1 and 2 are different subjects but tower 7 just doesn't make sense.
> 
> I don't want to sound all conspiratorial but just a few things need to be answered or explained.



I've taken several physics classes too as part of the math courses I took in college for my bachelors, whats your point?  That doesn't qualify us as experts on structural engineering.


----------



## αce (Oct 22, 2012)

Yes, it's true that a steel building has never fell from a fire. Because the fires in all those cases were semi-contained. Building 7 was _the only tower in American history which had a fire that raged for several hours without being semi contained_. That's why it collapsed. Fires can bring down steel buildings. It's not made of fucking diamonds.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Oct 22, 2012)

♠Ace♠ said:


> Yes, it's true that a steel building has never fell from a fire. Because the fires in all those cases were semi-contained. Building 7 was _the only tower in American history which had a fire that raged for several hours without being semi contained_. That's why it collapsed. Fires can bring down steel buildings. It's not made of fucking diamonds.



I've always loved the argument "fire can't melt steel".  Its true it can't melt it at those temperatures but it DOES weaken it significantly, and weakened steel is going to be much less likely to be able to hold the weight of a building.


----------



## Mael (Oct 22, 2012)

People seem to forget you don't need to melt steel to have it bend under considerable weakness.


----------



## αce (Oct 22, 2012)

> I've always loved the argument "fire can't melt steel".  Its true it  can't melt it at those temperatures but it DOES weaken it significantly,  and weakened steel is going to be much less likely to be able to hold  the weight of a building.



Yup. It may not melt, but the steel becomes warped to the point where it bends. Under the pressure and the continual heat around the steel, eventually it won't be able to hold up any longer. In fact, there was a youtube video where a physicist went through every stage of a steel building and a raging fire scenario in which he showed the stages of the building 7. There's an actual part where you can see the building begin to warp after the heat has taken it's toll. Then it collapses under itself because it can't sustain itself any longer.

Wish I could find it.
There's too many fucking building 7 videos on youtube.


> People seem to forget you don't need to melt steel to have it bend under considerable weakness.



Unless of course you are a conspiracy theorist who thinks Steel is a combination of diamonds and titanium.


----------



## corsair (Oct 22, 2012)

Not to mention how much having the steel simply expanding due to the heat for several hours will weaken the whole structure.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Oct 22, 2012)

Mael said:


> People seem to forget you don't need to melt steel to have it bend under considerable weakness.



Yeah it's funny actually.  Almost everyone I've known in Scouting has been yelled at at one point or another for holding their pocket-knife in a campfire because it ruins the temper of the blade.

If a wood fire can damage a steel blade how can you not think raging office inferno wouldn't?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Oct 22, 2012)

EvilMoogle said:


> Yeah it's funny actually.  Almost everyone I've known in Scouting has been yelled at at one point or another for holding their pocket-knife in a campfire because it ruins the temper of the blade.
> 
> If a wood fire can damage a steel blade how can you not think raging office inferno wouldn't?


For you to know that you'd have to get over the fact that the Boy Scouts are actually an anti-gay Nazi like organization bent on the destruction of homosexuals and their total eradication from the face of this God's green Earth.

I'm glad I learned this in my eight years there while I was collecting my Eagle...


----------



## Inuhanyou (Oct 22, 2012)

A lot of times i hear from conspiracy theorists,

"Why can't i ask about it?" "Why is the subject so taboo that i can't even question the events?"

Well...nobody is saying you can't. We have people who are still questioning the moon landing is of all things. The thing is, that doesn't shield you from being called an idiot for posing the question.


----------



## αce (Oct 22, 2012)

If there's one thing more batshit than 9/11 conspiracy theories - it's the moon landing conspiracy theories.


----------



## Mael (Oct 22, 2012)

AURORA WAS STAGED!


----------



## AfterGlow (Oct 22, 2012)

♠Ace♠ said:


> If there's one thing more batshit than 9/11 conspiracy theories - it's the moon landing conspiracy theories.



What about the Vietnam War being an elaborate hoax?


----------



## αce (Oct 22, 2012)

> What about the Vietnam War being an elaborate hoax?



What the fuck?
I admit, I only know of mainstream conspiracy theories. I don't pay them much attention. I didn't know of this


----------



## Megaharrison (Oct 22, 2012)

9/11 shit has been debunked in every fashion by reputable outlets and experts on multiple occasions. There's really no point in discussing it anymore. Conspiracy nuts were screaming conspiracy from day 1, and they'll never give it up.

Really South Park described it the best:

_"Stan: He was right, you did cause 9-11. 
George W. Bush: Yes. Quite simple to pull off, really. All I had to do was have explosives planted at the base of the towers, then on 9-11 we pretended like four planes were being hijacked when really we just rerouted them to Pennsylvania then flew two military jets into the World Trade Center filled with more explosives and shot down all the witnesses in Flight 93 with an F-15 after blowing up the pentagon with a cruise missile. It was only the world's most intricate and flawlessly executed plan ever, ever."_

If the U.S. could pull something like that off, then there's really nothing they can't do and makes you wonder how they ever screw up.


----------



## Mael (Oct 22, 2012)

If the US government could pull that off flawlessly, then Iraq should have been a wham, bam, thank you ma'am.

But no...so that helps conclude some things.


----------



## kokodeshide (Oct 22, 2012)

Tsukiyomi said:


> No I'm not, and neither are you.  So don't lecture me on what "looks accurate".
> 
> And how could the building be "free falling" when you can clearly see pieces of debris falling FASTER?  Were there little mini jet packs on those pieces of debris to make them fall FASTER than the "free falling" building?



What debris fell with tower 7? There was a fucking fire there, why would debris be falling? the building collapsed as a whole.





> No credible engineers have said that.



Over 1600 have.



> Bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit.  If this conspiracy was so powerful then they could have simply REMOVED what they wanted to hide.  Why would they need to destroy the entire building?  All that does is make everyone examine that building closer.



I don't really care for a reason since it's all speculative anyway but a reason could be a false flag operation.
I don't care why, I never have. I, from the start, was just talking about how the towers fell, not why people wanted to do anything. I shouldn't even argue this point because I didn't make an argument for it.



> Actually I know exactly what happened.  A couple of planes were hijacked by religious extremists and flowing into the towers.  The combined trauma caused by the impact, explosion and subsequent fires weakened the structure to the point where it could no longer stand and thus the towers fell, the debris from their collapse hit critical structural points in building 7 which combined with fires in THAT building eventually weakened it enough that it also fell.
> 
> You're the one claiming something more extraordinary than that happened.  So I'm waiting to hear your PROOF.  Questions are not proof.




A few things about this.

1: Tower 7 wasn't hit with anything other than a few pieces of debris.
2: Proof of something weird happening is the FACT that tower 7 free fell. The FACT that jet fuel cannot melt steel, but molten steel was found in the wreckage. The FACT that even weakened steel resists forces enough to slow a free fall even at the temperature jet fuel burns at steel retains at least half its strength.
3: Those facts back up what im saying about the collapse not making sense.



> I've taken several physics classes too as part of the math courses I took in college for my bachelors, whats your point?  That doesn't qualify us as experts on structural engineering.



Then you should know that a building can't free fall without controlled demolition due to multiple factors.


----------



## Mael (Oct 22, 2012)

> Over 1600 have.



Who and where are they?  Iran?


----------



## kokodeshide (Oct 22, 2012)

Mael said:


> If the US government could pull that off flawlessly, then Iraq should have been a wham, bam, thank you ma'am.
> 
> But no...so that helps conclude some things.



While I do agree with you to an extent. Assuming 9/11 was staged, 9/11 and The Iraq war are different operations.


----------



## eHav (Oct 22, 2012)

so kokodeshide, are you just going to spout out random ignorant and wrong facts, or are you going to tell us what really happened?


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Oct 22, 2012)

kokodeshide said:


> What debris fell with tower 7? There was a fucking fire there, why would debris be falling? the building collapsed as a whole.



Did you not notice all the dust and debris shooting OUT from the buildings as they collapsed?  That's why debris was scattered so far.



kokodeshide said:


> Over 1600 have.



Again, no CREDIBLE people.  The fact that you can find someone with a "phd" next to their name because they have a degree in philosophy or sociology is meaningless.



kokodeshide said:


> I don't really care for a reason since it's all speculative anyway but a reason could be a false flag operation.



How exactly would building 7 specifically be a false flag operation?



kokodeshide said:


> I don't care why, I never have. I, from the start, was just talking about how the towers fell, not why people wanted to do anything. I shouldn't even argue this point because I didn't make an argument for it.



The reason is VERY important, if there is no why then how can you  possible speculate (since that's all you're doing) as to the what?



kokodeshide said:


> A few things about this.
> 
> 1: Tower 7 wasn't hit with anything other than a few pieces of debris.



Those "few pieces of debris" in many causes were quite large and moving at a tremendous speed, easily fast enough to damage the structure integrity of the building which was further weakened by the prolonged fire.



kokodeshide said:


> 2: Proof of something weird happening is the FACT that tower 7 free fell. *The FACT that jet fuel cannot melt steel*, but molten steel was found in the wreckage. The FACT that even weakened steel resists forces enough to slow a free fall even at the temperature jet fuel burns at steel retains at least half its strength.



And right here shows the FACT that you lack reading comprehension.  I already addressed this a few points up that the steel doesn't need to melt in order for the building to collapse. 

Also I already pointed out that the fact that small pieces of debris can be seen falling FASTER than the main part of the buildings shows that it was NOT falling at free fall speed and thus every time you use that phrase you're being inaccurate.



kokodeshide said:


> 3: Those facts back up what im saying about the collapse not making sense.


 
You can't list another number just to say "#1 and #2 back me up".  And again since you're not a structural engineer what you think "makes sense" in this situation means absolutely nothing.



kokodeshide said:


> Then you should know that a building can't free fall without controlled demolition due to multiple factors.



Again the fact that you keep saying "free fall" even though it clearly wasn't just shows that you don't know what the hell you're talking about.


----------



## Revolution (Oct 22, 2012)

I'm amazed that Rainbow Dash is talking about 9/11 with "" faces.


----------



## Axl Low (Oct 22, 2012)

my biggest problem is that a plane flew into the pentagon and did such little damage and it didnt leave the wings as it went into the pentagon


----------



## Mider T (Oct 22, 2012)

^Little damage?  That was a huge hole.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Oct 22, 2012)

Axl Low said:


> my biggest problem is that a plane flew into the pentagon and did such little damage and it didnt leave the wings as it went into the pentagon



The pentagon was built with a german bombing in mind and later fortified with a soviet nuclear strike in mind and you're wondering why the plane didn't leave a cartoon silhouette in the wall?


----------



## Axl Low (Oct 22, 2012)

Mider T said:


> ^Little damage?  That was a huge hole.





Tsukiyomi said:


> The pentagon was built with a german bombing in mind and later fortified with a soviet nuclear strike in mind and you're wondering why the plane didn't leave a cartoon silhouette in the wall?



Interesting... new information acquired.


----------



## kokodeshide (Oct 22, 2012)

Tsukiyomi said:


> Did you not notice all the dust and debris shooting OUT from the buildings as they collapsed?  That's why debris was scattered so far.


 from building 1 and 2 yes, not from 7.




> Again, no CREDIBLE people.  The fact that you can find someone with a "phd" next to their name because they have a degree in philosophy or sociology is meaningless.



All the 1700 engineers and architect that signed the petition to get a real study done don't back it up. Their personal statements saying that they disagree with the study already done don't back it up? hmmm, how odd.



> How exactly would building 7 specifically be a false flag operation?


 The whole event, not just tower 7.




> The reason is VERY important, if there is no why then how can you  possible speculate (since that's all you're doing) as to the what?


 Except for the fact that people wanting the building to fall doesn't make it fall. I'm talking about how it fell.





> Those "few pieces of debris" in many causes were quite large and moving at a tremendous speed, easily fast enough to damage the structure integrity of the building which was further weakened by the prolonged fire.


 Who says the debris broke enough of the columns to make them non-factor in the collapse of the building?





> And right here shows the FACT that you lack reading comprehension.  I already addressed this a few points up that the steel doesn't need to melt in order for the building to collapse.


 Hahaha, talking to me about reading comp when you apparently have none. I said, and i quote, "The FACT that jet fuel cannot melt steel, but molten steel was found in the wreckage." you carefully didn't read the next part of what i said, *but molten steel was found in the wreckage.* How could you have missed it, it was right there!



> Also I already pointed out that the fact that small pieces of debris can be seen falling FASTER than the main part of the buildings shows that it was NOT falling at free fall speed and thus every time you use that phrase you're being inaccurate.


 Did you show me them falling faster? I think not. And plus, the fact that a rock fell faster than a building doesn't surprise me anyway.





> You can't list another number just to say "#1 and #2 back me up".  And again since you're not a structural engineer what you think "makes sense" in this situation means absolutely nothing.


 Didn't even mean to list it as 3, my bad.
And since you're and not an engineer either, you have no right to say it does make sense.





> Again the fact that you keep saying "free fall" even though it clearly wasn't just shows that you don't know what the hell you're talking about.


 In the fucking report of tower 7 by the fucking government it said tower 7 free fell.


----------



## Mael (Oct 22, 2012)

> All the 1700 engineers and architect that signed the petition to get a real study done don't back it up. Their personal statements saying that they disagree with the study already done don't back it up? hmmm, how odd.



Links/evidence or it didn't happen.

Also, false flag?  Please leave if you buy that.


----------



## jetwaterluffy1 (Oct 22, 2012)

Better than the 2012 movie! 
In all seriousness, though, the government blowing up the 9/11 building makes no political sense, to start with.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Oct 22, 2012)

jetwaterluffy1 said:


> Better than the 2012 movie!
> In all seriousness, though, the government blowing up the 9/11 building makes no political sense, to start with.


It doesn't even make fantasy sense.


----------



## jetwaterluffy1 (Oct 22, 2012)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> It doesn't even make fantasy sense.



Like I said, better than the 2012 movie.


----------



## Xyloxi (Oct 22, 2012)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> It doesn't even make fantasy sense.



You're forgetting that those nasty Americans would most likely behead 20,000 babies if it got them a barrel of oil.


----------



## AfterGlow (Oct 22, 2012)

jetwaterluffy1 said:


> Like I said, better than the 2012 movie.



Nope.

Nu-uh.

Simply not true.


----------



## kokodeshide (Oct 22, 2012)

Mael said:


> Links/evidence or it didn't happen.
> 
> Also, false flag?  Please leave if you buy that.






I don't believe any reason. He asked for one and I plucked one from the list of bullshit.


----------



## God (Oct 22, 2012)

i am of the personal conviction that 9/11 was an inside job

i just don't see how 19 bearded afghanis with bombs strapped to them would not be noticed before entering

like, was airport security only invented after the fact?

nah, cant believe it


----------



## Mael (Oct 22, 2012)

Are you serious, Cubey?

And they weren't Afghans. They were Saudi and four other different Arab varieties.  If you're being serious I suggest you stop because you just spoke completely out of your ass.

And that link?

That is a petition, not a scientific discussion.

Leave.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Oct 22, 2012)

Still not seeing any legitimate reason this supposed conspiracy would need to destroy building 7.  It makes no sense.

If you're saying the conspiracy brought that building down you have to have a reason WHY.  As of right now it seems the only thing that would accomplish is making people look more closely at that building, which if I was running a conspiracy and there was something there I wanted to hide would be the LAST thing I'd want to do.


----------



## kingcools (Oct 22, 2012)

kokodeshide said:


> Hahaha, talking to me about reading comp when you apparently have none. I said, and i quote, "The FACT that jet fuel cannot melt steel, but molten steel was found in the wreckage." you carefully didn't read the next part of what i said, *but molten steel was found in the wreckage.* How could you have missed it, it was right there!



how did they know that a) it was steel(what kind of steel?) and b) it was actually molten?


----------



## God (Oct 22, 2012)

Mael said:


> Are you serious, Cubey?
> 
> And they weren't Afghans. They were Saudi and four other different Arab varieties.  If you're being serious I suggest you stop because you just spoke completely out of your ass.



i cannot stand nationalism, and this is why. you're being dismissive of another person's opinion and yet, you aren't special service, cia, etc. what makes you an expert?

the fact still stands that these individuals were allowed on the plane, the whole mob, bombs and all, without even a peep. how was this allowed to happen in the first place and why?


----------



## Mael (Oct 22, 2012)

Cubey said:


> i cannot stand nationalism, and this is why. you're being dismissive of another person's opinion and yet, you aren't special service, cia, etc. what makes you an expert?
> 
> the fact still stands that these individuals were allowed on the plane, the whole mob, bombs and all, without even a peep. how was this allowed to happen in the first place and why?



Because the opinion is as misinformed as your assertion the hijackers were from Afghanistan which is absurdly false.  You want to talk to me about facts and opinion where you were wrong at Step One, identifying the perps.  I'm not being nationalistic, just asking for a credible argument that isn't just base suspicion.  

And ffs they never had.bombs on them but makeshift blades and box cutters.  Jesussssss where are you getting this?

I'm not being nationalistic and you're being incredibly off in your assertions to which you have zero evidence to back up.  But whatever, I'm just chest-thumping Amurkkka in front of you schmucks.


----------



## kokodeshide (Oct 22, 2012)

kingcools said:


> how did they know that a) it was steel(what kind of steel?) and b) it was actually molten?



The Tully construction president and crew talked about it, and there are various picture of it.



Tsukiyomi said:


> Still not seeing any legitimate reason this supposed conspiracy would need to destroy building 7.  It makes no sense.
> 
> If you're saying the conspiracy brought that building down you have to have a reason WHY.  As of right now it seems the only thing that would accomplish is making people look more closely at that building, which if I was running a conspiracy and there was something there I wanted to hide would be the LAST thing I'd want to do.


 If this is directed at me, concession accepted. And I never said the building was taken down by a conspiracy until you asked why they would. You brought that shit up, not me.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Oct 22, 2012)

kokodeshide said:


> If this is directed at me, concession accepted. And I never said the building was taken down by a conspiracy until you asked why they would. You brought that shit up, not me.



You're advocating for the conspiracy.  So if you can't back up the claims of the conspiracy then you might as well leave and let the grown ups have a real discussion.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Oct 22, 2012)

Who the fuck thinks Afgans(not Saudi's for some reason) snuck through security with bombs strapped to their chests and has the nerve to think they are an expert on the events of 9/11?


----------



## Mael (Oct 22, 2012)

Cubey is that guy, Inu.

Conspiracy believers need no facts, Tsuki...just pure speculation.  They're like commodity traders.


----------



## Arishem (Oct 22, 2012)

This is simply a reminder that a percentage of humanity is retardedly functional and no amount of reasoning will unfuck their brains.


----------



## Mael (Oct 22, 2012)

Arishem said:


> This is simply a reminder that a percentage of humanity is retardedly functional and no amount of reasoning will unfuck their brains.



As clearly demonstrated with of our very own users who can't accept reality that it wasn't an inside job.


----------



## God (Oct 22, 2012)

Mael said:


> Because the opinion is as misinformed as your assertion the hijackers were from Afghanistan which is absurdly false.  You want to talk to me about facts and opinion where you were wrong at Step One, identifying the perps.  I'm not being nationalistic, just asking for a credible argument that isn't just base suspicion.
> 
> And ffs they never had.bombs on them but makeshift blades and box cutters.  Jesussssss where are you getting this?
> 
> I'm not being nationalistic and you're being incredibly off in your assertions to which you have zero evidence to back up.  But whatever, I'm just chest-thumping Amurkkka in front of you schmucks.



you need to relax dude
you could have easily said "they weren't afghanis and they only had box cutters"


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Oct 22, 2012)

ITT - Conspirator Hive Mind-set: If the evidence presented _against_ me makes sense, it's a gov't conspiracy.


----------



## God (Oct 22, 2012)

Inuhanyou said:


> Who the fuck thinks Afgans(not Saudi's for some reason) snuck through security with bombs strapped to their chests and has the nerve to think they are an expert on the events of 9/11?





Mael said:


> Cubey is that guy, Inu.
> 
> Conspiracy believers need no facts, Tsuki...just pure speculation.  They're like commodity traders.



I never claimed to be an expert. I do believe that it was an inside job though. Why do you people get all twisted up about this, I'm not asking anyone to agree, it's just what i think.


----------



## Mael (Oct 22, 2012)

Cubey said:


> you need to relax dude
> you could have easily said "they weren't afghanis and they only had box cutters"



You made the first jab.  Don't be alarmed I threw a haymaker. We get twisted because we hope you don't have retarded logic and lo we get disappointed.


----------



## jetwaterluffy1 (Oct 22, 2012)

AfterGlow said:


> Nope.
> 
> Nu-uh.
> 
> Simply not true.


