Israel did 9/11, ALL THE PROOF IN THE WORLD!!

Penn

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Incidentally: fire has never ever in history caused a high rise to collapse. NEVER !! but it happened 3 times on that faithful day.

I'm sorry, but I hate when this point is made. This point is irrelevant, because all those high-rise buildings which had fires had not been struck by a plane flying at full speed with the intention of crashing into the building. As I stated before, structural steel is fire-proofed, but if something were to destroy that fire-proofing, such as a plane hitting the building, and if the fire was particularly fierce, due to aviation fuel for example, then you cannot compare it to other buildings which were not only not under the same conditions, but were also designed differently, in different years using different regulations.

The only building you can compare the North Tower to is the South Tower, and vice-versa

mysterious

How come the boxcutter knives didn't go off in airport security? oh gee, i must go read the "official story to see what that says"

TalkieWalkie

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

I'm sorry, but I hate when this point is made. This point is irrelevant, because all those high-rise buildings which had fires had not been struck by a plane flying at full speed with the intention of crashing into the building. As I stated before, structural steel is fire-proofed, but if something were to destroy that fire-proofing, such as a plane hitting the building, and if the fire was particularly fierce, due to aviation fuel for example, then you cannot compare it to other buildings which were not only not under the same conditions, but were also designed differently, in different years using different regulations.

The only building you can compare the North Tower to is the South Tower, and vice-versa

The official version states it was FIRE that brought down the buildings not the impact of a plane. They were built to withstand that.

AND THEY FOUND THERMITE!!! ONLY AVAILABLE FROM MILITARY LABS

mysterious

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

I'm sorry, but I hate when this point is made. This point is irrelevant, because all those high-rise buildings which had fires had not been struck by a plane flying at full speed with the intention of crashing into the building. As I stated before, structural steel is fire-proofed, but if something were to destroy that fire-proofing, such as a plane hitting the building, and if the fire was particularly fierce, due to aviation fuel for example, then you cannot compare it to other buildings which were not only not under the same conditions, but were also designed differently, in different years using different regulations.

The only building you can compare the North Tower to is the South Tower, and vice-versa

Three buildings just crumbled into a free fall vertical down dust storm in seconds. A plane does not make this to happen. It's ludricous to say so. Skyscrapers are meant to withstand planecrashes.

And Funny you didn't mention WTC7. Very interesting. That fell without a plane lmao.. This is just estactic reading.

mysterious

Isn't it eye opening what fear does to people. The fear of betrayel tends to be high up on the list there. We never want to see our governments letting us down. Yet they let us down everytime. But oh no, not this time.

"lets get those fire breating terrorists in the caves of Afghanistan"

But lets invade Iraq first. Why in gods name are people believing in such tripe from the MSM about 9/11. The whole War on terror was fuelled and geared up because of 9/11 propaganda and fear.

Penn

mysterious wrote: »

Three buildings just crumbled into a free fall vertical down dust storm in seconds. A plane does not make this to happen. It's ludricous to say so. Skyscrapers are meant to withstand planecrashes.

And Funny you didn't mention WTC7. Very interesting. That fell without a plane lmao.. This is just estactic reading.

I actually gave my explanation to those points, including WTC7, in a previous post

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65586724&postcount=235

It was on the previous page, so it is understandable if you hadn't read it.

But seriously, to all posters (and I apologise if this seems like backseat modding), can we leave out all the "oh rofl this is funny" etc and just discuss the actual points.

TalkieWalkie

mysterious wrote: »

How come the boxcutter knives didn't go off in airport security? oh gee, i must go read the "official story to see what that says"

Pity they didn't have those wonderful new scanners back then It wasn't until the ignored warnings about the shoe bomber that they were fully implemented.

Didn't they ignore the warnings about 9/11 also ? Several countries warned them even with specifics (planes, tall buildings).

Penn

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

The official version states it was FIRE that brought down the buildings not the impact of a plane. They were built to withstand that.

As I said before, I'm not going by the official report, I'm going by my own opinions, having certain experience and knowledge of structural design. In my opinion, it was a combination of the plane and the fire. And I don't think they were built to withstand a plane of that size being flown at that speed with the intention of crashing into the building. Same with the fire, buildings are designed to withstand the fire for a certain period of time, depending on the building regulations and codes of practice, loading factors (etc etc). But if the fireproofing and some of the steel members themselves were damaged by the impact of the plane, then it no longer matters. Because once one steel member is damaged or weakened due to fire, the rest have to compensate. And if that goes over the safety factors, the steel will fail, causing a partial or full collapse.

airvan

Simple, anyone could find out what height the eg 80th floor is at. Instruct the pilot to fly at a certain altitude and he cant miss.

This gets better and better.:DLOL Maybe someone stood there with a torch and guided him in!:eek:

Oh mysterious get your facts right

How come the boxcutter knives didn't go off in airport security? oh gee, i must go read the "official story to see what that says"

They didn't check for nail clippers of boxcutters back then. That came as a result of 9/11. I was amazed at how lax security was at Boston airport when I went through the previous year.