That movie included:
>Mutating Neurinos
>The said mutating neutrinos boiling a vat of water, and not harming anyone, despite the fact _humans_ are made of water
>The said mutating neutrinos coming from the sun and onlty the sun, of which only 3% of its energy comes in that form.
> Scientists discovering that and trying to cover it up. I can get a government cover-up, but _scientists_ covering something up? You normally can't shut them up.
>Everyone and their mother doesn't discover this, despite the likely effects of _boiling swimming pools_.
>Earthquakes occur without shaking
>Main character flies a plane down the middle of a collasing crack without thinking of, you know, gaining height? Like planes are _meant to do_.

I really can't see how this new movie will be worse than that.


Mael said:


> Are you serious, Cubey?
> 
> And they weren't Afghans. They were Saudi and four other different Arab varieties.  If you're being serious I suggest you stop because you just spoke completely out of your ass.
> 
> ...


----------



## Inuhanyou (Oct 22, 2012)

Cubey said:


> I never claimed to be an expert. I do believe that it was an inside job though. Why do you people get all twisted up about this, I'm not asking anyone to agree, it's just what i think.



You don't know basic facts about the events that occurred yet you expect people to just let you go when you base your ignorance on unfounded claims? No wonder there are so many truthers out there.


----------



## God (Oct 22, 2012)

Inuhanyou said:


> You don't know basic facts about the events that occurred yet you expect people to just let you go when you base your ignorance on unfounded claims? No wonder there are so many truthers out there.



let me go about what? i wasn't arguing with anyone about anything, as i never claimed any credibility. i was wrong, mael corrected me, and that's fine, i dont mind that.
my gut tells me something fishy happened with 9/11 and i have every right to believe that.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Oct 22, 2012)

Cubey said:


> let me go about what? i wasn't arguing with anyone about anything, as i never claimed any credibility. i was wrong, mael corrected me, and that's fine, i dont mind that.
> *my gut tells me something fishy happened with 9/11 and i have every right to believe that.*



You can believe anything you want, but if you come into a discussion on 9/11 conspiracy theories and make statements about it being "fishy" you should expect to be challenged on it.


----------



## kokodeshide (Oct 22, 2012)

Tsukiyomi said:


> You're advocating for the conspiracy.  So if you can't back up the claims of the conspiracy then you might as well leave and let the grown ups have a real discussion.



I'm advocating for knowledge. I don't believe the conspiracy entirely and I don't believe what the government story is entirely. So I will pick apart both things. You can see that by me pointing out only a few things and not the entire conspiracy.


----------



## God (Oct 22, 2012)

Tsukiyomi said:


> You can believe anything you want, but if you come into a discussion on 9/11 conspiracy theories and make statements about it being "fishy" you should expect to be challenged on it.



that's cool. like i said, mael corrected me, and i'm fine with that. i was only giving my 2 cents on this "truther" thing, not really trying to argue (or get insulted)


----------



## AfterGlow (Oct 22, 2012)

jetwaterluffy1 said:


> That movie included:
> >Mutating Neurinos
> >The said mutating neutrinos boiling a vat of water, and not harming anyone, despite the fact _humans_ are made of water
> >The said mutating neutrinos coming from the sun and onlty the sun, of which only 3% of its energy comes in that form.
> ...



Uhm, what?

I don't think we watched the same movie.
The movie I watched was a theory on why Obama does the things he does and what motivates him.

And just now, I realized you wrote 2012, not 2016.
My mistake  lol


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Oct 22, 2012)

kokodeshide said:


> I'm advocating for knowledge. I don't believe the conspiracy entirely and I don't believe what the government story is entirely. So I will pick apart both things. You can see that by me pointing out only a few things and not the entire conspiracy.



You're "advocating for knowledge"?  What the hell does that even mean?

All I see you doing is asking a bunch of questions without anything to actually back anything up.  So in the end you're not saying anything of substance.


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Oct 22, 2012)

> ...Many sites refer to the difference in the melting point of steel and the burning temperature of jet fuel as proof that the World Trade Center could not have fallen from the aircraft fires. *What those authors fail to note is that while steel melts at around 1,370?C (2500?F) it begins to lose its strength at a much lower temperature. The steel structure of the World Trade Center would not have to melt in order for the buildings to lose their structural integrity. Steel can be soft at 538?C (1,000?F) well below the burning temperature of jet fuel.*





Well, that's one speculation down.

Anybody else care to take on another?

if you can't blind these people with common sense, blind them with science


----------



## Inuhanyou (Oct 22, 2012)

Did people magically forget that both the planes wing's cutting the buildings effectively in half would damage the beam support?

There's a reason why there were so many deaths on the top floors. It was because the stair wells were taken out when the wings went through.


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Oct 22, 2012)

Inuhanyou said:


> Did people magically forget that both the planes wing's cutting the buildings effectively in half would damage the beam support?
> 
> There's a reason why there were so many deaths on the top floors. It was because the stair wells were taken out when the wings went through.



oh well you know, that's just because...

because....the support beams were weakened before hand.

or some such bullshit


----------



## kokodeshide (Oct 22, 2012)

Tsukiyomi said:


> You're "advocating for knowledge"?  What the hell does that even mean?
> 
> All I see you doing is asking a bunch of questions without anything to actually back anything up.  So in the end you're not saying anything of substance.




You literally didn't counter a DAMN thing I said. All you did was spout bullshit. You didn't address anything accurately. You didn't a damn thing. Try harder.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Oct 22, 2012)

the more you actually think about it, the more you realize these people just have some sort of compulsive mental condition to make tinfoil hats out of aluminum foil and wear them for fashion


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Oct 22, 2012)

Inuhanyou said:


> the more you actually think about it, the more you realize these people just have some sort of compulsive mental condition to make tinfoil hats out of aluminum foil and wear them for fashion



i wonder what'll happen if i take their tinfoil caps, crumple them up and throw it at them.

wonder what they'll do.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Oct 22, 2012)

Charge you with conspiracy, what else?


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Oct 22, 2012)

Inuhanyou said:


> Charge you with conspiracy, what else?



either that or their heads will explode due to the sudden exposure to the government's radioactive mind-control rays.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Oct 22, 2012)

kokodeshide said:


> You literally didn't counter a DAMN thing I said. All you did was spout bullshit. You didn't address anything accurately. You didn't a damn thing. Try harder.



You're just posted the same questions that have been debunked 10,000 times before.  You haven't posted anything of substance.

Post something that actually says something and backs it up and maybe people will take you seriously.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Oct 22, 2012)

Just as bad i suppose


----------



## Mider T (Oct 22, 2012)

kokodeshide said:


> You literally didn't counter a DAMN thing I said. All you did was spout bullshit. You didn't address anything accurately. You didn't a damn thing. Try harder.



On the contrary you're going to have to make your argument better, these Truther tropes are starting to fall into the "Greatest Hits" category.

Keep it fresh.


----------



## kokodeshide (Oct 22, 2012)

Tsukiyomi said:


> You're just posted the same questions that have been debunked 10,000 times before.  You haven't posted anything of substance.
> 
> Post something that actually says something and backs it up and maybe people will take you seriously.



So if it's been debunked than prove me wrong. It should be easy. So quit fucking jabbering and prove me wrong.

And it was serious enough to get you to respond.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Oct 22, 2012)

kokodeshide said:


> So if it's been debunked than prove me wrong. It should be easy. So quit fucking jabbering and prove me wrong.
> 
> And it was serious enough to get you to respond.



Prove what wrong?  You're just asking questions.  I challenged you on making a claim and you said you weren't making a claim, that you were just asking questions and pointing out how things "don't make sense to you".

I'm supposed to disprove that it "doesn't make sense to you"?  How exactly do I prove that?

Again if you're just asking questions and not making claims then you're contributing nothing of value to this discussion and you should just leave.  If you are making claims then you should back them up with actual proof.  You have to choose one or the other.


----------



## Revolution (Oct 22, 2012)

Who here is a truther?  Do you realize you are just like creationists?  Since the moment of impact, journalists were trying to figure out what was going on.  Through the days after, historians and every kind of career you can think of has been working on it.  People demanded answers.  They got together and produced this:


----------



## Mael (Oct 22, 2012)

LIES!  ALL LIES TO APPEASE THE ZIONIGODS!


----------



## kokodeshide (Oct 22, 2012)

Tsukiyomi said:


> Prove what wrong?  You're just asking questions.  I challenged you on making a claim and you said you weren't making a claim, that you were just asking questions and pointing out how things "don't make sense to you".
> 
> I'm supposed to disprove that it "doesn't make sense to you"?  How exactly do I prove that?
> 
> Again if you're just asking questions and not making claims then you're contributing nothing of value to this discussion and you should just leave.  If you are making claims then you should back them up with actual proof.  You have to choose one or the other.



I claimed "Physicists and engineers have both said what happened to tower 7 was impossible from just a few fires that spread."
You said i lied. I provided proof.

I claimed "Tower 7 wasn't hit with anything other than a few pieces of debris." 

I claimed "something weird happening is the FACT that tower 7 free fell. The FACT that jet fuel cannot melt steel, but molten steel was found in the wreckage. The FACT that even weakened steel resists forces enough to slow a free fall even at the temperature jet fuel burns at steel retains at least half its strength."

I claimed that "In the fucking report of tower 7 by the fucking government it said tower 7 free fell."

I claimed No chunks of debris fell from tower 7.

I also said from the START I didn't know but some things were weird. I was just pointing out what was flawed with the situation. If you thought otherwise that's your own damn fault, read what the fuck I said next time.


----------



## AfterGlow (Oct 22, 2012)

kokodeshide said:


> I claimed "Physicists and engineers have both said what happened to tower 7 was impossible from just a few fires that spread."
> You said i lied. I provided proof.
> 
> I claimed "Tower 7 wasn't hit with anything other than a few pieces of debris."
> ...


----------



## kokodeshide (Oct 22, 2012)

Would be true if I actually said a theory but all I talked about were the events that happened.


----------



## Mael (Oct 22, 2012)

Nope, because you've provided zero evidence.


----------



## kokodeshide (Oct 22, 2012)

Mael said:


> Nope, because you've provided zero evidence.



You want pictures of the molten steel? I can get those. but you should know about it, unless you don't know much about the subject. 

You want videos of the free fall of the building? look it up, its everywhere, you have probably seen it a hundred times.

The thing about 1700 engineers and architects? i put a link up.

The no chunks falling was in reply to a claim HE made.

Jet fuel cannot melt steel? I can provide you the temperature it burns at and the melting point of structural steel. But that's a quick look up anyway.
The facts about steel you should know or you shouldn't argue this topic in the first place.


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Oct 22, 2012)

The Truthers are making a movie?  Just because you spew the same BS for 12 years, doesn't make it stink any less.


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Oct 22, 2012)

kokodeshide said:


> The thing about 1700 engineers and architects? i put a link up.



You put a link to a _petition_ up



> Jet fuel cannot melt steel? I can provide you the temperature it burns at and the melting point of structural steel. But that's a quick look up anyway.
> The facts about steel you should know or you shouldn't argue this topic in the first place.



it didn't need to _melt_ the steel to compromise the structural integrity of the building.

and as such, i refer you back to this:



> ...Many sites refer to the difference in the melting point of steel and the burning temperature of jet fuel as proof that the World Trade Center could not have fallen from the aircraft fires. *What those authors fail to note is that while steel melts at around 1,370?C (2500?F) it begins to lose its strength at a much lower temperature. The steel structure of the World Trade Center would not have to melt in order for the buildings to lose their structural integrity. Steel can be soft at 538?C (1,000?F) well below the burning temperature of jet fuel*


----------



## AfterGlow (Oct 22, 2012)

"1700" architects signing a petition is NOT the same thing as evidence, Jesus Christ, to have to point this out...


----------



## kokodeshide (Oct 22, 2012)

AfterGlow said:


> "1700" architects signing a petition is NOT the same thing as evidence, Jesus Christ, to have to point this out...



Click on the names and read their testimonies.


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Oct 22, 2012)

How about you post some actual evidence instead of quarter-assing it.


----------



## AfterGlow (Oct 22, 2012)

kokodeshide said:


> Click on the names and read their testimonies.



The word EVIDENCE.
Look it up.



> Definition of EVIDENCE
> 
> 1
> a : an outward sign : indication
> b : something that furnishes proof : testimony; specifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter



A bunch of shitheads voicing their opinions is not EVIDENCE.


----------



## Sanity Check (Oct 22, 2012)

> Firefighters for 9-11 Truth is a non-partisan association of firefighters and affiliates created to increase awareness, provide public education, demand a real investigation that follows National Standards, and provide support to our Brothers and Sisters in need. We are deeply troubled by the “official story,” and the way the rescue workers from Ground Zero are being forgotten.
> 
> We believe there is overwhelming evidence of obstruction of justice, and destruction of evidence voiced even by numerous 9/11 Commissioners themselves. Senator Cleland resigned from the Commission stating, “This investigation is now compromised.”
> 
> ...





_The firefighters who were at the World Trade Center on 9/11_ support a reinvestigation.

What now?


----------



## kokodeshide (Oct 22, 2012)

AfterGlow said:


> The word EVIDENCE.
> Look it up.
> 
> 
> ...




He said show me credible people who say shit isn't right and disagree with him, I did. That's why I posted the link. Read the fucking thread. And it's shitheads who know a fuckton more than you do.


----------



## kokodeshide (Oct 23, 2012)

Yami Munesanzun said:


> How about you post some actual evidence instead of quarter-assing it.




There's the molten steel? Happy?

Jet fuel
Open air burning temperatures 260-315?C *(500-599?F)*
Maximum burning temperature 980?C *(1796 ?F)*


The lowest temperature at which a plain carbon steel can begin to melt, its solidus, is 1,130 ?C *(2,070 ?F)*. Steel never turns into a liquid below this temperature. Pure Iron ('Steel' with 0% Carbon) starts to melt at 1,492 ?C (2,718 ?F), and is completely liquid upon reaching 1,539 ?C (2,802 ?F). Steel with 2.1% Carbon by weight begins melting at 1,130 ?C (2,070 ?F), and is completely molten upon reaching 1,315 ?C (2,399 ?F). 'Steel' with more than 2.1% Carbon is no longer Steel, but is known as Cast iron.


And saying im wrong and not an expert and not knowing simple facts about the melting point of steel? Don't argue about fish if you have never seen or heard of one.


----------



## Mael (Oct 23, 2012)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> _The firefighters who were at the World Trade Center on 9/11_ support a reinvestigation.
> 
> What now?



Firefighters aren't engineers.  They know pyro and that's it.

How hard is it for you stupid fucks to understand that steel under raging infernos doesn't need to melt but can certainly buckle and bend under the crushing weight as well?

God damn it.


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Oct 23, 2012)

kokodeshide said:


> There's the molten steel? Happy?


First off, this still isn't evidence, try again.

Secondly:
do you know what "molten" means?

do you know what "lava" or "magma" is?

what that steel is, isn't "molten". It's bent out of shape because of the heat.

If it were "molten", it would be in a liquid state, but it's not.



> Jet fuel
> Open air burning temperatures 260-315?C *(500-599?F)*
> Maximum burning temperature 980?C *(1796 ?F)*
> 
> The lowest temperature at which a plain carbon steel can begin to melt, its solidus, is 1,130 ?C *(2,070 ?F)*. Steel never turns into a liquid below this temperature. Pure Iron ('Steel' with 0% Carbon) starts to melt at 1,492 ?C (2,718 ?F), and is completely liquid upon reaching 1,539 ?C (2,802 ?F). Steel with 2.1% Carbon by weight begins melting at 1,130 ?C (2,070 ?F), and is completely molten upon reaching 1,315 ?C (2,399 ?F). 'Steel' with more than 2.1% Carbon is no longer Steel, but is known as Cast iron.



and the steel didn't have to melt in order for the structural integrity to be compromised. if you expose a solid slab of butter to the right amount of temperature for the right amount of time, it becomes easier to slice. doesn't mean it's melted, it means it's become _softer_. 

i've already posted something in a quote regarding this _twice_. i suggest you try reading it.




> And saying im wrong and not an expert and not knowing simple facts about the melting point of steel? Don't argue about fish if you have never seen or heard of one.



Perhaps you should taste your own tea before trying to make someone else drink it.

I.O.W - Take your own advice.


----------



## On and On (Oct 23, 2012)

*Newsflash:* you don't have to be a physicist, engineer, OR nutjob to believe that some people benefited off 9/11 and that it was good for the American military industrial complex agenda. Sad but true.

Do I believe a bunch of Middle Eastern men were on those planes? Surely. However, how many people were in on it and how far reaching will never exactly be known.

That being said, I don't know what good can come of this movie, seeing as how pretty much everyone is rather decided on where they stand on the entire situation.


----------



## kokodeshide (Oct 23, 2012)

Yami Munesanzun said:


> First off, this still isn't evidence, try again.
> 
> Secondly:
> do you know what "molten" means?
> ...


 look at the steel dripping from it. Try harder.





> and the steel didn't have to melt in order for the structural integrity to be compromised. if you expose a solid slab of butter to the right amount of temperature for the right amount of time, it becomes easier to slice. doesn't mean it's melted, it means it's become _softer_.
> 
> i've already posted something in a quote regarding this _twice_. i suggest you try reading it.


Never fucking said it couldn't fall. I said the RATE at which it fell doesn't fit.
Read what I said and respond appropriately.


----------



## Axl Low (Oct 23, 2012)

well
if you wanna say jet fuel doesnt burn at x degrees
you do have to take into effect that 
jet fuel, the relative insulation of heat and plus all the flammable materials to keep the fire going
why isnt it possible for an insulated high degree fire to get hotter/hot even to warp or even turn steel molten?

/one who seeks answers

also steel melts at 1510 F
common jet fuel with a flash point of 120 can burn up to 1800 F


----------



## EvilMoogle (Oct 23, 2012)

kokodeshide said:


> look at the steel dripping from it. Try harder.


Sigh.

Go get a paperclip.  I'll wait.

Got one?  Okay, unbend it and bend it as fast as you can.  Give it a good 10-15 reps.

Now touch the joint point where you were bending it.  Feel how it's hot now?

But it's room temperature where you are?  How can a paperclip be hot when it's room temperature?

Now imagine the paperclip were 10000000x times it's size, and the forces involved were 1000000000x as much.  Start to understand?


----------



## Mael (Oct 23, 2012)

Of course not, Moogle.

Facts are inconvenient to the modern day dingbat.


----------



## Axl Low (Oct 23, 2012)

Actually if you ask a metal worker
wouldn't they say steel is black when its get to melting opposed to molten that we imagine to be lava/magma like? O:


----------



## Revolution (Oct 23, 2012)

kokodeshide said:


> There's the molten steel? Happy?
> 
> Jet fuel
> Open air burning temperatures 260-315?C *(500-599?F)*
> ...



so a quick explosion (which is probably not as hot as burning jet fuel) is more destructive then burning jet fuel?


----------



## Revolution (Oct 23, 2012)

On and On said:


> *Newsflash:* you don't have to be a physicist, engineer, OR nutjob to believe that some people benefited off 9/11 and that it was good for the American military industrial complex agenda. Sad but true.
> 
> Do I believe a bunch of Middle Eastern men were on those planes? Surely. However, how many people were in on it and how far reaching will never exactly be known.
> 
> That being said, I don't know what good can come of this movie, seeing as how pretty much everyone is rather decided on where they stand on the entire situation.



I'll tell you what it does: make people all over the world trust the USA less.  Thats what.  The whole idea is not only wrong on so many counts, but it is self-destructive because you don't want people to care for your own country.

This will also make people accuse innocent groups of the 9/11 attack.  I'm guessing its Israel wherever the JEWS are.  Because they are a pretty popular scapegoat. 

People should focus on real problems in the world because I have a hard time believing the "truthers" actually believe this bullshit.  I know some people do, but they are either crazy or have an agenda.


----------



## Roman (Oct 23, 2012)

Sarahmint said:


> I'll tell you what it does: make people all over the world trust the USA less.  Thats what.  The whole idea is not only wrong on so many counts, but it is self-destructive because you don't want people to care for your own country.
> 
> This will also make people accuse innocent groups of the 9/11 attack.  I'm guessing its Israel wherever the JEWS are.  Because they are a pretty popular scapegoat.
> 
> People should focus on real problems in the world because I have a hard time believing the "truthers" actually believe this bullshit.  I know some people do, but they are either crazy or have an agenda.



The fear of this movie causing others to mistrust the US is rather exaggerated tho. Most people outside of the US don't have much of an opinion on it if it's not a generally positive one. The negative views people outside of the US share is notwithstanding of the movie. Things like how the healthcare works, the voting system, work ethics, etc. These opinions can range from a general to a more personal view as a result of experience.

Regardless, what On and On is saying has a lot of truth to it. More than a few large investment banks benefitted from 9/11 and you don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to be able to see places like Deutsche Bank and JPMorgan profited almost immediately following the event.


----------



## kokodeshide (Oct 23, 2012)

EvilMoogle said:


> Sigh.
> 
> Go get a paperclip.  I'll wait.
> 
> ...


 That was a pic from like 3 WEEKS into the clean up, and there was a huge pool of molten steel underneath that. That amount of molten steel from one bend isn't going to do something like that, unless you can prove it would do it for a beam that size. Oh and I forgot, why aren't all the beams molten? if your theory is true than most of the beams should be molten.


----------



## Revolution (Oct 23, 2012)

Freedan said:


> The fear of this movie causing others to mistrust the US is rather exaggerated tho. Most people outside of the US don't have much of an opinion on it if it's not a generally positive one. The negative views people outside of the US share is notwithstanding of the movie. Things like how the healthcare works, the voting system, work ethics, etc. These opinions can range from a general to a more personal view as a result of experience.
> 
> Regardless, what On and On is saying has a lot of truth to it. More than a few large investment banks benefitted from 9/11 and you don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to be able to see places like Deutsche Bank and JPMorgan profited almost immediately following the event.



So lawsuits are beneficial?



> Things like how the healthcare works, the voting system, work ethics,


These are all complaints made by americans themselves.  These are not even the biggest problems of the US, but the people with the bigger bullhorns cry the only issues internationaly cared about according to your statement.

Much of the Middle East and Arab world buy into the propaganda that it was a set up, so this movie not only damages US international relations, but gives more of a reason to invade the US "as the country is bombing its own citizens, so there is no harm if we do it" they'd think.


----------



## Roman (Oct 23, 2012)

Sarahmint said:


> So lawsuits are beneficial?



What? 



Sarahmint said:


> *These are all complaints made by americans themselves.*  These are not even the biggest problems of the US, but the people with the bigger bullhorns cry the only issues internationaly cared about according to your statement.



And that's exactly my point. The problem of people crying conspiracies against the US is being blown out of proportion by a lot of people without any sound evidence. Hardly anyone has such a negative view of the US.



Sarahmint said:


> Much of the Middle East and Arab world buy into the propaganda that it was a set up, so this movie not only damages US international relations, but gives more of a reason to invade the US "as the country is bombing its own citizens, so there is no harm if we do it" they'd think.



When I was in Saudi (yes, Saudi Arabia), I've not known many people with negative views of the US either in all honesty. I admit I was in a largely international community and only got to know two Saudis my age. Neither held resentments toward the US (one of them was a douche on his own ). Yes, people buy into propaganda, but they tend to be the ones you see on the news more often than not and hardly a good representation of the general population.


----------



## jetwaterluffy1 (Oct 23, 2012)

Since when did needing another investigation = a conspiracy, anyway?
All they likely care about is finding more accurately how high stresses and temperatures affect large buildings, not if bush planted explosives there in the dead of the night after drugging the guards with laxatives.


----------



## Orochibuto (Oct 23, 2012)

Freedan said:


> Regardless, what On and On is saying has a lot of truth to it. More than a few large investment banks benefitted from 9/11 and you don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to be able to see places like Deutsche Bank and JPMorgan profited almost immediately following the event.



And this is what the movie should be about, you can have a movie calling out on things like these without going conspiracy and its true so no one can say anything about it, if rather than conspiracy that did a movie about how these banks beneffitted from 9/11 it would be way more interesting for everyone for starters becuase it would be based on facts that no one can refuse and would be shared by anyone.


----------



## Roman (Oct 23, 2012)

Orochibuto said:


> And this is what the movie should be about, you can have a movie calling out on things like these without going conspiracy and its true so no one can say anything about it, if rather than conspiracy that did a movie about how these banks beneffitted from 9/11 it would be way more interesting for everyone for starters becuase it would be based on facts that no one can refuse and would be shared by anyone.



Now you know why I don't watch conspiracy movies


----------



## EvilMoogle (Oct 23, 2012)

kokodeshide said:


> That was a pic from like 3 WEEKS into the clean up, and there was a huge pool of molten steel underneath that. That amount of molten steel from one bend isn't going to do something like that, unless you can prove it would do it for a beam that size. Oh and I forgot, why aren't all the beams molten? if your theory is true than most of the beams should be molten.



While I can understand why you'd be confused, a collapsing building isn't an orderly process no matter the cause.  Pressure is not distributed evenly throughout it there are relative points of tensile and sheer.

And I don't get your point that it's weeks later.  The collapsed rubble was obviously insulating the debris, unless you're suggesting that the explosives used were still going off weeks later?  Why is it more logical for molten steel to be there from an explosion than from other forces?


----------



## Son of Goku (Oct 23, 2012)

Debunking the debunkers.


> *
> New 9/11 doc - Gov admits it hasn’t explained WTC collapses*
> _Posted Jun 20, 2012 by Victoria N. Alexander_
> 
> ...


----------



## Son of Goku (Oct 23, 2012)

> The documentary refutes the widely publicized ?progressive collapse? theory hastily conceived by Zdenek Bazant just days after the tragedy, submitted for publication September 14, 2001, and revised in 2002 and 2007. Unlike NIST, Bazant does discuss the ?collapses,? but none of his data or calculations was used by NIST in the official report. Mechanical engineer Tony Szamboti and physics teacher David Chandler demonstrate how Bazant?s claim is easily falsified by careful measurements that show the falling upper floor section accelerated smoothly through what Bazant assumes was an intact structure below; the expected jolt of impact never occurred (ESO 0:40:05).
> 
> The second most startling fact revealed by the documentary is that NIST blatantly disregarded national standard procedures by not testing for explosives. Although the official report (page 146) notes that
> 
> ...



Long read, I know. Here is a goody for all who have made it this far:

The documentary in full:
[YOUTUBE]nBCu_pvhnzQ[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Mael (Oct 23, 2012)

It's another YT video and it's from only 1,700 people.  It's not debunking, just wants a second look.

But knowing you folks you won't be satisfied again when you realize again it was pissed-off Muslims who hijacked airplanes in a more relaxed security environment they took advantage of in a moment of weakness and the sheer force of a 747 mixed with the explosive cocktail the fuels are enough to break and bend steel.


----------



## corsair (Oct 23, 2012)

I still do not even understand why you would fly a plane into a building and then blow it up. Wouldn't a fucking plane flying into it weaken one of the towers enough that you would have to demolish it anyway? Even if that would be not enough to let it collapse immediately? Wouldn't "the government" save millions (or rather billions) of dollars with that approach compared to the mess that the collapsing towers caused? Or if you really, really want to let them collapse, why not just fake a bombing from the start and save yourself the planes? Can somebody give me a good reason why you would do that?


----------



## Mael (Oct 23, 2012)

^That's what they want you to think, corsair.


----------



## davidpliskin (Oct 23, 2012)

I'll buy tickets even if I can't find time to watch the movie. I think keeping the question open on the events of 9/11 protects the US from future attacks.


----------



## Roman (Oct 23, 2012)

corsair said:


> I still do not even understand why you would fly a plane into a building and then blow it up. Wouldn't a fucking plane flying into it weaken one of the towers enough that you would have to demolish it anyway? *Even if that would be not enough to let it collapse immediately?* Wouldn't "the government" save millions (or rather billions) of dollars with that approach compared to the mess that the collapsing towers caused? Or if you really, really want to let them collapse, why not just fake a bombing from the start and save yourself the planes? Can somebody give me a good reason why you would do that?



Weird thing about that is the govt would then have demolished the building while there were still innocents trapped inside AND the towers were burning. It's very unlikely that could've happened as a result.


----------



## Mael (Oct 23, 2012)

BUT WE NEVER KNOW!  NEVER STOP ASKIN' KWESTSHUNS!  LAROUCHE!  AURORA WAS STAGED!  DERP!


----------



## On and On (Oct 23, 2012)

Sarahmint said:


> So lawsuits are beneficial?



Money wasn't made off of lolsuits, but insurance policies, predominately on the businesses in the WTC themselves I'd imagine, but also certainly on the workers themselves I'm willing to bet, but that's likely chump change.

More importantly - this allowed the justification of arguably TWO wars by the American people (who -wasn't- on board for war immediately following 9/11?), and the passage of x number of bills "for the sake of our security" (Patriot Act being the most obvious, followed by such things like the NDAA, which basically uses the politically loaded-term "terrorist" at every point to justify imprisoning relatively -anyone- they deem a threat). The money isn't compared to the power to make decisions for an entire group of people.

When there is an act of terror/war/aggression, people are generally willing to overlook their individual rights "for the greater good". i.e. allowing surveillance for the sake of finding "domestic terrorists", collectively supporting the "war-effort to make the world a safer place for democracy", "liberating oppressed people", etc. etc.

It's all part of the permanent war economy. America pretty much always does well in war. At this point, I would argue war is part of the American identity.

​


----------



## Mael (Oct 23, 2012)

> It's all part of the permanent war economy. America pretty much always does well in war. At this point, I would argue war is part of the American identity.



Yeah I'm going to debate this. 

Look at our two present wars.  Please inform me if that was beneficial to an economy.

I actually find you full of shit on this if you want to take it back before 1950.


----------



## On and On (Oct 23, 2012)

Mael said:


> Yeah I'm going to debate this.
> 
> Look at our two present wars.  Please inform me if that was beneficial to an economy.
> 
> I actually find you full of shit on this if you want to take it back before 1950.



The American middle class certainly not (I'd argue that's part of the point)  But rich people in our country make money off of war and violent conflict all the time



^ Some examples from the Iraq war

Also, it's hard to prove how beneficial something is in a time period where pretty much -every- country in the world is doing bad - it's really just a measure of whose worse than who. Regardless, war isn't good for everyone - just everyone who stands to make money off it.. which are rich people in the first place.

The Rockefellers iirc played Devil's Advocate in WW2 by selling oil to pretty much anyone who would buy. That's the biggest example and I learned that shit in the 8th grade lol



"Major General Smedley Butler, USMC, criticized war profiteering of U.S companies during World War I in War Is a Racket. He wrote about how some companies and corporations increase their earnings and profits by up to *1700%* and how many companies willingly sold equipment and supplies to the U.S that had no relevant use in the war effort."
^ mind you this was during WWI, before your deadline of 1950

The notion that war and therefore American lives are used to line people's pockets is psychologically unnerving, and I respect that, especially for people of a military background like yourself. But that doesn't make it any less true.

And then aside from this, money is just part of the game. It's really control over public policy that's more meaningful.


----------



## kokodeshide (Oct 23, 2012)

Mael said:


> Yeah I'm going to debate this.
> 
> Look at our two present wars.  Please inform me if that was beneficial to an economy.
> 
> I actually find you full of shit on this if you want to take it back before 1950.


 Vietnam was also not very beneficial.



EvilMoogle said:


> While I can understand why you'd be confused, a collapsing building isn't an orderly process no matter the cause.  Pressure is not distributed evenly throughout it there are relative points of tensile and sheer.
> 
> And I don't get your point that it's weeks later.  The collapsed rubble was obviously insulating the debris, unless you're suggesting that the explosives used were still going off weeks later?  Why is it more logical for molten steel to be there from an explosion than from other forces?


 I didn't say anything about explosives causing the molten steel. Demolitions happen all the time, there is no molten steel in those structures. Only a few things can melt steel, one of them being thermite. Painted thermite burns longer. Some individual scientists found nano thermite in the debris.

You show me where bending steel causes it the become molten, cause that's quite a ridiculous claim. Insulation lets it stay hot but it has to GET hot enough in the first place, only thing that can attain that heat, thermite. Only thing able that's transportable and practical to melt steel is thermite. And no matter how long you subject steel to 1800 degree heat it will NEVER melt so jet fuel fire is out of the question.


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Oct 23, 2012)

kokodeshide said:


> And no matter how long you subject steel to 1800 degree heat it will NEVER melt so jet fuel fire is out of the question.



We've been over this:

Hot enough for the metal to soften + Pressure from the weight of the above floors = compromised structure. you say you're not a "Truther", but then you turn around and spout bullshit just like one. make up your mind.

of course, if you're as smart as you say you are, then you should already know that metals tend to be excellent conductors of _heat_ and electricity.

on another note:

I can't wait for this movie to _bomb_ in the box office. 

too soon?


----------



## kokodeshide (Oct 23, 2012)

Yami Munesanzun said:


> We've been over this:
> 
> Hot enough for the metal to soften + Pressure from the weight of the above floors = compromised structure. you say you're not a "Truther", but then you turn around and spout bullshit just like one. make up your mind.
> 
> ...



Does no one read what I fuck I say?

Let me try to clarify this. I NEVER once said that it can't fall due to fire, although most architects say it can't. I said, it cant free fall  due to fire alone. Reading comprehension, man.
Now, that was a SEPARATE point to what I was saying about molten steel. Im essentially saying there is no way for molten steel to be in the wreckage by fire alone, yet there was so there was a separate heat source doing that. Next time read what I said entirely.

Conduction is the *transfer* of heat, not the generation of heat. 1000 torches burning at 1000 degrees is not going to get a piece of steel hotter than 1000 degrees. That's basic science.


----------



## eHav (Oct 23, 2012)

kokodeshide said:


> Does no one read what I fuck I say?
> 
> Let me try to clarify this. I NEVER once said that it can't fall due to fire, although most architects say it can't. I said, it cant free fall  due to fire alone. Reading comprehension, man.
> Now, that was a SEPARATE point to what I was saying about molten steel. Im essentially saying there is no way for molten steel to be in the wreckage by fire alone, yet there was so there was a separate heat source doing that. Next time read what I said entirely.
> ...



so your point is thermite?

the plane crash, acording to you, wasnt enough to colapse the building. and they made quite a big hole in the towers.

now for thermite to cause the colapse of the buildings, there would have to be quite a lot of it, in various places to be able to take down the tower.

It would have to have been placed when the building was constructed, making that theory even more crazy than the usual theories, or it would have to have been placed recently, while thousands of people work there everyday. Did they just send in teams of experts at night to perfectly place thermite in the places that would make the building colapse? Also, how would they detonate it? was there some guy nearby with a controller just waiting to ignite it? 

so why hijack 2 planes full of people, when just as easily they could have placed a bomb in there(since you assume they planted thermite there) and then have a bombing be the reason for all of this?

why plant thermite on WTC, and then crash a plane somewhere, and send another one into the pentagon?

do you people even think about your theories?


----------



## kokodeshide (Oct 23, 2012)

eHav said:


> so your point is thermite?


For only the molten steel, yes.


> the plane crash, acording to you, wasnt enough to colapse the building. and they made quite a big hole in the towers.


It was design to take plane hits.


> now for thermite to cause the colapse of the buildings, there would have to be quite a lot of it, in various places to be able to take down the tower.
> 
> It would have to have been placed when the building was constructed, making that theory even more crazy than the usual theories, or it would have to have been placed recently, while thousands of people work there everyday. Did they just send in teams of experts at night to perfectly place thermite in the places that would make the building colapse?


 Not when it was constructed. People moved in and out of offices, when they do, they paint. thermite paint burns longer.  





> Also, how would they detonate it? was there some guy nearby with a controller just waiting to ignite it?


 Thermite alone didn't take down the building, I didn't say it did, i said it explains the molten steel, does no one read any more?



> so why hijack 2 planes full of people, when just as easily they could have placed a bomb in there(since you assume they planted thermite there) and then have a bombing be the reason for all of this?
> 
> why plant thermite on WTC, and then crash a plane somewhere, and send another one into the pentagon?


 not that I care about why, but an explanation is there is no proof that anybody would or did place a bomb. Osama came out and straight up said he attacked us giving us an enemy. But that's territory i don't want to touch a that's not what im talking about. im talking about how the building fell so fast, and why molten steel was there.



> do you people even think about your theories?


 Never talked about theories. You brought that shit up. Other people talked about that shit. I didn't. i talked about scientific facts.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Oct 23, 2012)

Your going to end up like a pretzel tying yourself into that many knots


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Oct 23, 2012)

For someone who claims not to be advocating for the conspiracy you sure seem to be defending it pretty hard.


----------



## kokodeshide (Oct 23, 2012)

Tsukiyomi said:


> For someone who claims not to be advocating for the conspiracy you sure seem to be defending it pretty hard.


 I'm just trying to explain that the building falling the way they say it did was wrong.

If people are arguing a topic and either side says something wrong, im going to point it out.

Do I think bush did it? No. Do I think something happened that we don't know? Yes.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Oct 23, 2012)

kokodeshide said:


> I'm just trying to explain that the building falling the way they say it did was wrong.



Then you ARE advocating for the conspiracy.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Oct 23, 2012)

Then what DID happen? You don't know, you can't explain your feeling, just that you feel it. That's not an argument, or even raising reasonable doubt, its called a mental illness.


----------



## Mael (Oct 23, 2012)

Inuhanyou said:


> Then what DID happen? You don't know, you can't explain your feeling, just that you feel it. That's not an argument, or even raising reasonable doubt, its called a mental illness.



Space Jews with laser beams melted the steel.


----------



## kokodeshide (Oct 23, 2012)

Tsukiyomi said:


> Then you ARE advocating for the conspiracy.


 No, because I don't believe any of those theories.
You are just mad that you can't disprove what I say. Get over it.



Inuhanyou said:


> Then what DID happen? You don't know, you can't explain your feeling, just that you feel it. That's not an argument, or even raising reasonable doubt, its called a mental illness.



I explained why the NIST study and common opinion is wrong with basic science. I used numbers. You deciding to either not read it or ignore it is mental retardation.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Oct 23, 2012)

kokodeshide said:


> No, because I don't believe any of those theories.
> You are just mad that you can't disprove what I say. Get over it.



If you're advocating for ANYTHING other than the official story then you're advocating for A conspiracy theory.  It really is that simple.  Even if you have a theory all your own that no one else has its still a conspiracy theory because for ANYTHING you're talking about to happen it would require a conspiracy.


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Oct 23, 2012)

kokodeshide said:


> No, because I don't believe any of those theories.



this is the only post you've made so far that's remotely believable.

but only because you came up with your own crackpot theory, involving thermite and how it was implanted within the walls of the building _after_ construction and how apparently everyone working there was stupid enough not to notice. 

so kindly get the hell out.





> I explained why the NIST study and common opinion is wrong with basic science. I used numbers. You deciding to either not read it or ignore it is mental retardation.



do we really need to go over this again?

heat + pressure = compromised structure. you can experiment this with a stick of butter fresh out of the fridge. this is the third time i've said this.

it seems that at this point, you're trying to convince yourself more than anyone else.


----------



## kokodeshide (Oct 23, 2012)

Tsukiyomi said:


> If you're advocating for ANYTHING other than the official story then you're advocating for A conspiracy theory.  It really is that simple.  Even if you have a theory all your own that no one else has its still a conspiracy theory because for ANYTHING you're talking about to happen it would require a conspiracy.



Laying down basic scientific facts is just correcting, not advocating. Fuck, it all might have been just Osama bin ladin like everyone said. Therefore agreeing with the government on who but not how. It's amazing to me how you dont get this. But you are probably just holding on to this cause you cant win anywhere else.



Yami Munesanzun said:


> this is the only post you've made so far that's remotely believable.
> 
> but only because you came up with your own crackpot theory, involving thermite and how it was implanted within the walls of the building _after_ construction and how apparently everyone working there was stupid enough not to notice.
> 
> so kindly get the hell out.



I never originally said how it got there you fuck. People asked me how when I said all along I don't give a darn how but I stilled humored you with a response.






> do we really need to go over this again?
> 
> heat + pressure = compromised structure. you can experiment this with a stick of butter fresh out of the fridge. this is the third time i've said this.
> 
> it seems that at this point, you're trying to convince yourself more than anyone else.


 Are you absofuckinlutely retarded? Seriously, do none of you know how to fucking read? 

I never said it can't fall. I said it can't FREEFALL. Even NIST said it free fell for at least 100 feet. For that to happen there needs to be ZERO RESISTANCE. That would be impossible. 

Weakened steel will offer resistance NO MATTER WHAT, unless destroyed in some way. But that would have to happen SIMULTANEOUSLY. But it wasn't destroyed, just burned and weakened. How do you not get this scientific fact. A building CANNOT free fall THROUGH itself. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.



Also, it's funny how you can ask how it(Thermite, explosives.) gets there, but I can't ask how molten steel got there, or how it free fell.


----------



## Orochibuto (Oct 23, 2012)

Do I believe it was a conspiracy? No.

Do I believe the administration took advantadge of the damage to shit on individual rights, wage war, behave with unseen auhoritarism and everything on behalf "national security"? Of course yet.

In a nutshell I think this movie commits on a different approach the same error Zetgeist did when they included religion in the movie, a lot of people who could possibly have at least listened the latter 2 parts of it (which is what basically it was about) immediatly got blocked becuase you messed with religion where the main point was to talk about a possibly conspiracy (note that I am saying this from the Zetgeist perspective) not debunk religion.

Then we have this movie, the point is to show the corruption, assholery and retardation of the US government and the financial system, but becuase they already put it into a conspiracy theory then a lot of people who perhaps be interested will automatically lol at it.

Why not make a movie about how the US government used the incident conspiracy or not to get benefit? Why not include as well on how banks beneffited?

They would have the same point, the only difference is that this movie would be based on facts no one can deny and would be interesting to see.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Oct 23, 2012)

kokodeshide said:


> Laying down basic scientific facts is just correcting, not advocating. Fuck, it all might have been just Osama bin ladin like everyone said. Therefore agreeing with the government on who but not how. It's amazing to me how you dont get this. But you are probably just holding on to this cause you cant win anywhere else.



You're saying Osama Bin Laden filled two of the tallest buildings in the world with thermite without anyone noticing?

Again, that would all qualify as a CONSPIRACY THEORY.



kokodeshide said:


> Therefore agreeing with the government on who but not how.



Unless you agree with the official story on EVERYTHING, its still a conspiracy theory.  You're still saying the government is lying to distort the truth.


----------



## kokodeshide (Oct 23, 2012)

Tsukiyomi said:


> You're saying Osama Bin Laden filled two of the tallest buildings in the world with thermite without anyone noticing?
> 
> Again, that would all qualify as a CONSPIRACY THEORY.
> 
> ...


 No, you fucking clown, I said I don't know, I said that from the start.
I was giving you an example. An investigator doesn't advocate for anything, I was presenting you evidence, which you never disproved, and never said who did it and why. I didn't say thermite was placed there but that it was the only thing that could have melted steel.

And the funny thing is, even if I believed the bullshit theories, I actually more evidence to support what I'm saying than you do. So why don't you back up some of the stuff you say with science, I bet you can't.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Oct 23, 2012)

You're not just asking questions though.  You're arguing AGAINST the official explanation and defending points put forward by conspiracy theorists.

You don't have evidence of shit.  You're just regurgitating the same bullshit arguments that have been debunked 1,000 times over.


----------



## kokodeshide (Oct 23, 2012)

Tsukiyomi said:


> You're not just asking questions though.  You're arguing AGAINST the official explanation and defending points put forward by conspiracy theorists.
> 
> You don't have evidence of shit.  You're just regurgitating the same bullshit arguments that have been debunked 1,000 times over.



If that's what you think THEN DEBUNK WHAT I SAY.

You can't prove how the steel was melted by objects inside the building or plane.

You can't prove how the building *free fell*. Which even the official government report says it did for at least 100 feet. (I already know the bullshit you are going to say about this shit.)

Just fucking try it.

Go ahead, I'll wait.


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Oct 23, 2012)

kokodeshide said:


> I never said it can't fall. I said it can't FREEFALL. Even NIST said it free fell for at least 100 feet. For that to happen there needs to be ZERO RESISTANCE. That would be impossible.



You're confusing effective free-fall with absolute free-fall.  If we go by your definition of * zero resistance*, then you--and NIST are wrong about it happening at all.  There will always be air resistance, even if you're a sky diver.

Effective free-fall simply means that there was no meaningful resistance to the descent.  While the weakened structural steel members offered some resistance to the collapse, the aggregate amount of resistance they could offer was so small as to be negligible.

You're stuck arguing semantics instead of facts.

As for your molten steel, that's a -bit- more interesting.  There are any number of scenarios that could get metal that hot, in the event of the WTC fire.  

However the metal that was hot weeks later, is clearly indicative of underground fires post-collapse.  Under the right conditions, underground fires have hit 1700C, and your average office fire can hit 1000C without too much difficulty (enough to make steel cherry red).

A thermite reaction finishes fairly quickly and simply isn't going to sustain that much heat for several weeks.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Oct 23, 2012)

kokodeshide said:


> If that's what you think THEN DEBUNK WHAT I SAY.



Ok.



kokodeshide said:


> You can't prove how the steel was melted by objects inside the building or plane.



Here is an in depth explanation:


But long story short it was molten aluminum, not molten steel that was seen at the site.  Aluminum most definitely will melt at the temperatures seen in the towers on 9/11.



kokodeshide said:


> You can't prove how the building *free fell*. Which even the official government report says it did for at least 100 feet. (I already know the bullshit you are going to say about this shit.)



Easy, they DIDN'T.

As you can CLEARLY see in this pic:



Source: 

There are several pieces of debris falling FASTER than the building.  If the building was in free fall then at most these pieces of debris would be falling at the same speed.  Unless of course you think there was some conspiracy to cover them with rocket boosters so they exceeded free fall speed?


----------



## kokodeshide (Oct 23, 2012)

The Space Cowboy said:


> You're confusing effective free-fall with absolute free-fall.  If we go by your definition of * zero resistance*, then you--and NIST are wrong about it happening at all.  There will always be air resistance, even if you're a sky diver.
> 
> Effective free-fall simply means that there was no meaningful resistance to the descent.  While the weakened structural steel members offered some resistance to the collapse, the aggregate amount of resistance they could offer was so small as to be negligible.
> 
> You're stuck arguing semantics instead of facts.


 No resistance from the structure. It would all have to simultaneously fail for there to be no resistance from the steel. Even if the steel was at 20 percent load strength ,which at jet fuel fires max temp is like 50 percent strength so im giving you some room here, it would have slowed the fall considerably. It would be nowhere near free fall speeds.



> As for your molten steel, that's a -bit- more interesting.  There are any number of scenarios that could get metal that hot, in the event of the WTC fire.
> 
> However the metal that was hot weeks later, is clearly indicative of underground fires post-collapse.  Under the right conditions, underground fires have hit 1700C, and your average office fire can hit 1000C without too much difficulty (enough to make steel cherry red).
> 
> A thermite reaction finishes fairly quickly and simply isn't going to sustain that much heat for several weeks.


 Any sources for the underground fire heat? I mean, its steel and concrete and office materiel, none of that could get that hot especially when the flames would be oxygen deprived. 

Steel might be red hot from an office fire but not dripping liquid steel with a river flowing under the rubble.

Nano thermite is a bit different, that paired with the fact that it was insulated and most of it had solidified means that the molten part of it was just remnants of what it once was. 

And actually, molten steel was poring out of the building when it was standing. Office fires can't do that.

Finally, someone who can read.



Tsukiyomi said:


> Ok.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 AHAHA. Molten aluminum is fucking silver. The whole slag argument doesn't make sense either. The molten aluminum would have burned it into ash not combined to look orange. Or it would have floated in the aluminum. People have done experiments proving this shit wrong. 

Also, you showed me a report, I could show you one saying the exact opposite.




> Easy, they DIDN'T.
> 
> As you can CLEARLY see in this pic:
> 
> ...


 Building 7 free fell, like I said originally. That was tower 1 or 2, guess you weren't paying any attention, should have figured.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Oct 23, 2012)

kokodeshide said:


> AHAHA. Molten aluminum is fucking silver. The whole slag argument doesn't make sense either. The molten aluminum would have burned it into ash not combined to look orange. Or it would have floated in the aluminum. People have done experiments proving this shit wrong.
> 
> Also, you showed me a report, I could show you one saying the exact opposite.



Any number of materials and factors in the building could alter the color as it fell.

Take a look at this.




That's WATER.  Yet environmental factors can make it look like lava.



kokodeshide said:


> Building 7 free fell, like I said originally. That was tower 1 or 2, guess you weren't paying any attention, should have figured.



I'm still waiting for you to give any legitimate reason WHY someone would destroy building 7.  Its completely nonsensical.

As for the WHY it fell, the supports took serious damage from debris when the towers fell, which coupled with an uncontrolled fire raging for HOURS was enough to weaken the support structure to the point where it gave way.

That's what happens during a controlled demolition too (which is why they look similar), the explosions compromise the support structure and then gravity takes the building down.

Here is an example of some of the kind of damage nearby buildings took from the debris:



When a building has chunks of another building fly into them at that kind of speeds on top of an uncontrolled fire it can easily be enough to compromise support structures to the point that they can no longer hold the weight of a building.

Its a VERY simple concept.


----------



## kokodeshide (Oct 23, 2012)

Tsukiyomi said:


> Any number of materials and factors in the building could alter the color as it fell.
> 
> Take a look at this.
> 
> ...


 I see why you didn't try to debate what I was saying, you have no idea what you are talking about. This is sad. Water refracts light. That is well known. What you showed was a common phenomenon, like a fucking rainbow. But aluminum does not behave that way. (not including its nano form.)

Aluminum CANNOT mix with organics. Hydrocarbons in plastic are ORGANICS, wood is ORGANIC. They cannot mix. It is chemically impossible. Even the NIST statement said it would the organics would appear orange, but that flow was not silver and orange, meaning either fusion(impossible) or steel/iron.




> I'm still waiting for you to give any legitimate reason WHY someone would destroy building 7.  Its completely nonsensical.


 I'm still waiting for you to understand that I don't care why because it still fell. It falling and why someone would want it to fall are separate things.



> As for the WHY it fell, the supports took serious damage from debris when the towers fell, which coupled with an uncontrolled fire raging for HOURS was enough to weaken the support structure to the point where it gave way.
> 
> That's what happens during a controlled demolition too (which is why they look similar), the explosions compromise the support structure and then gravity takes the building down.


It would only buckle if it could not support the FULL weight. But it doesn't have to SUPPORT the full weight to RESIST the full weight. You have no idea about anything you are talking about do you? Free fall is impossible if the building resisted in any way, which it scientifically had too.



> Here is an example of some of the kind of damage nearby buildings took from the debris:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Cool stuff, but building 7 sustained MINOR damage. and none of the main support pillars where hit in any way. Try harder.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Oct 23, 2012)

kokodeshide said:


> I see why you didn't try to debate what I was saying, you have no idea what you are talking about. This is sad. Water refracts light. That is well known. What you showed was a common phenomenon, like a fucking rainbow. But aluminum does not behave that way. (not including its nano form.)
> 
> Aluminum CANNOT mix with organics. Hydrocarbons in plastic are ORGANICS, wood is ORGANIC. They cannot mix. It is chemically impossible. Even the NIST statement said it would the organics would appear orange, but that flow was not silver and orange, meaning either fusion(impossible) or steel/iron.



In a melted form aluminum can mix with any number of metals which could have been found in the buildings or planes.



kokodeshide said:


> I'm still waiting for you to understand that I don't care why because it still fell. It falling and why someone would want it to fall are separate things.



So basically your argument is "SOMETHING HAPPENED!!!!!!!".  Unless you can give a reason why then your point means absolutely nothing.

You NEED a reason WHY.  You HAVE to have one otherwise you aren't making any point.  But that seems to be what you enjoy doing, NOT making points.

I guess your right though, it was the might magical conspiracy that brought it down...just because...no reason...just because they were having fun taking down buildings that day.



kokodeshide said:


> It would only buckle if it could not support the FULL weight. But it doesn't have to SUPPORT the full weight to RESIST the full weight. You have no idea about anything you are talking about do you? Free fall is impossible if the building resisted in any way, which it scientifically had too.



That really depends on the kind of damage it took.  The supports could have taken very severe damage 



kokodeshide said:


> Cool stuff, but building 7 sustained MINOR damage. and none of the main support pillars where hit in any way. Try harder.



Oh really?  You know the exact amount of damage internal structures took?  How exactly did you come by that knowledge?


----------



## NarutoxKakashi (Oct 23, 2012)

I'm just curious, do you all believe the NIST report? I found this video interesting:

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ux7CqY9YTXQ[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## kokodeshide (Oct 23, 2012)

Tsukiyomi said:


> In a melted form aluminum can mix with any number of metals which could have been found in the buildings or planes.


 This comment fucked you. the only other metals that would have a point to be in the tower or the planes would be copper and nickle. BOTH have a higher melting point than the max temperature of jet fire. You lose again.....wait...did you say something different happened than the official report? CONSPIRACY!!!!! You are a tin hat wearing lunatic!!!



> So basically your argument is "SOMETHING HAPPENED!!!!!!!".  Unless you can give a reason why then your point means absolutely nothing.
> 
> You NEED a reason WHY.  You HAVE to have one otherwise you aren't making any point.  But that seems to be what you enjoy doing, NOT making points.
> 
> I guess your right though, it was the might magical conspiracy that brought it down...just because...no reason...just because they were having fun taking down buildings that day.


 This proves why you are totally incompetent. I had hope for you but you lost all reason.
Why it happened and what happened are different things. Do you really not understand this? I can pull out 100 reasons that NO ONE can prove. It's pointless. So I'm disputing the findings of the NIST release. NIST didn't explain why such and such attacked, are they not making a point?



> That really depends on the kind of damage it took.  The supports could have taken very severe damage


The supports would have been pulverized to dust and it still stood for it to free fall hours later.
Let's try to make this simple (nerdy). If I have 3 shields with a resistance of 10 and you have a force of 20 and you attack me you negate 10 points of force and break through but im still resisting which would slow you down. you can only pierce through at max speed with 0 resistance.



> Oh really?  You know the exact amount of damage internal structures took?  How exactly did you come by that knowledge?


 the building was designed to take waaaaay more. Plus, look at it. it wasn't gutted or anything. It looked just fine.
also i believe in the NIST report they say it was minor damage as well.
Regardless of that, its still not enough to make it free fall.


----------



## drache (Oct 23, 2012)

kokodeshide said:


> I see why you didn't try to debate what I was saying, you have no idea what you are talking about. This is sad. Water refracts light. That is well known. What you showed was a common phenomenon, like a fucking rainbow. But aluminum does not behave that way. (not including its nano form.)
> 
> Aluminum CANNOT mix with organics. Hydrocarbons in plastic are ORGANICS, wood is ORGANIC. They cannot mix. It is chemically impossible. Even the NIST statement said it would the organics would appear orange, but that flow was not silver and orange, meaning either fusion(impossible) or steel/iron.




Please stop making up chemistry, I really am not in the mood for it after the idoicy of the other thread.

There are a number of alumiunum-organic substances used all the time they are also incredibly dangerous


----------



## King Diablo (Oct 23, 2012)

Inuhanyou said:


> I just want to ask nutjobs like this one thing. If your so certain of your hypothesis, sit down in front of an eyewitness to the 9/11 attacks in New York City. And i want you tell them that the planes they saw run into those buildings are a figment of their imagination. That they didn't see any planes crash into those towers.
> 
> And i want you to sit down in front of a Family, who has lost their mother, daughter, son, father, uncle or niece, or nephew, and tell them that they never existed, and their flights were never hijacked. To tell each of these groups that they are liars, and are puppets of the state covering up "evidence of premeditated bombing".
> 
> ...


Agreed.


----------



## kokodeshide (Oct 23, 2012)

drache said:


> Please stop making up chemistry, I really am not in the mood for it after the idoicy of the other thread.
> 
> There are a number of alumiunum-organic substances used all the time they are also incredibly dangerous


None of the organics at the site could have mixed with aluminum. Especially not at that temperature and flowed like it did. Good job making sense.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Oct 23, 2012)

Here's a youtube video of some guy cutting steel with an acetylene torch:


----------



## Linkdarkside (Oct 23, 2012)

there nothing i hate more than these conspiracy theorists.


----------



## Ennoea (Oct 23, 2012)

It's all a Jewish conspiracy.


----------



## kokodeshide (Oct 24, 2012)

EvilMoogle said:


> Here's a youtube video of some guy cutting steel with an acetylene torch:


----------



## Descent of the Lion (Oct 24, 2012)

Linkdarkside said:


> there nothing i hate more than these conspiracy theorists.



I kno write. Dez lika against realitzes an sutch.



People may believe what they want. In fact, the idea of people caring so much is suspect.

I put nothing past anyone. Our ignorance as people that get a majority of our "news" from the corporate controlled media means we have no credible information on such matters. Some people can't accept that single line of public intelligence. 

All I know that the government is both capable and not immune to such actions.

Operation Northwoods is proof of that.


----------



## Orochibuto (Oct 24, 2012)

Tsukiyomi said:


> Unless you agree with the official story on EVERYTHING, its still a conspiracy theory.  You're still saying the government is lying to distort the truth.



Fucking shit I didnt knew that :amazed, then count me as a conspiracy theorist then too, I mean of course I think it was an attack by the lunatics and all that, but if I have to agree with EVERYTHING literally of what the government said holding zero doubt whatsoever on any part to not be considered a theorist then I guess it would make me one.


----------



## On and On (Oct 24, 2012)

So unless you believe the official story verbatim (or official "narrative" as some people like to say) you're a conspiracy theorist and a crazy?

 I guess I'll be that


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Oct 24, 2012)

Orochibuto said:


> Fucking shit I didnt knew that :amazed, then count me as a conspiracy theorist then too, I mean of course I think it was an attack by the lunatics and all that, but if I have to agree with EVERYTHING literally of what the government said holding zero doubt whatsoever on any part to not be considered a theorist then I guess it would make me one.



A conspiracy theory doesn't have to be vast.  Whatever part of the official story you disagree with however big or small, you are endorsing a theory about a conspiracy to cover that up.



On and On said:


> So unless you believe the official story verbatim (or official "narrative" as some people like to say) you're a conspiracy theorist and a crazy?
> 
> I guess I'll be that



When did I say you were "a crazy"?  Show me EXACTLY where I said that.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Oct 24, 2012)

They should just close this thread down before all the crazy causes a black hole that pulls in the whole Cafe.


----------



## On and On (Oct 24, 2012)

Tsukiyomi said:


> When did I say you were "a crazy"?  Show me EXACTLY where I said that.



You didn't, but that's the way people have been socialized to think about conspiracy "theorists"

Touche.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Oct 24, 2012)

Well saying that you don't support the 'official story', basically assumes that you think the government is trying to cover something up, hence conspiracy. Its the same thing.

In that case, what are they hiding in your opinions that would be so damaging as to cover it up that we don't already know about?


----------



## On and On (Oct 24, 2012)

Inuhanyou said:


> Well saying that you don't support the 'official story', basically assumes that you think the government is trying to cover something up, hence conspiracy. Its the same thing.
> 
> In that case, what are they hiding in your opinions that would be so damaging as to cover it up that we don't already know about?



How deeply some politicians and people high on the intelligence food-chain (who we didn't already know about) were involved in knowing it was going to happen and subsequently allowing it, who and what companies, institutions and individuals said politicians and/or figures in the political arena are explicitly linked to (perhaps) and how beneficial it was for them to ignore such things, the fact that it may or may not have been the _sole_ factor in passing surveillance acts and engaging in two wars (conflicts?) and _allowed_ to happen to push the military agenda and subsequently help to land our country in the position we're in meow, and who knows whatever else 

I've already made my peace with the entire situation for the record.


----------



## Ra (Oct 24, 2012)

This thread was a painful read, so much slandering to the point it's fucking ridiculous.

My personal belief is the fact small fires do not cause a building to collapse in a demolition fashion and if you want to call me a nutjob/crazy and slander me for believing this, you're a fucking idiot. (I hope this last phrase was pretty strong in your mind, I seriously hope so)

Good day.


----------



## Revolution (Oct 24, 2012)

I'm amazed at how many posts this thread is getting.  Almost half as much as the U.S. Presidential thread.


----------



## Revolution (Oct 24, 2012)

The mods are asleep.  Or what is their motivation? 

I mean, how many people actually believe that the US govnt. which is filled with morons can get something like "9-11 conspiricy" so finely perfect?


----------



## Orochibuto (Oct 24, 2012)

Inuhanyou said:


> Well saying that you don't support the 'official story', basically assumes that you think the government is trying to cover something up, hence conspiracy. Its the same thing.
> 
> In that case, what are they hiding in your opinions that would be so damaging as to cover it up that we don't already know about?



Not saying I dont, but however thats different from saying I believe in 
EVERYTHING and have no doubt about it in my mind whatsoever is another thing, if something as narrow as not having absolute belief about everything in the government explanation is going to label me as a conspiracy (which will automatically admit it or not on some people will put the crazy label) theorist then well, guess I am one


----------



## drache (Oct 24, 2012)

kokodeshide said:


> None of the organics at the site could have mixed with aluminum. Especially not at that temperature and flowed like it did. Good job making sense.



I am not saying they were or were not formed then just the aluminium DOES form organic complexes


----------



## kokodeshide (Oct 24, 2012)

drache said:


> I am not saying they were or were not formed then just the aluminium DOES form organic complexes



Which really wasn't relevant in the long run. But thanks for the input anyway.


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Oct 24, 2012)

kokodeshide said:


> No resistance from the structure. It would all have to simultaneously fail for there to be no resistance from the steel. Even if the steel was at 20 percent load strength ,which at jet fuel fires max temp is like 50 percent strength so im giving you some room here, it would have slowed the fall considerably. It would be nowhere near free fall speeds.
> 
> Any sources for the underground fire heat? I mean, its steel and concrete and office materiel, none of that could get that hot especially when the flames would be oxygen deprived.



The 1000C figure was in reference to a coal seam fire.  Not exactly a pile of cement office material, dead bodies, and papers, but if you gave it a couple million years it might approximate one.

You don't know that underground fires would be oxygen deprived, mostly because we don't know exactly how the debris stacked.   Slowing down the oxygen supply slows the burn, handily explaining why the stuff at the WTC was hot weeks later.  See also:  Charcoal burning.

I did some nosing around after you pulled out the "molten aluminum is silver" card.  Pure aluminum melts at 660C, however some alloys melt at 463C.  *2024 aluminum alloy, commonly used in aircraft construction, melts at 500C.  7075 has a similarly lower melting point.*  They get liquid faster.

At 600C molten pure aluminum begins to glow but you wouldn't see it in daylight.  600C is also the temperature at which structural steel loses half its strength.  A bog standard house fire can hit 600C in minutes, no jet fuel necessary.

Turns out that office fires, in standardized fire testing, are known to get up into the 800C range.  Heck, recognized fire testing standards for structural materials(ASTM E119) assume that your average fire will reach about 1000C.  That's more than enough to slag the aluminum, and make it glow in broad daylight.

Why do the mods leave stuff like this open?  Probably because it's fun to watch the conspiracy theories fail


----------



## AfterGlow (Oct 24, 2012)

The Space Cowboy said:


> Why do the mods leave stuff like this open?  Probably because it's fun to watch the conspiracy theories fail



In case you haven't noticed, the Cafe is more or less in a state of anarchy with no rules being enforced.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Oct 24, 2012)

kokodeshide said:


> You know that makes zero sense, right? You can't just look at it like that, there are other factors. I can have 100 billion pounds of pork fat. All that energy would melt a lot of steel based off total energy but its flame when burnt cannot reach that heat. Energy output for things is different. That's what you are not understanding.


What I'm understanding is you think there's a "temperature a flame burns at."

There isn't.

Burning materials simply radiates energy at a certain rate.  The question is how quickly that energy transfers into materials around it (specific heat / heat of fusion) vs. how quickly that energy is radiating out from the item being headed (which will vary based on insulation).

If you took a block of steel, oxygen, and your hypothetical billion pounds of pork fat and put them in a perfectly insulated container the flame would indeed melt the steel.  Eventually.

So let's look at the situation.  10000lbs of burning jet fuel crash into the side of the building lighting the offices on fire.  The steel is quickly heated to the point where it is weakened and can no longer support the thousands of tons of building on top of it and it crumples.

Then you have 30 floors of burning office that crash into the floors below, far above the stresses the building was designed to tolerate so they fall as well (thus extending the cycle).

Ultimately you have a giant pile of rubble with fires and smoldering wreckage buried somewhere within (you'll remember they were still fighting fires there for a very long time after the buildings fell).

Tons and tons of wreckage provide very substantial insulation from the outside world, so the burning and smoldering ruins have ample time to transfer heat into the steel.


----------



## jetwaterluffy1 (Oct 24, 2012)

The Space Cowboy said:


> The 1000C figure was in reference to a coal seam fire.  Not exactly a pile of cement office material, dead bodies, and papers, but if you gave it a couple million years it might approximate one.
> 
> You don't know that underground fires would be oxygen deprived, mostly because we don't know exactly how the debris stacked.   Slowing down the oxygen supply slows the burn, handily explaining why the stuff at the WTC was hot weeks later.  See also:  Charcoal burning.
> 
> ...


Yeah, and anyone who has built a fire before knows you can melt aluminium cans in it. I've done it myself, several times.


----------



## Descent of the Lion (Oct 24, 2012)

Sarahmint said:


> The mods are asleep.  Or what is their motivation?
> 
> I mean, how many people actually believe that the US govnt. which is filled with morons can get something like "9-11 conspiricy" so finely perfect?



You do realize that the government has entire institutions dedicated to secrets. If they couldn't keep anything secret America wouldn't be as successful as it is. Just because some dude having an affair with his assistant gets out every once in a while doesn't mean the government is transparent. Then there's the amount of control they have in media. If a secret gets out, call it crazy and create dissent, and then the uninformed masses will argue for you on internet forums. Then there is disinformation. 

These are basic tactics of the Game.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Oct 24, 2012)

_EvilMoogle sighs and realizes this thread will never end.

EvilMoogle 180's his position.

_Okay, I admit it.  There is a massive conspiracy and coverup involving the world trade center.  I know because I was part of it.

But it's not the coverup that you think.  The truth _isn't_ that the government demolished the WTC on 9/11 as an excuse to wage war in the Middle East.  That was just a convenient side effect.

The truth is the WTC never existed.

I'll let you absorb that a moment, while you do let's flashback to the early 70's.  It was the height of the cold war, we were still dealing with our struggles in Vietnam, pressures between us and Russia/China had never been higher.  And we needed a win.

So a plan was put together.  Let's build the largest testament to American capitalism in the world.  Two giant towers to dwarf the already impressive skyline of New York and show the world how great America and Capitalism could be!

But the problem is that would cost a lot of money.  And we have a war going on, paying for two giant skyscrapers just isn't feasible right now.  And so the conspiracy was launched.

Over a couple of years (the "construction" of the towers) an elaborate ploy was created involving the Federal government (as well as New York and other regional state governments), the media, the citizens of New York and New Jersey, and tourists both from the US and from our allies to convince the world that we actually had two giant skyscrapers.

And to be quite honest the Russians bought it hook, line, and sinker.  They couldn't believe that such a structure could be constructed and paid for only by "profit" from transactions (which, in fairness to them it wasn't!) and they redlined themselves trying to match the perceived outputs.  One might argue that this step above all others enabled Regan to finally put an end to them in the 80's.

But then that's when the problems started.  Sure Russia was busy for a good decade trying to keep hold on their rapidly shattering nation and that bought us some time.  But the cold war was over and eventually tourists would start coming from these former enemy nations.

We couldn't simply admit that it was all a ploy, our pride wouldn't let us.

And so eventually it came to the newly elected President Bush to make the call he had to.  He would allow his presidency to be marred by the perception that terrorists succeeded in the largest strike in history and arranged with the media to put the pieces into place.  The "terrorists" "struck" the "towers" and soon the problem was solved.

The glitches with the CGI that kokodeshide points out are simply because engineering input and research was overridden by directors looking for emotional appeal.

So that's the truth, there never were any towers.  Anyone that visited New York prior to 9/11 can tell you this is true, it's just a sense of common patriotism that required us to lie for so many years.

And to be honest, it feels good to get it off my chest.  Even though I'm sure I won't be believed, a swarm of government-paid enforcers will probably descend upon this thread shortly to tell stories of how they've visited the towers and how I'm some sort of insane loser.  

None of them will be able to provide proof though, just altered photographs created to reinforce the illusion.  Maybe a random chunk of concrete that's "authentic WTC rubble."  But no real evidence.  And nothing that can dispute my claims.

But you will know the truth.


----------



## Blue (Oct 24, 2012)

The Space Cowboy said:


> Why do the mods leave stuff like this open?  Probably because it's fun to watch the conspiracy theories fail


Space Cowboy, from fucking nowhere!

My (and Mega's, and presumably Moogle's as well) opinion is we're not the opinion police.
Blatantly offensive ideas can be shuttered.

Stupid ideas should be critically examined and stand the test of debate.

'Course, this stupid idea failed during the Bush Administration, but consider it an intellectual exercise?



> The truth is the WTC never existed.


This is honestly a better theory than "the government did it".


----------



## Sanity Check (Oct 24, 2012)

EvilMoogle said:


> Sigh.
> 
> Go get a paperclip.  I'll wait.
> 
> ...




[YOUTUBE]f2I3vRbxMWo[/YOUTUBE]

ABC - Molten steel dripping from South WTC Tower _*before*_ collapse


----------



## Descent of the Lion (Oct 24, 2012)

Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> This is honestly a better theory than "the government did it".





No no. Houdini coming back from the grave to get vengeance on the reincarnated soul of that guy that punched him in the stomach is more believable than a clandestine operation. 


No no. Annunaki having a secret war with blond Nordics of the planet Nebulon 15 makes more sense than a governmental false flag.


The US government isn't capable of such things. Secrecy, planning, political maneuvering. Heck, getting basic arithmetic out of those retards is like pulling teeth. From the people that run our country I mean. The people that we elect, with the understanding that they are a benign group of well meaning retards, can't even form a proper thought.

They surely aren't smart enough to found agencies, start businesses, evade taxes, and organize off shore attacks on highly secured targets. Something that advanced needs to be planned in a cave and supervised by a council of shepherds. This is known.

But a bunch of guys with PHDs from Harvard pulling the wool over the eyes of millions people that don't know where Alaska is?


Can't be done.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Oct 24, 2012)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> ABC - Molten steel dripping from South WTC Tower _*before*_ collapse



As I mentioned above, CGI error.  The intern working the secret-conspiracy-video-editing desk accidentally pushed the "molten steel" button instead of the "smoke and rubble."

In the zest to provide more footage his boss waved it through before it went through the proper engineering review.  And by that point they were committed.


----------



## kokodeshide (Oct 24, 2012)

The Space Cowboy said:


> The 1000C figure was in reference to a coal seam fire.  Not exactly a pile of cement office material, dead bodies, and papers, but if you gave it a couple million years it might approximate one.
> 
> You don't know that underground fires would be oxygen deprived, mostly because we don't know exactly how the debris stacked.   Slowing down the oxygen supply slows the burn, handily explaining why the stuff at the WTC was hot weeks later.  See also:  Charcoal burning.
> 
> ...


 Molten silver will not look like molten steel at the condition of the world trade center. It also doesn't explain the steel beam dripping with molten steel and the construction crew finding cast iron blocks in the wreckage. Cast iron is formed when the carbon from steel is removed when molten.

Also, black smoke means oxygen deprived. Black smoke err'where during the event. meaning the wtc didn't even get super hot. I believe nist said something like 750 degrees.



EvilMoogle said:


> What I'm understanding is you think there's a "temperature a flame burns at."
> 
> There isn't.
> 
> ...


 Do you not understand transfer of energy? Or anything scientific? There is no such thing as perfect insulation. That means there would be no flow of electrons through the substance.

The steel would radiate the heat faster than it absorbs it before it gets to the temperature hot enough to melt it.

You could literally put a constantly burning flame underneath a steel block and and heat it up for, lets say 1 billion years. As long as the max temperature of that the flame is lower than the melting point of the steel. It will never melt.  Object don't just absorb heat and never let it go, if you truly think that you have zero scientific knowledge on the subject.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Oct 24, 2012)

kokodeshide said:


> Do you not understand transfer of energy? Or anything scientific? There is no such thing as perfect insulation. That means there would be no flow of electrons through the substance.
> 
> The steel would radiate the heat faster than it absorbs it before it gets to the temperature hot enough to melt it.
> 
> You could literally put a constantly burning flame underneath a steel block and and heat it up for, lets say 1 billion years. As long as the max temperature of that the flame is lower than the melting point of the steel. It will never melt.  Object don't just absorb heat and never let it go, if you truly think that you have zero scientific knowledge on the subject.



Steel doesn't have to melt, that's what everyone is trying to tell you. When you heat up any metal you're slowly weakening it. The steel is expected to be so strong because it's holding a fucking building up, when any of it becomes too weak, it would start to topple. 

Space Cowboy and Evil Moogle are basically showing you irrefutable evidence and each time you find some hackneyed bullshit to make it seem like you've really got a leg to stand on here.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Oct 24, 2012)

kokodeshide said:


> Do you not understand transfer of energy? Or anything scientific?


Better than you do apparently.



kokodeshide said:


> There is no such thing as perfect insulation. That means there would be no flow of electrons through the substance.


Heating a substance has nothing to do with the flow of electrons through it.  It has to do with the transfer of energy and the excited-ness of the molecules.

Insulation in this context retards the process of heat transfer, the amount varies by the situation and type of insulation.



kokodeshide said:


> The steel would radiate the heat faster than it absorbs it before it gets to the temperature hot enough to melt it.


Actually that's unlikely to be the case.   As I showed in my video above a blowtorch can melt steel rapidly with a heat transfer rate of only slightly (about 15%) faster heat transfer.

But even ignoring that, concrete is a pretty good insulator.  A good chunk of the building was essentially held in the fire while wrapped up in a nice blanket of concrete.



kokodeshide said:


> You could literally put a constantly burning flame underneath a steel block and and heat it up for, lets say 1 billion years. As long as the max temperature of that the flame is lower than the melting point of the steel. It will never melt.  Object don't just absorb heat and never let it go, if you truly think that you have zero scientific knowledge on the subject.



Again, there is no "max temperature of the flame."  You incorrectly understand thermodynamics.

The question is the rate at which the substance you are heating radiates out energy vs. the rate at which the flame transfers heat into the substance.

There is a maximum to this equation (as the hotter a substance gets the more rapidly it radiates out energy so there's decreasing return) but without precise details of the environment there's no general statement that says "you can't melt X with a flame strength Y".

Again for your reference:
Acetylene: 49.9 MJ/kg - Melts steel-in-air rapidly (within seconds)
Jet Fuel: "Typically" between 43.2MJ/kg and 44.65MG/kg

Your saying that slight difference means "will never ever under any circumstance melt steel" is a rather bold claim and makes a LOT of assumptions about the environment.


----------



## corsair (Oct 24, 2012)

I am still waiting for an answer why you would fly a plane into the towers AND plant something else to melt the steel if you could have just faked something that would destroy the towers for sure like a bombing? You know, like the thing that once already happened in the WTC 1993. What kind of moron would plan it like that?


----------



## Sanity Check (Oct 24, 2012)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> *Space Cowboy and Evil Moogle are basically showing you irrefutable evidence*





Funniest thing I've read in awhile, thx.

Just admit it.

You're in denial about the government being capable of wrongdoing as much as any religious fanatic might be in denial about their deity committing evil.

You want to elevate the government to a level above criticism & label anyone who suggests governments are capable of evil a -conspiracy theorist- in _exactly_ the same way the church was elevated above criticism and those who disagreed with the concept of the pope being the mouthpiece of god were labeled -heretics- and marginalized.

All because people are weak and insecure and have to be fanatical fanboys who pretend their deity/government is entirely benevolent & crucify whatever minority disagrees.

Grow some balls & learn to deal with reality or get out of the way & stop hindering those who are better than you.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Oct 24, 2012)

corsair said:


> I am still waiting for an answer why you would fly a plane into the towers AND plant something else to melt the steel if you could have just faked something that would destroy the towers for sure like a bombing? You know, like the thing that once already happened in the WTC 1993. What kind of moron would plan it like that?



Because this is way waaaay more complicated.  Why just destroy the buildings when you can fake destroying them another way?


----------



## kokodeshide (Oct 24, 2012)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Steel doesn't have to melt, that's what everyone is trying to tell you. When you heat up any metal you're slowly weakening it. The steel is expected to be so strong because it's holding a fucking building up, when any of it becomes too weak, it would start to topple.
> 
> Space Cowboy and Evil Moogle are basically showing you irrefutable evidence and each time you find some hackneyed bullshit to make it seem like you've really got a leg to stand on here.


You must be new to this thread because I have never, ever, ever once stated that the steel had to be molten for the building to collapse. So read what I said then come back to me.



EvilMoogle said:


> Better than you do apparently.
> 
> 
> Heating a substance has nothing to do with the flow of electrons through it.  It has to do with the transfer of energy and the excited-ness of the molecules.
> ...


It is almost laughable how wrong you are about this. An OxyAcetylene reaction burns are over 6000 degrees F, a quick release of massive amounts of energy. Acetylene itself isnt doing the job alone. By itself with normal air it burns almost 2000 degrees less. You are not understanding the rate that the chemicals can release there heat. At all. OxyAcetylene is a high energy release that happens quickly, jet fuel burns slower but has a similar total energy capacity. It will not burn anywhere near as hot either due to the low oxygen in the building evident by the black smoke. The figures you are providing are total energy it releases, but not how fast it releases that energy.

Just because your total energy expenditure is similar doesn't mean it can do the same things.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Oct 24, 2012)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> You're in denial about the government being capable of wrongdoing as much as any religious fanatic might be in denial about their deity committing evil.



Nobody has suggested the government is "incapable of wrongdoing."  The question is are they capable of wrongdoing _without getting caught_.  And that is where most conspiracies fail.

I don't think the government is competent enough to pull off an operation on the scale of 9/11 without the secret getting out somewhere.  Let's look at an example.  We'll assume:

1) The building was prepped with explosives to ensure the building comes down (either because it's impossible for the planes/jet fuel to do it or simply to ensure a level of control as to _how_ they come down).

- AND -

2a) Special Ops teams (either from the military or the FBI/CIA/NSA/black-shadow-unamed-TLA) hijack the planes and crash them under the illusion of terrorists doing it.

- OR -

2b) Terrorist cells were infiltrated by intelligence and given the plan to hijack at least 2 planes in a very specific time window and crash them into the towers.

In order for "1" to happen you need a few things.  You need to have a review done as to how to demolish the building (if you're using explosives to demolish the building in a semi-controlled manner you want to make sure it actually works lest you leave evidence behind).  No one has ever done this on a building the size of the WTC so you'll need a team of engineers and architects to study the plans and tell you how to do it (and probably a second team to look at the first teams plan and tell you how you can change it to make it look like an accident).

And you need to make sure none of those people mention how odd it is that someone approached them asking how to demolish the WTC.

After that you need a team to plant the explosives throughout the building.  They'll need to work covertly and need access all over the building (and bare in mind the WTC was never empty, there's always people there watching).  You'll probably need people to take over security to make sure nobody is watching the cameras to report it.

And you'll need to give orders to these teams and manage these teams (and pay these teams) all without leaving a notable paper trail to follow to find out the plans.

In order to do "2a" you would need at least 2 teams of soldiers that are willing to perform a suicide attack against an American civilian target.  Without mentioning to their friends and loved ones what they're doing.

You'll also need to explain where these soldiers went when their friends/loved ones start asking.

Additionally you'll be working with the military chain of command, and you can be damn sure that the team's CO and the CO's CO and generals, etc are going to want some guarantee that they won't be implicated in this obviously-illegal scheme.  Which means paper which means evidence.

If you opt for "2b" instead you need to have intelligence deeply planted within a terrorist cell to the point where they can essentially issue orders.  Which uses a lot of intelligence resources so you can guess the CIA/FBI/etc will have some trail of information about them.

Oh, and after 9/11 you're going to have the CIA/FBI/etc have to answer a lot of questions about "why weren't these people being watched."  So you'll have to make sure that no one in the chain of intelligence surrounding this operation caves and says "we were given orders to ignore them."

One more thing, you'll also have to make sure that competing other intelligence agencies to whichever one "owns" the op don't find out about it and ask uncomfortable questions.

With either option for "2" you'll also need logistical planning to make sure things happen on roughly the right timeline.  These people and whatever teams were involved above will also need paid and have appropriate resources allocated to them, which leaves a paper trail.

So all-in-all you're going to have roughly 100 people that know the specific details about the plan and between 100-500 people that know something unusual is going on.  And you need all of these people to remain silent about the operation.

NOT ONE can decide to leverage this for personal or political gain.  Of these 200-600 government employees and politicians.

Does that sound like the US government to you?


----------



## Chelydra (Oct 24, 2012)

Reposting 




> I can't see how people can think the government pulled off 9/11 it requires 1000s of people to keep their involvment an absolute secret, and we all have seen thats impossible, after all if the government was so competient the prisoner abuse at abu greib would have never made the public  And that invoved what maybe 10 people at most? Plus whom ever tried to cover it up....


----------



## EvilMoogle (Oct 24, 2012)

kokodeshide said:


> It is almost laughable how wrong you are about this. An OxyAcetylene reaction burns are over 6000 degrees F



Calls me wrong, still thinks fires burn at specific temperatures.  

Again, for the last time, no fire "burns at" any temperature.  There's an ignition temperature to get it to light but that's not necessarily a sustained temperature of the fire (it could be higher or lower depending on the reactions involved).  Once it's lit it's simply an energy transfer rate.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Oct 24, 2012)

kokodeshide said:


> You must be new to this thread because I have never, ever, ever once stated that the steel had to be molten for the building to collapse. So read what I said then come back to me.



You said melt in your post just like I did, the same post I quoted you saying it in! We're not going to play this, I'm not the American people...I can remember more than the last six hours! 



1mmortal 1tachi said:


> Funniest thing I've read in awhile, thx.
> 
> Just admit it.
> 
> ...



Like the government would ever do any wrong. I mean I wouldn't expect them to False Flag Mexico, or fight Iraq over weapons that aren't there, or go to war with a South East Asian country for practically no reason, or even enslave a race of people after committing genocide on another to get their lad.  

Clearly America is infallible and you can't change my views on that. 

Truth of the matter is you're just a bit crazy. You're trying to assign some secret agenda to something where there is none either because you want to feel special or because YOU can't believe that some people who haven't learned the value of shaving and think that they'll be greeted by a pack of spontaneous created virgins when they die managed to change the entire way a generation of Americans felt about their safety at home. 

On a more serious note. Jim Crow, slavery, segregation, the ignoring of lynching and killing and the institutionalized racism that continues to this day in places like Florida...don't you ever tell a black person that they just don't believe the government can do any wrong. You say some shit that stupid on these forums again and I will shred your "logic" up into pieces so small that no one will be able to find the point you were making.


----------



## Jello Biafra (Oct 24, 2012)

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwZ-vIaW6Bc[/YOUTUBE]

Noam Chomsky, a man who is no friend to the establishment, thinks it's bullshit for very good reasons. Nothing about the truther conspiracy makes any goddamn sense. 

It's way too risky, for far too little benefit. And if the government couldn't keep a break in of an election office secret, I doubt they'd feel safe trying to kill thousands of Americans and destroy a huge building. 

That little break in resulted in a scandal that brought down a president. What do you think would happen if there was any real evidence to support a conspiracy?


----------



## kokodeshide (Oct 24, 2012)

EvilMoogle said:


> Calls me wrong, still thinks fires burn at specific temperatures.
> 
> Again, for the last time, no fire "burns at" any temperature.  There's an ignition temperature to get it to light but that's not necessarily a sustained temperature of the fire (it could be higher or lower depending on the reactions involved).  Once it's lit it's simply an energy transfer rate.


 No fire burns at any specific temperature constantly but all fuels have upper limits. The upper limit for jet fuel done by scientists far more qualified than you or I is not high enough to melt steel. Unless they are wrong too.

And what does the ignition temperature have to do with the actual temperature of the reaction? It just starts the process.

And the energy transfer rate of acetylene (a gas) is MUCH higher than the rate of jet fuel (a liquid). which is the exact reason why wood, jet fuel or fucking taco bell can not melt steel no matter how much of it you have.

One block of A matter when burnt equals 1000 degrees, 2 blocks of it won't equal 2000 degrees. It will just heat more thing too 1000 degrees and faster.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Oct 24, 2012)




----------



## kokodeshide (Oct 24, 2012)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> You said melt in your post just like I did, the same post I quoted you saying it in! We're not going to play this, I'm not the American people...I can remember more than the last six hours.


 But I didn't say it needed to be molten for the building to collapse, we were talking about why the steel was molten, not why the building collapsed. Read the thread.


----------



## Jello Biafra (Oct 24, 2012)

kokodeshide said:


> No fire burns at any specific temperature constantly but all fuels have upper limits. The upper limit for jet fuel done by scientists far more qualified than you or I is not high enough to melt steel. Unless they are wrong too.
> 
> And what does the ignition temperature have to do with the actual temperature of the reaction? It just starts the process.
> 
> ...



The fire doesn't have to melt it. At 600 degrees C, a common temperature for burning jet fuel, steel loses well over half it's strength. And as numerous reports on the collapse of the towers has shown, the weakened steel supports in the center of the buildings started to bend and buckle, before finally giving out, starting a cascading collapse, where each collapsing floor falls on, and collapses the next floor.


----------



## corsair (Oct 24, 2012)

Tsukiyomi said:


> Clearly Chomsky has been replaced by an imposter loyal to the conspiracy, its obvious



The truth is that Chomsky never existed and was always an actor from Kenia


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Oct 24, 2012)

kokodeshide said:


> But I didn't say it needed to be molten for the building to collapse, we were talking about why the steel was molten, not why the building collapsed. Read the thread.



Who cares? You find an anomaly in something that happens so that means you build a whole fictional universe where George Bush is going to pull off a grand conspiracy when he couldn't even lie about weapons that weren't there and have the decency to hide some and go "Look!"


----------



## Jello Biafra (Oct 24, 2012)

kokodeshide said:


> But I didn't say it needed to be molten for the building to collapse, we were talking about why the steel was molten, not why the building collapsed. Read the thread.



As someone else pointed out, take a paper clip and start bending it back and forth. See how hot the joint gets? 

Now imagine it's a hundred thousand tons of building coming down on a girder that's already red hot from burning jet fuel. The frictional stress from bending so fast would very easily lead to melting.


----------



## Mael (Oct 24, 2012)

Jello Biafra said:


> As someone else pointed out, take a paper clip and start bending it back and forth. See how hot the joint gets?
> 
> Now imagine it's a hundred thousand tons of building coming down on a girder that's already red hot from burning jet fuel. The frictional stress from bending so fast would very easily lead to melting.



Clearly you lack the mentat abilities to see the unseen and see the srs bzns government false flag plot.

There's a time when it's proper to question things, but then there's a time people come off as fucking fringes for simply not accepting the fact that security is imperfect and tragedies happen.  It's like this is all Game of Thrones for fuck's sake.


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Oct 24, 2012)

> Molten silver will not look like molten steel at the condition of the world trade center. It also doesn't explain the steel beam dripping with molten steel and the construction crew finding cast iron blocks in the wreckage. Cast iron is formed when the carbon from steel is removed when molten.
> 
> Also, black smoke means oxygen deprived. Black smoke err'where during the event. meaning the wtc didn't even get super hot. I believe nist said something like 750 degrees.



I wasn't talking about molten silver.  *I was talking about molten aluminum*.  Aircraft aluminum specifically, the sort Boeing jets are made of.  Black smoke just means some of the fuel was incompletely burned--it doesn't tell you about the temperature of the fires unless you know exactly what mix of fuels is burning.

If you look at video stills of the dripping stuff as it falls lower, it turns silver and shiny--just like aluminum.  

NIST did a series of studies where they set cubicles on fire.  They then sprayed them with jet fuel, and set them on fire again.  Ceiling temperatures hit 700 degrees C easily.

So rigorous observational science about the behavior of a complex event (Set shit on fire, record results) says that it got hot enough to melt aluminum and make it glow.  There's also the presence of other things in the mix, like glass, or the coals of whatever the molten metal rolled over on its way to the outside to get your dripping.  

Aluminum is actually pretty reactive when it gets hot and alloys readily.  That's why, when they extract it from bauxite, they do so in vacuum chambers.

As for your* cast iron in the wreckage bit*.  Heating steel speeds up Oxidation.  Oxidation is what we call burning.  It is also called rusting.  If iron/steel get hot enough, they will continue to undergo exothermic reactions while exposed to air until they are nothing but puddles of metal.

Don't believe me?  Go get some steel wool and a lighter.  Set the flame to the steel wool briefly.  How is it that the metal continues burning without the presence of an additional fuel?

Oh right.  The metal -is- the fuel.

Summary:  Metallurgy is fun.


----------



## Distance (Oct 24, 2012)

The lay man likes to believe in things that makes him feel more worthy then he actualy is, and in this case it is knowing some big secret that, somehow, nobody else knows or can comprehend. 

These 9/11 films, and many conspiracy theories for that matter, have become money making schemes that are being promoted by the same people that these conspiracy theorists are usually up against, and how they don't notice that is beyond me.


----------



## Descent of the Lion (Oct 24, 2012)

I mean really?

The whole "the government can't be secret" argument is bull. 

How many government operations aren't even known before they are declassified?

How many people knew about Bin laden's "2011 assassination plan?"

If information is impossible to retain then the point of having information is meaningless.

That refutation is probably the dumbest anti-conspiracy argument. Not only does it assume that the entire government has to be complicit, including the mail man, it's an argument that gets kicked in the stuff ever time government does anything covert. ANYTHING.  In fact there's a whole category of intelligence for this exact purpose of protecting intelligence. It called counterintelligence. We've seen how crazy the gment acts when there is a real massive intelligence leak concerning only minor diplomats. Paypal a'nem be all up in it; blockin your knowledgez. 


There are plenty of reasons not to buy some 911 conspiracies. But citing government incompetence as one is incompetent.


----------



## kokodeshide (Oct 24, 2012)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Who cares? You find an anomaly in something that happens so that means you build a whole fictional universe where George Bush is going to pull off a grand conspiracy when he couldn't even lie about weapons that weren't there and have the decency to hide some and go "Look!"


 Look at you, saying I said something I never said and misquoting me. How smart. If you want I can do the same thing. 
You literally just fucked yourself with that comment. You just admitted that I never said what you accused me of saying. I actually don't support any of those theories. I was talking about the science of the fall and the reason for the molten metal the whole time.



Jello Biafra said:


> As someone else pointed out, take a paper clip and start bending it back and forth. See how hot the joint gets?
> 
> Now imagine it's a hundred thousand tons of building coming down on a girder that's already red hot from burning jet fuel. The frictional stress from bending so fast would very easily lead to melting.


 Unscientific post.
 The amount of friction made by bending hot steel is significantly less than when it is cold. Common fucking sense. But lets go by that logic. There wasn't just molten steel but molten iron (2,800? F at least.) which means that it was at least an increase of 1000 ? F due to the max temperature of jet fuel being 1800.  ALL the steel bent and twisted by the collapse would have been blood red due to the friction temperature increase of 1000 degrees. Was it? I think not.


----------



## kingcools (Oct 24, 2012)

kokodeshide said:


> The Tully construction president and crew talked about it, and there are various picture of it.



how did they know it was molten steel? pictures wont help you on it


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Oct 24, 2012)

kokodeshide said:


> Unscientific post.
> The amount of friction made by bending hot steel is significantly less than when it is cold. Common fucking sense. But lets go by that logic. There wasn't just molten steel but molten iron (2,800? F at least.) which means that it was at least an increase of 1000 ? F due to the max temperature of jet fuel being 1800.  ALL the steel bent and twisted by the collapse would have been blood red due to the friction temperature increase of 1000 degrees. Was it? I think not.


Logical question: why would a conspiracy that had to be so thorough to keep all of this from coming out until it came to fruition use a chemical compound or explosive that had a chance to melt steel. They're obviously super villain level geniuses because they got this to come to pass, so they would have planned to not have investigators discover what was going on and taken steps to curb it. 

That's why nothing you say holds water because on one hand you want us to believe that they were able to keep thousands of people silent while the perpetrated one of the worst tragedies in this country's history (and these silent people played along) but on the other hand you want us to believe they're stupid enough to make mistakes that only you and special people like you can catch.


----------



## Jello Biafra (Oct 24, 2012)

kokodeshide said:


> Unscientific post.
> The amount of friction made by bending hot steel is significantly less than when it is cold. Common fucking sense. But lets go by that logic. There wasn't just molten steel but molten iron (2,800? F at least.) which means that it was at least an increase of 1000 ? F due to the max temperature of jet fuel being 1800.  ALL the steel bent and twisted by the collapse would have been blood red due to the friction temperature increase of 1000 degrees. Was it? I think not.



...Complains about unscientific post while still thinking there's a hard maximum temperature to a jet fuel fire, and that it's 1800 Fahrenheit. 

Nothing I said ever implied that there had to be a uniform level of bending or heating through out the structure. Furthermore, as the Space Cowboy pointed out, the molten material that was seen could have only been aluminum, given it's physical properties.

Plus, there's also the fact that steel and aluminum will burn at those temperatures quite readily.


----------



## Mael (Oct 24, 2012)

Jello give it up.  You can't un-fringe the fringers...just let them wallow in their paranoia until they die off.


----------



## kingcools (Oct 24, 2012)

why does kokodeshide pretend he knew about the stuff he posts? he just reposts what other people said about it on conspiracy sites instead of studying all the stuff at a university


----------



## kokodeshide (Oct 24, 2012)

The Space Cowboy said:


> I wasn't talking about molten silver.  *I was talking about molten aluminum*.  Aircraft aluminum specifically, the sort Boeing jets are made of.  Black smoke just means some of the fuel was incompletely burned--it doesn't tell you about the temperature of the fires unless you know exactly what mix of fuels is burning.


 I just was thinking about the color of the aluminium when typing it, i didn't mean to put silver. Didn't even notice that i did until you pointed it out. 



> If you look at video stills of the dripping stuff as it falls lower, it turns silver and shiny--just like aluminum.


 Show me.



> NIST did a series of studies where they set cubicles on fire.  They then sprayed them with jet fuel, and set them on fire again.  Ceiling temperatures hit 700 degrees C easily.


 That only matters if it was aluminium.


> So rigorous observational science about the behavior of a complex event (Set shit on fire, record results) says that it got hot enough to melt aluminum and make it glow.  There's also the presence of other things in the mix, like glass, or the coals of whatever the molten metal rolled over on its way to the outside to get your dripping.
> 
> Aluminum is actually pretty reactive when it gets hot and alloys readily.  That's why, when they extract it from bauxite, they do so in vacuum chambers.


 Best argument for it glowing yet. But even if it was it doesn't explain huge chunks of cast iron.



> As for your* cast iron in the wreckage bit*.  Heating steel speeds up Oxidation.  Oxidation is what we call burning.  It is also called rusting.  If iron/steel get hot enough, they will continue to undergo exothermic reactions while exposed to air until they are nothing but puddles of metal.
> 
> Don't believe me?  Go get some steel wool and a lighter.  Set the flame to the steel wool briefly.  How is it that the metal continues burning without the presence of an additional fuel?
> 
> ...



The steel wool example doesn't make sense because if it was true, heating a tiny piece of steel from a steel bar would cause the whole thing to melt. I hope you don't believe that. There are different mechanics at work with the steel wool, namely it's volume to surface area ration. Its not going to turn the steel BARS into puddle of metal.


----------



## kokodeshide (Oct 24, 2012)

Jello Biafra said:


> ...Complains about unscientific post while still thinking there's a hard maximum temperature to a jet fuel fire, and that it's 1800 Fahrenheit.
> 
> Nothing I said ever implied that there had to be a uniform level of bending or heating through out the structure. Furthermore, as the Space Cowboy pointed out, the molten material that was seen could have only been aluminum, given it's physical properties.
> 
> Plus, there's also the fact that steel and aluminum will burn at those temperatures quite readily.


 The Nist study said a maximum heat of 1800 degrees, which is also the stated maximum heat for jet fuel fires. Also, prove that there higher jet fuel temperature. You must disagree with the NIST study too, but a different part of it if you think it got any hotter.

In the rubble, they pulled out steel beams that were melting. the president of the clean up crew, and the crew said it was steel. Unless they make bars of aluminum for the towers. Plus the cast iron that they found proves that steel was melted.



@kingcools I am studying at a university. Im already well on my way to getting a degree in nanotechnology only 1 year to go. That comes with many different science classes such as materiel science, chemistry and physics.


----------



## jetwaterluffy1 (Oct 24, 2012)

Descent of the Lion said:


> I mean really?
> 
> The whole "the government can't be secret" argument is bull.
> 
> ...


Could he keep it secret from _the next government though?_ Because if Obama heard about this, he'd immediately publicize it, destroying the entire republican party's credibility for the next election and beyond. And I'm pretty sure the CIA aren't meant to keep things secret from the president.


kokodeshide said:


> I just was thinking about the color of the aluminium when typing it, i didn't mean to put silver. Didn't even notice that i did until you pointed it out.
> 
> Show me.
> 
> ...


Pure molten aluminium is silver, but molten aluminium with any sodium impurities whatsoever would glow orange, and it would likely gain some in a room full of smoke. Remember, flames are just glowing soot, and soot can easily get mixed in with molten aluminium when the room is full of it.


----------



## kokodeshide (Oct 24, 2012)

jetwaterluffy1 said:


> Pure molten aluminium is silver, but molten aluminium with any sodium impurities whatsoever would glow orange, and it would likely gain some in a room full of smoke. Remember, flames are just glowing soot, and soot can easily get mixed in with molten aluminium when the room is full of it.



I get that, but the molten steel under the wtc isn't explained by that.


----------



## Descent of the Lion (Oct 24, 2012)

jetwaterluffy1 said:


> Could he keep it secret from _the next government though?_ Because if Obama heard about this, he'd immediately publicize it, destroying the entire republican party's credibility for the next election and beyond. And I'm pretty sure the CIA aren't meant to keep things secret from the president.



Even the president is bound by law and a deep vetting process. 

I assume that, even if 911 wasn't a inside job, the only politicians that are supported are ones that get with the program. They tend to come from the same circles, and know one another even before election and across party lines.  I wouldn't be surprised if there's an assassination protocol if the president gets bold and decides he wants to talk. I mean, being protected, in some ways, makes you more vulnerable.

Do you honestly think that they start from scratch every four years?


----------



## kingcools (Oct 24, 2012)

kokodeshide said:


> I get that, but the molten steel under the wtc isn't explained by that.



was there a laboratory examination of the supposedly molten steel?


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Oct 24, 2012)

Descent of the Lion said:


> Even the president is bound by law and a deep vetting process.



What law specifically would prevent a future President from disclosing that?


----------



## Descent of the Lion (Oct 24, 2012)

Tsukiyomi said:


> What law specifically would prevent a future President from disclosing that?



I didn't say there was a law that did, I said he's bound by law. Meaning he's not going to disclose something that's going to cause a stink and undermine his authority. I mean, why wouldn't any president expose what he didn't agree with? I'm sure there's plenty, conspiracy or no. 


Plus this works on the assumption that the president knows anything about specific subjects.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Oct 24, 2012)

Descent of the Lion said:


> I didn't say there was a law that did, I said he's bound by law. Meaning he's not going to disclose something that's going to cause a stink and undermine his authority.
> 
> Plus this works on the assumption that the president knows anything.



Why would it undermine his authority to disclose something horrible that someone else did?

And as far as access to information goes, the entire scale of security clearance was created BY the President and operates under his authority.  So there is absolutely no information the government has that he can't get access to.


----------



## jetwaterluffy1 (Oct 24, 2012)

Descent of the Lion said:


> I didn't say there was a law that did, I said he's bound by law. Meaning he's not going to disclose something that's going to cause a stink and undermine his authority.


I'm pretty sure if he found something that could potentially _permanently destroy the republican party_, he would release it.


----------



## Descent of the Lion (Oct 24, 2012)

Tsukiyomi said:


> Why would it undermine his authority to disclose something horrible that someone else did?



Because his job isn't to investigate the previous president. Besides, why stop at conspiracies? Why don't Dems and Rep do this type of crap all the time? 



> And as far as access to information goes, the entire scale of security clearance was created BY the President and operates under his authority.  So there is absolutely no information the government has that he can't get access to.



Does your boss know everything you do? Not everything is down to security clearance. Otherwise, why bother briefing anyone?


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Oct 24, 2012)

Descent of the Lion said:


> Because his job isn't to investigate the previous president. Besides, why stop at conspiracies? Why don't Dems and Rep do this type of crap all the time?



They don't do it all the time because most of the time its not worth devoting the time to it.  If the previous President is directly responsible for murdering 3,000 American citizens on American soil I'd think that would be well worth the time.



Descent of the Lion said:


> Does your boss know everything you do? Not everything is down to security clearance. Otherwise, why bother briefing anyone?



No, but my boss knows all the MAJOR things I do.  If 9/11 was a conspiracy it would be the largest conspiracy in the history of mankind.  So the upcoming President would most certainly be aware of it, especially when they had to brief him on security matters on his way in.


----------



## kokodeshide (Oct 24, 2012)

kingcools said:


> was there a laboratory examination of the supposedly molten steel?


 It was identified as cast iron once it solidified.


----------



## Descent of the Lion (Oct 24, 2012)

Tsukiyomi said:


> They don't do it all the time because most of the time its not worth devoting the time to it.  If the previous President is directly responsible for murdering 3,000 American citizens on American soil I'd think that would be well worth the time.



Then that brings up another question. If these theories are as illegitimate as people say, then what type of president would even pursue it? This also assumes that everything is on record in the first place, or was done through proper channels and with proper protocols. 



> No, but my boss knows all the MAJOR things I do.  If 9/11 was a conspiracy it would be the largest conspiracy in the history of mankind.  So the upcoming President would most certainly be aware of it, especially when they had to brief him on security matters on his way in.



If 9/11 was a conspiracy, do you think, as you said, the largest one in mankind would be so transparent as to leave a paper trail? If I were complicit I'd use seemingly unrelated operations if any involving house agencies and contract the rest, or use foreign assets to put it together.  Heck, even laymen can probably draw threads between 911 and some past dealings, conspiracy or no.  Didn't Bush do business with some bin ladens?

Then there's this: US government is rife with bureaucracy so I doubt the president could just magick damning evidence into his hands without being intercepted at some point. And assuming the president is clueless upon his arrival, I doubt he'd even know what to ask for. 

Then the past president could order stuff destroyed or fabricated to cover his butt.

And then you could always argue that the Potus is a generally corrupt position that is held to a standard by previously invested third parties.

I'm just saying. Your points are valid, but there are ways around everything.


----------



## jetwaterluffy1 (Oct 24, 2012)

kokodeshide said:


> It was identified as cast iron once it solidified.



By that you mean the lump of hot, solid iron you posted?


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Oct 24, 2012)

Descent of the Lion said:


> Then that brings up another question. If these theories are as illegitimate as people say, then what type of president would even pursue it? This also assumes that everything is on record in the first place, or was done through proper channels and with proper protocols.



The larger a conspiracy is the more you would NEED to have records of some kind in order to manage all the individual pieces and people.  That being the case it would be impossible for a President to deny access to that information to future Presidents since in the future the new President will have a higher security clearance than the old President.



Descent of the Lion said:


> If 9/11 was a conspiracy, do you think, as you said, the largest one in mankind would be so transparent as to leave a paper trail? If I were complicit I'd use seemingly unrelated operations if any involving house agencies and contract the rest, or use foreign assets to put it together.  Heck, even laymen can probably draw threads between 911 and some past dealings, conspiracy or no.  Didn't Bush do business with some bin ladens?



How exactly could you manage a multi-year international conspiracy without any records whatsoever?  Is there one guy sitting somewhere who just off the top of his head remembers and knows all the moving details at all times?



Descent of the Lion said:


> Then there's this: US government is rife with bureaucracy so I doubt the president could just magick damning evidence into his hands without being intercepted at some point. And assuming the president is clueless upon his arrival, I doubt he'd even know what to ask for.



Given that the new President has a higher security clearance than ANYONE and all government assets would report to him, who exactly would be issuing the order to "intercept" things from him?



Descent of the Lion said:


> Then the past president could order stuff destroyed or fabricated to cover his butt.



If its so easy then why hasn't every political scandal of all time been perfectly hidden?



Descent of the Lion said:


> And then you could always argue that the Potus is a generally corrupt position that is held to a standard by previously invested third parties.
> 
> I'm just saying. Your points are valid, but there are ways around everything.



Yeah there are always ways around things if you just make up random "what ifs" that work perfectly in the exact way you need them to for your hypothetical scenario to work.


----------



## Son of Goku (Oct 24, 2012)

Jello Biafra said:


> Noam Chomsky, a man who is no friend to the establishment, thinks it's bullshit for very good reasons. Nothing about the truther conspiracy makes any goddamn sense.
> 
> It's way too risky, for far too little benefit. And if the government couldn't keep a break in of an election office secret, I doubt they'd feel safe trying to kill thousands of Americans and destroy a huge building.
> 
> That little break in resulted in a scandal that brought down a president. What do you think would happen if there was any real evidence to support a conspiracy?





Son of Goku said:


> [excerpt from article, see page 11]
> Journalists and public figures Terry Allen, *Noam Chomsky*, David Corn, Chris Hayes, Matthew Rothschild, and Matt Taibbi all have made claims that the government had provided a complete and thorough investigation into the ?collapses,? repeating what the Popular Mechanics book and other mainstream media sources claimed. In retrospect, now that the reports are final and have been thoroughly reviewed by experts, it appears the widespread claims?that the government had adequately explained how and why the buildings came down?are untrue. The argument presented by
> AE911Truth, on the other hand, is very thorough and takes care to account for all the observed phenomena and material evidence. The overall presentation in the documentary is detailed, accessible, professional and respectful of the scientists who have investigated 9/11, even when they criticize their work.



Not even Chomsky can be right all the time. But I doubt very much that he believes that "nothing about the truther conspiracy makes any goddamn sense". Especially when there is no so called "truther conspiracy" but only a lot of different attempts to explain what actually happened, cause the bullshit conspiracy theory provided by officials and mainstream media only works on the mentaly challenged.


----------



## Descent of the Lion (Oct 24, 2012)

Tsukiyomi said:


> Yeah there are always ways around things if you just make up random "what ifs" that work perfectly in the exact way you need them to for your hypothetical scenario to work.





You want to know why I say "what if?" There're are too many possibilities, and judging that I have no idea what President Obama did on his 15th birthday let alone his third day as President, I don't presume to be more than some dude on the internet. I do know that withholding information from a president has been done( see iran-contra) and I do know that real life doesn't always work like the West Wing or School House Rock. Mommy and Daddy don't always know you smoked weed on a mid summer night, and "conspiracy files" (who does that?) aren't always kept neatly in the president's drawer. 


But do yourself a favor and call the president, and ask him to give you all the details on all past covert operations he had nothing to do with.  I'm sure he'd love to disclose every millionth page to an informed person such as yourself to win your vote. All he'd have to do is dust off the "Big ol' Book of Conspiracies We've Done and How to Maintain Them" and start by looking up Airplanes in the appendices; ratting out all the people he's going to work with for the next four years. 

I'll be over here holding my breath.


In fact, a guy that needs to be briefed on everything is probably the last to know, so give him a little time to pull up the website and read up on it first.


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Oct 24, 2012)

> The steel wool example doesn't make sense because if it was true, heating a tiny piece of steel from a steel bar would cause the whole thing to melt. I hope you don't believe that. There are different mechanics at work with the steel wool, namely it's volume to surface area ration. Its not going to turn the steel BARS into puddle of metal.



But it's the exact same mechanic.  We call it rusting.  We call it oxidation.  We also call it burning if it happens fast enough.  *The steel wool is not melting due to heat, it is burning*.  *Metal can burn.*

When you heat up a metal, it speeds up oxidation reactions.  Those reactions in turn, release additional heat.  Drop a ton of building material on the oxidizing metals and stop them from dissipating thermal energy via convection, but leave them access to oxygen, and they'll just keep getting hotter till they melt and puddle

No human intervention is required for this to happen.  Therefore the presence of puddled cast iron can't imply or indicate the presence of thermite or other demolitions charges.  QED.

As for the falling material turning silvery, I looked at the same photographs and videos you did.


----------



## kingcools (Oct 24, 2012)

kokodeshide said:


> It was identified as cast iron once it solidified.



cast iron is not steel. So which one is it? Who identified it and with what methods?


----------



## NarutoxKakashi (Oct 24, 2012)

Son of Goku said:


> Not even Chomsky can be right all the time. But I doubt very much that he believes that "nothing about the truther conspiracy makes any goddamn sense". Especially when there is no so called "truther conspiracy" but only a lot of different attempts to explain what actually happened, cause the bullshit conspiracy theory provided by officials and mainstream media only works on the mentaly challenged.



How dare you question the government. You mean you don't believe Iraq had WMDs? You don't think the air was safe to breathe after the towers collapsed? Next you'll tell me that we don't torture people in Guantanamo Bay. You are one crazy lunatic crackpot nutjob conspiracy theory *truther* retard. Just quit posting please...


----------



## EvilMoogle (Oct 24, 2012)

NarutoxKakashi said:


> How dare you question the government. You mean you don't believe Iraq had WMDs? You don't think the air was safe to breathe after the towers collapsed? Next you'll tell me that we don't torture people in Guantanamo Bay. You are one crazy lunatic crackpot nutjob conspiracy theory *truther* retard. Just quit posting please...


Wow man you totally _crushed_ that  Strawman!


----------



## Inuhanyou (Oct 24, 2012)

I think that this thread could probably go on indefinitely based on a lot of these replies


----------



## kokodeshide (Oct 24, 2012)

kingcools said:


> cast iron is not steel. So which one is it? Who identified it and with what methods?


You are an idiot who should read what I said before. When you melt steel it can become cast iron. I already put up the pic of the melting I beam.



The Space Cowboy said:


> But it's the exact same mechanic.  We call it rusting.  We call it oxidation.  We also call it burning if it happens fast enough.  *The steel wool is not melting due to heat, it is burning*.  *Metal can burn.*
> 
> When you heat up a metal, it speeds up oxidation reactions.  Those reactions in turn, release additional heat.  Drop a ton of building material on the oxidizing metals and stop them from dissipating thermal energy via convection, but leave them access to oxygen, and they'll just keep getting hotter till they melt and puddle
> 
> No human intervention is required for this to happen.  Therefore the presence of puddled cast iron can't imply or indicate the presence of thermite or other demolitions charges.  QED.


 If what you said was true about heating steel and it will continue to heat up then 19th century blacksmiths could have made cast iron weapons and armor instead of having to hammering it out. no SOLID block of steel behaves that way. Unless you have some proof to show me big blocks of steel do what you say.


> As for the falling material turning silvery, I looked at the same photographs and videos you did.


 Didn't look like it to me.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Oct 24, 2012)

kokodeshide said:


> If what you said was true about heating steel and it will continue to heat up then 19th century blacksmiths could have made cast iron weapons and armor instead of having to hammering it out. no SOLID block of steel behaves that way. Unless you have some proof to show me big blocks of steel do what you say.



The use of cast iron dates back to 5th century BC.

19th century smiths did make extensive use of cast iron, though "armor" was rarely forged in that time period.

Unless wikipedia's also in on the conspiracy


----------



## kingcools (Oct 24, 2012)

kokodeshide said:


> You are an idiot who should read what I said before. When you melt steel it can become cast iron. I already put up the pic of the melting I beam.
> .



instead of answering my questions(how was it examined) you insult me.
So all you have is that the supposedly molten steel actually is cast iron which afterwards was declared to have been steel beforehand?


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Oct 24, 2012)

kokodeshide said:


> You are an idiot who should read what I said before. When you melt steel it can become cast iron. I already put up the pic of the melting I beam.
> 
> If what you said was true about heating steel and it will continue to heat up then 19th century blacksmiths could have made cast iron weapons and armor instead of having to hammering it out. no SOLID block of steel behaves that way. Unless you have some proof to show me big blocks of steel do what you say.



Traditional blacksmiths could and -did- make cast iron weapons/armor (though, by the time the 19th century was around, armor was just for ships). However cast iron has limitations that make it unsuitable for some applications.  Hammered, or wrought iron is a different beast.

They were careful to not heat up their workpieces too much, as the properties of the finished workpiece will change, depending on how you heat/cool it.  Steel is a bit funny like that.  FYI, Iron and Steel are the same thing, except one has a certain carbon content and crystalline structure. 

Would you like a picture of a boat rusting?  That's oxidation, and *oxidation reactions are exothermic.  This is not arguable.*

Additionally, both planes were full of oxygen generators, which when heated release pure oxygen, which is more than capable of causing hot steel to burn and raising the temperature of a fire to steel or aluminum melting temperatures.  

The standard model for 9.11 readily explains the presence of molten aluminum after the crash, and melted I beams during the cleanup, and also fits all the available evidence quite well.  

As a viable conspiracy theory, you might as well stick a fork in the truthers.  Their schtick is done.


----------



## On and On (Oct 24, 2012)

Inuhanyou said:


> I think that this thread could probably go on indefinitely based on a lot of these replies



That's why I said people have pretty much already decided where they stand on 9/11 lol


----------



## Sanity Check (Oct 25, 2012)

EvilMoogle said:


> I don't think the government is competent enough to pull off an operation on the scale of 9/11 without the secret getting out somewhere.  Let's look at an example.  We'll assume:
> 
> 1) The building was prepped with explosives to ensure the building comes down (either because it's impossible for the planes/jet fuel to do it or simply to ensure a level of control as to _how_ they come down).
> 
> ...



1.  People have come forward.  
2.  What motivation is there for anyone involved in a conspiracy to come forward?  If I were involved in the 9/11 conspiracy and if I were paid $20,000 to kill 4,000 americans, would I come forward & tell everyone I was guilty?  Probably not.   Would you?  I doubt it.



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Truth of the matter is you're just a bit crazy. You're trying to assign some secret agenda to something where there is none either because you want to feel special or because YOU can't believe that some people who haven't learned the value of shaving and think that they'll be greeted by a pack of spontaneous created virgins when they die managed to change the entire way a generation of Americans felt about their safety at home.



CTK.

You made a _positive claim_ Space Cowboy and others posted "irrefutable evidence" 9/11 _wasn't_ an inside job.

Its like saying someone on these forums posted irrefutable evidence proving a negative.

Far crazier than anything I could aspire to.



Jello Biafra said:


> Noam Chomsky, a man who is no friend to the establishment, thinks it's bullshit for very good reasons. Nothing about the truther conspiracy makes any goddamn sense.
> 
> It's way too risky, for far too little benefit. And if the government couldn't keep a break in of an election office secret, I doubt they'd feel safe trying to kill thousands of Americans and destroy a huge building.
> 
> That little break in resulted in a scandal that brought down a president. What do you think would happen if there was any real evidence to support a conspiracy?



Chomsky is like a parrot saying brain surgery makes zero sense.    Just kidding sexy lady.  Seriously though..

I support a reinvestigation and haven't said anything regarding whether or not it were a conspiracy as it is somewhat pointless to discuss.

The concept of there being a lot of white knights in this world who would stand up to government oppression or abuse of power is quickly becoming a fairy tale scenario given the way apathy and pro fascist / socialist / totalitarian views have become increasingly common of late.  When I look around the only thing I see are people who like to fantasize about what lengths they would go to for a million dollars.  If someone said would you kill 4,000 of your fellow americans for a cut of a $3 trillion dollar budget that will be devoted towards the iraq / afghan wars -- I bet a lot of them would say yes to that.

Its not as if human life is particularly highly valued within the current era.  There are plenty of people suffering, starving and dying all over the world and there are a lot of people who don't give a shit.  Ipod/ipad and other products used on a daily basis were assembled in china with child labor.  Coca cola conducts assassinations in south america to prevent workers from forming unions.  There is wholesale exploitation and abuse worldwide.  Do americans care?  NOPE!.  If regular americans don't care about such humanitarian things, what makes anyone think their government is any more caring or sympathetic to the plight of others?

$3+ trillion dollars, Julian Assange and wikileaks being labeled "enemies of the state" basically the equivalent of Assange and wikileaks being labeled "terrorists" are plenty of reason no one would come forward to white knight whistleblower if indeed 9/11 _were_ an inside job.

If Chomsky cannot comprehend such basic principles and they "don't make sense to him" then I might question why people listen to the man.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Oct 25, 2012)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> 1.  People have come forward.
> 2.  What motivation is there for anyone involved in a conspiracy to come forward?  If I were involved in the 9/11 conspiracy and if I were paid $20,000 to kill 4,000 americans, would I come forward & tell everyone I was guilty?  Probably not.   Would you?  I doubt it.



Your two points are directly contradictory to one another so lets start with the first.

Please show me one of the statements from someone who has come forward saying "I helped plan 9/11" because I'm not aware of anyone employed by or for our government that has done so.


----------



## Sanity Check (Oct 25, 2012)

EvilMoogle said:


> Please show me one of the statements from someone who has come forward saying "I helped plan 9/11" because I'm not aware of anyone employed by or for our government that has done so.


----------



## Revolution (Oct 25, 2012)

Descent of the Lion said:


> You do realize that the government has entire institutions dedicated to secrets. If they couldn't keep anything secret America wouldn't be as successful as it is. Just because some dude having an affair with his assistant gets out every once in a while doesn't mean the government is transparent. Then there's the amount of control they have in media. If a secret gets out, call it crazy and create dissent, and then the uninformed masses will argue for you on internet forums. Then there is disinformation.
> 
> These are basic tactics of the Game.



wow!  You do realize that in the age of information NOTHING is secret anymore.  The Pentagon can't even keep their secret disks safe and constantly gets hacked into?  

I don't know if its your own insecurities of inferiority to the US government, but IT DOES SURVIVE and America is successful because of _immigrants_ who have produced some of the smartest people in the world who work on promoting achievement as an American value.

Years ago I just happend to RUN INTO the PRESIDENT when I was visiting Washington DC and was amazed (as well as humbled) as to how easy it is to get by security and also how these are normal average human beings.  There is NOTHING MAGICAL about the US government.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Oct 25, 2012)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> CTK.
> 
> You made a _positive claim_ Space Cowboy and others posted "irrefutable evidence" 9/11 _wasn't_ an inside job.
> 
> ...



I don't know what your saying here is pretty crazy. There's no logic or science to it, you just want to be special because your life is probably boring otherwise.


----------



## kokodeshide (Oct 25, 2012)

The Space Cowboy said:


> Traditional blacksmiths could and -did- make cast iron weapons/armor (though, by the time the 19th century was around, armor was just for ships). However cast iron has limitations that make it unsuitable for some applications.  Hammered, or wrought iron is a different beast.
> 
> They were careful to not heat up their workpieces too much, as the properties of the finished workpiece will change, depending on how you heat/cool it.  Steel is a bit funny like that.  FYI, Iron and Steel are the same thing, except one has a certain carbon content and crystalline structure.
> 
> ...


 So basically what you're saying is that when steel starts to oxidize it lets off heat starting a chain reaction causing it to never stop heating up? It's funny how forgeries don't have that problem. Or any of the other steel. Fuck, the company that tested the steel says they tested it to 2000-2500 degrees F and it handled it. But your saying once it reaches a certain point there is no turning back. Why didn't the steel beams they tested melt like you say they would? Even the company president was baffled by this.

There is still one more problem.
The free falling of tower 7.
According to the report, the building free fell for at least 100 feet. The buildings heated up causing it to fail but there were only some places where there was molten steel. So why did some places melt but other didn't? You could say that it all started to melt underground but that just adds to why it couldn't have free fell. There wasn't even any jet fuel there.
If it had uneven heating, how could all the like 30 support columns fail at the same time without resisting anything even though the columns where not equally heated. I don't remember where it is but I believe somewhere in the NIST report it says 150 out of like 153 panels didn't experience heat higher than 250 C. Plus it would have had to heat the cement around the steel too.

Free falling on earth means zero resistance excluding air. How could even weakend and broken steel provide 0 resistance? Tower 1 or 2 fell more normally. Slower than free fall but still close to it. Even though it was build to support 5 times its weight. But there was resistance there, that's what tower 7 should have been like, but it wasn't.

REMEMBER: I am NOT saying it can't fall. I don't know how many times I have had to repeat this in this thread. I just want you to remember this fact.


----------



## eHav (Oct 25, 2012)

building 7 didnt free fall. i do not understand why you keep saying that. its insides collapsed, and then the outside structure fell down. 
i wonder, did they wait for it to fall apart internally and had planted stuff on the outside structure to make it look like a demolition? 
or did they have a 2 part demolition, where the insides fell down first, and then the outside structure?

must have been some new muffled bombs that make no sound when they explode aswell.

oh wait it was a thermite demolition right?


----------



## kokodeshide (Oct 25, 2012)

eHav said:


> building 7 didnt free fall. i do not understand why you keep saying that. its insides collapsed, and then the outside structure fell down.
> i wonder, did they wait for it to fall apart internally and had planted stuff on the outside structure to make it look like a demolition?
> or did they have a 2 part demolition, where the insides fell down first, and then the outside structure?
> 
> ...



NIST said it free fell for 100 feet. Or are you denying official government reports? Where is Tsukiyomi, I need him to scream at you for being a conspiracy theorist.

The inside was the strongest part but it started to fall like a half second before the outsides did. The outsides still feel at about the same speed the middle was. The middle should have had more resistance causing the fall to slow down but it never did. but even then the outsides cant free fall unless the middle was turned effectively into dust.

I don't want to wade into this territory but there was a bunch of white flashes through-out the building and tons of people reported hearing explosions in all the towers. One person even reported an explosion under tower 1, a couple seconds before the plane hit. Fire fighters talked about bombs all day. Hearing them, getting knocked over by them, burned by them.

Thermite also releases a massive pyroclastic flow, which was present during the towers collapse. Even normal demolitions don't blow up so much dust and they are turning concrete into dust.

Nano thermite is explosive and it burns really hot.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Oct 25, 2012)

kokodeshide said:


> Nano thermite is explosive and it burns really hot.



Which again, doesn't make sense why they would use it then if it would be easily spotted as out of the ordinary...but let's throw all logic out here because that fucks up your point.


----------



## Stalin (Oct 25, 2012)

Immortal itachi, do you think you're better than everybody else? Cause you say things like that, you shouw that you do.


----------



## kokodeshide (Oct 25, 2012)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Which again, doesn't make sense why they would use it then if it would be easily spotted as out of the ordinary...but let's throw all logic out here because that fucks up your point.



Who would notice it? Oh yeah, scientists. Like the over 1700 who disagree with the investigation and pointed out that very fact. Like the scientists who tested the smoke and found nano thermite particles in it. Unless your saying that those scientist had a lab to build nano thermite bottom up and put it in the smoke of the WTC.


----------



## NarutoxKakashi (Oct 25, 2012)

eHav said:


> *building 7 didnt free fall*. i do not understand why you keep saying that. its insides collapsed, and then the outside structure fell down.
> i wonder, did they wait for it to fall apart internally and had planted stuff on the outside structure to make it look like a demolition?
> or did they have a 2 part demolition, where the insides fell down first, and then the outside structure?
> 
> ...






If you look at Stage 2 in the graph, the tower was falling at free fall. 

"In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, as the buckled columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north face. This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0 m (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s."

p. 45 of the NIST report


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Oct 25, 2012)

kokodeshide said:


> Who would notice it? Oh yeah, scientists. Like the over 1700 who disagree with the investigation and pointed out that very fact. Like the scientists who tested the smoke and found nano thermite particles in it. Unless your saying that those scientist had a lab to build nano thermite bottom up and put it in the smoke of the WTC.


Some scientists don't believe gravity works the way that others do. Some don't believe in global warming. Some think that there is a giant black hole holding all of us in place, or that there's a second sun. 

Saying some scientists do something isn't an excuse. I mean one out of five dentists don't like Crest, but no one ever points THAT guy out. 

Also isn't it just as possible that the terrorists put the thermite there or in the plane to ignite. They've been trying to destroy this building since almost a decade before they did and they were even told by experts on the news "if you wanted to take it down you'd have to hit it from the top."


----------



## kingcools (Oct 25, 2012)

scientists are not perfect. My father is a professor for neuroscience and yes he does not know all and makes mistakes.

edit:

btw i never got the "free fall" argument. So? What if it did? How does this make sense with an explosion causing the collapse?


----------



## kokodeshide (Oct 25, 2012)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Some scientists don't believe gravity works the way that others do. Some don't believe in global warming. Some think that there is a giant black hole holding all of us in place, or that there's a second sun.
> 
> Saying some scientists do something isn't an excuse. I mean one out of five dentists don't like Crest, but no one ever points THAT guy out.
> 
> Also isn't it just as possible that the terrorists put the thermite there or in the plane to ignite. They've been trying to destroy this building since almost a decade before they did and they were even told by experts on the news "if you wanted to take it down you'd have to hit it from the top."



So let me get this straight, you're saying scientists can be wrong? NIST is composed of what? Scientists I believe? Maybe not, I could be wrong.

Saying my scientist is wrong cause people are dumb but saying your scientist is right cause he's your scientist is pretty boolsheet.

And terrorist could have planted it there, I never said bush or america did.


EDIT
@kingcools Because an explosion would remove the resistance of the support beams like in a demolition.


----------



## LouDAgreat (Oct 25, 2012)

People still believe in that nonsense no matter how many times those theories have been discredited. Shame.


----------



## kokodeshide (Oct 25, 2012)

LouDAgreat said:


> People still believe in that nonsense no matter how many times those theories have been discredited. Shame.



Most theories have moderately believable explanation except tower 7 free falling. No one has discredited that.


----------



## LouDAgreat (Oct 25, 2012)

Any theory suggesting 9/11 was an inside job is fucking insane. Simple as that. North Tower, South Tower, 7 World Trade Center, the government didn't perpetrate anything.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Oct 25, 2012)

kokodeshide said:


> So let me get this straight, you're saying scientists can be wrong? NIST is composed of what? Scientists I believe? Maybe not, I could be wrong.
> 
> Saying my scientist is wrong cause people are dumb but saying your scientist is right cause he's your scientist is pretty boolsheet.
> 
> And terrorist could have planted it there, I never said bush or america did.


Scientists can be wrong and are wrong a lot of the time. Einstein said stuff we've proven wrong. 

So then this stuff being there, basically doesn't matter is what you're saying?


----------



## kokodeshide (Oct 25, 2012)

LouDAgreat said:


> Any theory suggesting 9/11 was an inside job is fucking insane. Simple as that. North Tower, South Tower, 7 World Trade Center, the government didn't perpetrate anything.



Most scientists aren't saying that. Only the nut jobs who follow their words and use their science to fabricate stories.


----------



## kokodeshide (Oct 25, 2012)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Scientists can be wrong and are wrong a lot of the time. Einstein said stuff we've proven wrong.


Yes, so blindly following something is pointless.


> So then this stuff being there, basically doesn't matter is what you're saying?


I'm not sure what you're saying here, I'm sorry.


----------



## kingcools (Oct 25, 2012)

kokodeshide said:


> @kingcools Because an explosion would remove the resistance of the support beams like in a demolition.



Then the lower part should have been completely blown out for this scenario. 
Thats obviously not the case. So your theory does not make sense. Case closed.
Even in that scenario the next story would have just crushed on the ground and the same thing as before would happen lal

edit:
always amusing to see people actually pretend they really understand into depth what they are talking about


----------



## LouDAgreat (Oct 25, 2012)

kokodeshide said:


> Most scientists aren't saying that. Only the nut jobs who follow their words and use their science to fabricate stories.



Some people actually think missiles flew into the buildings. People think a demolition crew planted bombs and caused the downward implosion. I've been on sites where people think the jumpers falling form the towers weren't real people.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Oct 25, 2012)

kokodeshide said:


> Yes, so blindly following something is pointless.



No one is blindly following anything, I'm just saying that you have so many scientists who say X isn't proof of anything except that you've found these scientists who say this. You have to look at a source for more than just a scientist. 

I'm not sure what you're saying here, I'm sorry.[/quote]
If you're saying that the American Government didn't necessarily do it, then why does it matter if it could have just been part of the attack.


----------



## eHav (Oct 25, 2012)

kokodeshide said:


> Most theories have moderately believable explanation except tower 7 free falling. No one has discredited that.



the insides colapsed and the sides with nothing to keep them standing colapsed after them. if the first thing to give in was the botton of the sides of the building, like everyone notices it was since it was falling down pretty much with the outside intact, of course it would fall fast. just like if i stack a bunch of shit and quickly knock down the bottom item, everything on top will "free fall" for a bit. how is that proof of anything other than the building colapsed from the bottom?


----------



## jetwaterluffy1 (Oct 25, 2012)

kokodeshide said:


> So let me get this straight, you're saying scientists can be wrong? NIST is composed of what? Scientists I believe? Maybe not, I could be wrong.
> 
> Saying my scientist is wrong cause people are dumb but saying your scientist is right cause he's your scientist is pretty boolsheet.


_Most _of scientists and engineers think 9/11 conspiracies are load of rubbish. Was there anyone who signed that petition that is actually important worldwide?


Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Which again, doesn't make sense why they would use it then if it would be easily spotted as out of the ordinary...but let's throw all logic out here because that fucks up your point.


Not to say the 9/11 conspiracy is accurate, but thermite is going to be really hard to find evidence of, more so than explosives, seeing as it is basically a mix of aluminium and rust.


----------



## eHav (Oct 25, 2012)

jetwaterluffy1 said:


> Not to say the 9/11 conspiracy is accurate, but thermite is going to be really hard to find evidence of, more so than explosives, seeing as it is basically a mix of aluminium and rust.



well thermite would have been used to cut through the steel structure, and there would be quite some debris with clear thermite cuts through it. wich there arent


----------



## Stalin (Oct 25, 2012)

9/11 conspiracy some s like something from an overthetop thriller pulp novel.


----------



## kokodeshide (Oct 25, 2012)

jetwaterluffy1 said:


> _Most _of scientists and engineers think 9/11 conspiracies are load of rubbish. Was there anyone who signed that petition that is actually important worldwide?


 Just professors, ph.d holders, architects who design high rise buildings, physicists, engineers, just those peons. Even michio kaku, that sell out, said that those fires couldnt melt steel. He does however disagree with everything else about the "conspiracy."



eHav said:


> well thermite would have been used to cut through the steel structure, and there would be quite some debris with clear thermite cuts through it. wich there arent


  No one was allowed to bring cameras into the site so im not surprised  only like 2 pictures have come out. Also they hauled all the steel off right away and let no one study it but NIST.



eHav said:


> the insides colapsed and the sides with nothing to keep them standing colapsed after them. if the first thing to give in was the botton of the sides of the building, like everyone notices it was since it was falling down pretty much with the outside intact, of course it would fall fast. just like if i stack a bunch of shit and quickly knock down the bottom item, everything on top will "free fall" for a bit. how is that proof of anything other than the building colapsed from the bottom?


the building collapsed top down. And the center failed only a second before everything else did.



kingcools said:


> Then the lower part should have been completely blown out for this scenario.
> Thats obviously not the case. So your theory does not make sense. Case closed.
> Even in that scenario the next story would have just crushed on the ground and the same thing as before would happen lal
> 
> ...


 What? Do you not understand how demolition works? 

I lul'd at you saying we pretend to know when you don't understand why it was a problem that the building free fell.

Another thing is this.

*Spoiler*: __ 








That building was on fire for 5 hours and it didn't fall. many other massive building have burned for longer and didn't fall. That's not just a fire that's like a fucking inferno.


Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> No one is blindly following anything, I'm just saying that you have so many scientists who say X isn't proof of anything except that you've found these scientists who say this. You have to look at a source for more than just a scientist.


Yes, and I was giving the thread the science of it. Not just the word of some person, they asked for engineers who said what i was saying and i showed it.


> If you're saying that the American Government didn't necessarily do it, then why does it matter if it could have just been part of the attack.


 Because if NIST got something wrong than we are missing information. That information could lead to something more, or less, than what we know now.


----------



## eHav (Oct 25, 2012)

kokodeshide said:


> the building collapsed top down. And the center failed only a second before everything else did.



nope  


/10char


----------



## kokodeshide (Oct 25, 2012)

eHav said:


> nope
> 
> 
> /10char



The "left" side failed a few second before, but the "center" and "right" didn't fall with it, it fell together.


----------



## kingcools (Oct 25, 2012)

kokodeshide said:


> the building collapsed top down. And the center failed only a second before everything else did.
> 
> What? Do you not understand how demolition works?
> 
> I lul'd at you saying we pretend to know when you don't understand why it was a problem that the building free fell.



so give me your reasoning why this leads you to believe it were explosives



> Another thing is this.
> 
> *Spoiler*: __
> 
> ...



and? you compare A with B even though there is no real relation here. 
A building is way too complex to just compare this directly. Furthermore do you ignore that the world trade centeres were struck my planes and the WTC 7 by a lot of debris.

furthermore only because it did not happen before does not mean it can`t happen ever, going by that logic nothing would be able to happen as everything happend at one time for the first time.


edit: please answer my molten steel/molten cast iron questions


----------



## Sanity Check (Oct 25, 2012)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I don't know what your saying here is pretty crazy. There's no logic or science to it, you just want to be special because your life is probably boring otherwise.



"There is no logic or science to anything you've said" is your opinion.

Unless you substantiate and show how it applies in the real world, it doesn't elevate in status to anything other than an opinion.



Stalin said:


> Immortal itachi, do you think you're better than everybody else? Cause you say things like that, you shouw that you do.



All I know is...

People accuse me of thinking I'm "better" than everyone and attack me and my character, & spread rumors about me in a "I dont like what youre saying so im not going to be your friend, nyah nyah" way due to their inability to argue their points.  

If I were to give you my thoughts on the topic, I would say that me making people behave like 12 year olds in elementary school who decide to shun me on the basis of me having a different opinion from their own -- there's nothing that needs to be said on the topic.  People have opted out of the discussion in revealing their immaturity and inability to contemplate reality.

If you have to veer off topic and accuse me of petty, grade school, things like "thinking im better than people" due to your inability to substantiate your own claims _why_ 9/11 could not have been an inside job...

I fail to see how you're any different from those who stereotype all gays as being raving nymphomaniacs who spread aids.  You're not addressing the facts, you're only attempting to censor and strip people of their right to have an opinion on the basis that they may fall within a certain group or category.


----------



## kokodeshide (Oct 25, 2012)

kingcools said:


> so give me your reasoning why this leads you to believe it were explosives.


1: The pyroclastic flow, indicative of thermite or nanothermite.
2: Near simultaneous failure and the free fall.
3: nanothermite, an explosive, found in the dust of the WTC
4: Witnesses hearing explosions.
5. bright flashes inside tower 7.



> and? you compare A with B even though there is no real relation here.
> A building is way too complex to just compare this directly. Furthermore do you ignore that the world trade centeres were struck my planes and the WTC 7 by a lot of debris.
> 
> furthermore only because it did not happen before does not mean it can`t happen ever, going by that logic nothing would be able to happen as everything happened at one time for the first time.


 the fires in that building burned hotter and there was tons more of it.
If building a and b are made of the same thing, they are bound to act the same, that's basic science. unless the steel is different and for some reason they made a building of the same height twice as strong.


Tower 7 sustained minimal damage from falling debris. And even then, NIST said the towers would have fallen regardless of the damage.


> edit: please answer my molten steel/molten cast iron questions


 How were they identified? A fucking steel beam was melting in front of the construction crews eyes. The president of the company and everyone else at the scene. unless WTC had a fuck ton of aluminium in it than it doesn't matter. All other metals in a building. melting points are above the temperature of the office fire. They found "meteorites" of concrete with melted iron and steel clumps. And i already put up a pic of WTC steel that was found melted in half.


----------



## kingcools (Oct 26, 2012)

kokodeshide said:


> 1: The pyroclastic flow, indicative of thermite or nanothermite.
> 2: Near simultaneous failure and the free fall.
> 3: nanothermite, an explosive, found in the dust of the WTC
> 4: Witnesses hearing explosions.
> 5. bright flashes inside tower 7.


1) what according to you is a pyroclastic flow? This term is only used in connection with volcanos it seems.
2) is not an argument.
3) as far as i know it is not an explosive. It does not explode but is very hot and is typically used to ignite other stuff. I guess someone found iron + aluminium in the debris` of the WTCs, great surprise(and btw: how was it analyzed?)
4) people hear a lot of things, do you know how loud an explosion is? want me to post some videos?
5) bright flashes... and? this indicates an explosion created by some sort of "bomb"? no other reason possible?





> the fires in that building burned hotter and there was tons more of it.
> If building a and b are made of the same thing, they are bound to act the same, that's basic science. unless the steel is different and for some reason they made a building of the same height twice as strong.



this is a false logical conclusion. I can build a tower made of steel that will instantly fall down because i did not do anything to stabilize it and i can build a tower made of steel that will stand till kingdom comes because i followed basic rules of my precious "how to build a tower(and how not to)" book.




> Tower 7 sustained minimal damage from falling debris. And even then, NIST said the towers would have fallen regardless of the damage.


So you know better than the NIST? 





> How were they identified? A fucking steel beam was melting in front of the construction crews eyes. The president of the company and everyone else at the scene. unless WTC had a fuck ton of aluminium in it than it doesn't matter. All other metals in a building. melting points are above the temperature of the office fire. They found "meteorites" of concrete with melted iron and steel clumps. And i already put up a pic of WTC steel that was found melted in half.



so basically some people that came to the ground a few days(?) after the attacks find some stuff which is supposed to be molten steel because they saw it with their eyes?
We have no clue what kind of chemical reactions might have happend(alot of different chemicals + heat) there between the attack and the crew arriving and watching that alledged steel beam melting.

Regarding the pic you posted: it is a pic with some liquid thats red. Thats all you can determine from that picture.
Aluminium is part of a plane. Did they find those "meteorites" and analyze them in a laboratory? if not, do not even bother talking about "molten iron" or whatever inside those "meteorites".


----------



## kokodeshide (Oct 26, 2012)

kingcools said:


> 1) what according to you is a pyroclastic flow? This term is only used in connection with volcanos it seems.
> 2) is not an argument.
> 3) as far as i know it is not an explosive. It does not explode but is very hot and is typically used to ignite other stuff. I guess someone found iron + aluminium in the debris` of the WTCs, great surprise(and btw: how was it analyzed?)
> 4) people hear a lot of things, do you know how loud an explosion is? want me to post some videos?
> 5) bright flashes... and? this indicates an explosion created by some sort of "bomb"? no other reason possible?



1:The huge cloud of superheated gas and rock/cement,steel. Thermite can make the cloud but it will cool down relatively quickly but will still be there.
2: it would be if you understood physics.
3: Nano sized particles, even smaller sized particles, have a higher surface area to volume ratio, speeding up the reaction by many factors. Want to do a test proving it? Take 2 alkaseltzer pills, put one in water an it will bubble some. crush the other one and it will bubble violently but it will last for a few brief seconds. same thing with nano thermite.
4:"People hear a lot of things." is a bullshit argument. Sure post some videos, i can post one relating the sounds of the explosions right before the collapse to the explosions of a explosion used for detonation.
5: Explain it in a different way why white flashes would move from one side of the building to the other.




> this is a false logical conclusion. I can build a tower made of steel that will instantly fall down because i did not do anything to stabilize it and i can build a tower made of steel that will stand till kingdom comes because i followed basic rules of my precious "how to build a tower(and how not to)" book.


Except both buildings have to abide by codes forcing them to be of similar strength. That was the worst argument I have ever heard.




> So you know better than the NIST?


What are you talking about? I use something NIST said and you're saying I know more than them?





> so basically some people that came to the ground a few days(?) after the attacks find some stuff which is supposed to be molten steel because they saw it with their eyes?
> We have no clue what kind of chemical reactions might have happend(alot of different chemicals + heat) there between the attack and the crew arriving and watching that alledged steel beam melting.
> 
> Regarding the pic you posted: it is a pic with some liquid thats red. Thats all you can determine from that picture.
> Aluminium is part of a plane. Did they find those "meteorites" and analyze them in a laboratory? if not, do not even bother talking about "molten iron" or whatever inside those "meteorites".


This isn't even worth arguing. except for the fact that molten "metal" was a found under WTC 7 which no plane hit. And what is the molten metal under WTC 7?

Using that logic that you just used i could literally spin the wildest theories ever.



And there is a video showing the explosions.


----------



## Sanity Check (Oct 26, 2012)

Stalin said:


> Immortal itachi, do you think you're better than everybody else? Cause you say things like that, you shouw that you do.



BTW, I think I should clarify on this.

_On the topic of 9/11 and whether or not it was a conspiracy_...

Yes, I do think I'm better than all of you.

Is there anyone here willing to step forward and show me I'm not?



NF =


----------



## Mist Puppet (Oct 26, 2012)




----------



## Sanity Check (Oct 26, 2012)

= Stereotype & attack a person due to an inability to attack a persons claims.

The ultimate 'that jutsu' attack of intelligence challenged forum dwellers everywheres since the 1990's.  

Common wisdom dictates bringing a knife to a gun fight is bad form.  Likewise, bringing your 1990's era obsolete and archaic blanket arguments to ignorance can only result in defeat.

/blech


----------



## kingcools (Oct 26, 2012)

kokodeshide said:


> 1:The huge cloud of superheated gas and rock/cement,steel. Thermite can make the cloud but it will cool down relatively quickly but will still be there.
> 2: it would be if you understood physics.
> 3: Nano sized particles, even smaller sized particles, have a higher surface area to volume ratio, speeding up the reaction by many factors. Want to do a test proving it? Take 2 alkaseltzer pills, put one in water an it will bubble some. crush the other one and it will bubble violently but it will last for a few brief seconds. same thing with nano thermite.
> 4:"People hear a lot of things." is a bullshit argument. Sure post some videos, i can post one relating the sounds of the explosions right before the collapse to the explosions of a explosion used for detonation.
> 5: Explain it in a different way why white flashes would move from one side of the building to the other.



ok so you have zero laboratory analysis of the stuff you claim. No point arguing then as your points are baseless.







> And there is a video showing the explosions.



[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8U4erFzhC-U&feature=related[/YOUTUBE]

this is an house that intentionally got destroyed by explosions. Compare this with the WTC 7 and laugh a bit.

Your example is really very very bad to proof the point. Im ignoring right now that thermine does not explode and so you basically are presenting two different theories as one but ok.
So some stuff explodes a bit. How surprising. Im shocked by this revelation.
Oh wait, im not. Why would i believe now the house was destroyed by explosives?



> Except both buildings have to abide by codes forcing them to be of similar strength. That was the worst argument I have ever heard.



it was not a bad argument at all. You can build buildings in completely different ways, making both absolutely different in durability against fire damage or whatever. To find out why the one does not fall down and the other one does you need to study different study paths at a university. Claiming that because with your naive knowledge you can not find out why those two buildings did not behave the same does not make it more reasonable that one got destroyed by a detonation.
Instead of thinking "lets use finite element method and knowledge about skyscraper building techniques to acquire knowledge about the reasons why those two buildings did not behave identical towards the fire damage they received" you go this way:
"They did not behave the same, but they should because i believe they should. It definatly points to a detonation".


----------



## kokodeshide (Oct 26, 2012)

kingcools said:


> ok so you have zero laboratory analysis of the stuff you claim. No point arguing then as your points are baseless.


Good job addressing my points.
There are pictures from a lab of the nano thermite.
Why would there be molten "anything but steel" inside the holes where steel rebar is? The "scientific analysis" NIST did didnt even mention the molten metal. So what do we see there? 
You have nothing to say, when you really want to address my points, come back, until then, im ignoring you because you have no knowledge on anything you are talking about.



Where did the smart people go? Fuck at this point im begging for anyone but this guy.


----------



## kingcools (Oct 26, 2012)

i want a hard study not pictures that make people like you obviously believe anything.
Gimme a study like WRITTEN TEXT and a proper analysis. Thank you.


----------