It's just absaloutely insane people believe in such nonsense.
(checks what year I'm in) Am I really seeing so much insanity on this forum? Why is it boards.ie (on a conspiracy forum so desperate to hide the truth from the reality)

I could ask you the same thing. So far I've been alluded to as insane, deaf, blind, on drugs, under mind control and part of the conspiracy along with everyone else who fails to believe in these fantastic conspiracies. I really need to see my doctor:P

You're right though, there is a lot of insanity on this forum. Delusional people living in a fantasy world. It's funny on one level but sad on another. It's a pity then don't 'get real'.

mysterious

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

I actually gave my explanation to those points, including WTC7, in a previous post

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65586724&postcount=235

It was on the previous page, so it is understandable if you hadn't read it.

But seriously, to all posters (and I apologise if this seems like backseat modding), can we leave out all the "oh rofl this is funny" etc and just discuss the actual points.

Well all most of us see is your complete denial and stubborness to see the actual reality here of what really happened.

You explained an opinion to satisfy your opinion to keep up with the official story. Why are you trying to just actively block out the obvious here?

It is funny the way your just blocking everything else about about the real story. I'm human and I'm not going to just sit here and pretend I'm not seeing it for what it is. I'd rather take what you say lightly than ever to take it personal or even worth taking into consideration at this point. In this day and age.

Most people have come to accept the truth of 9/11.

The chase to find these terrorists is one of the most retareded games humanity has ever been fed with.

mysterious

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

As I said before, I'm not going by the official report, I'm going by my own opinions, having certain experience and knowledge of structural design. In my opinion, it was a combination of the plane and the fire. And I don't think they were built to withstand a plane of that size being flown at that speed with the intention of crashing into the building. Same with the fire, buildings are designed to withstand the fire for a certain period of time, depending on the building regulations and codes of practice, loading factors (etc etc). But if the fireproofing and some of the steel members themselves were damaged by the impact of the plane, then it no longer matters. Because once one steel member is damaged or weakened due to fire, the rest have to compensate. And if that goes over the safety factors, the steel will fail, causing a partial or full collapse.

I know fire melted steel brought a huge skyscraper into dust in free fall speed.

You just couldn't make this up.

airvan

Paddy:

But seriously, to all posters (and I apologise if this seems like backseat modding), can we leave out all the "oh rofl this is funny" etc and just discuss the actual points.

Obviously you are aiming that at me and I take your point and yes it is backseat modding. But from long experience there is no point in trying to change minds. No amount of evidence, no logic, no truth will budge the true believer. However by pointing out the inherent flaws and gently mocking their certainty you can ensure that anyone viewing this thread with an open mind who might be inclined to go down the paranoid route will see it for what it is.

And frankly it is funny.

Penn

mysterious wrote: »

I know fire melted steel brought a huge skyscraper into dust in free fall speed.

It didn't turn it to dust. Not even a controlled demolition could do that. And as I said before, I don't agree that it was free-fall speed. Grainy videos on Youtube cannot show you the true speed of collapse.

mysterious

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

So you don't want to actually discuss any of the points I have raised?

I don't get involved with details that don't actually make sense to the reality of why and how it happened. You can go overboard in the dangerous "left brain" area on this fiasco, but i'm going to go on a more balanced approach by using my cop on and awareness to understand what is the real core problem here.

Fire DOES not make a skyscraper to free fall speed in that time like that. There was molten steel found under all three buildings. Dude wake up and smell the coffee.

You are a minorty on this opinion you have. Remeber the truth always gets out. You can deny the truth and want me to get bogged down in your conformed belief system that our governments love us bla bla and they would do everything to protect us and keep us safe. Or how these "terrorists" took our freedoms and destroyed our buildings and our civil liberties etc. Or what part of the buidling got most damaged before free fall speed. It's all nonsense.


But I'm here to face reality and deal with the truth and make the most of what we have to do now to make the world a better place. It was in the past and we can't change the past. But we can learn from the past and then come to accept things as they are.

The denial part is just pointless.
Face up to the sinister side of life, and that the US government have been planning this event for years. It ties into the occult, and freemasonary to the T.

It was done and now dusted, you need to face up to it. Scary i know.. eek. But the truth is always stranger than fiction. ya know.

Penn

airvan wrote: »

Paddy:Obviously you are aiming that at me and I take your point and yes it is backseat modding. But from long experience there is no point in trying to change minds. No amount of evidence, no logic, no truth will budge the true believer. However by pointing out the inherent flaws and gently mocking their certainty you can ensure that anyone viewing this thread with an open mind who might be inclined to go down the paranoid route will see it for what it is.

And frankly it is funny.

I actually wasn't aiming that at you but I appreciate the sentiment.

Trust me, this ain't my first rodeo here

mysterious

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

It didn't turn it to dust. Not even a controlled demolition could do that. And as I said before, I don't agree that it was free-fall speed. Grainy videos on Youtube cannot show you the true speed of collapse.

I have eyes dude. I can see. Youtube videos are great like any actual video of the 9/11 building collapse. Everyone saw the building, whether it was posted on google, fox news, or youtube. The speed and falling remains the same.

Don't bluff it please, you are seriously chasing your tail now.

mysterious

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

I actually wasn't aiming that at you but I appreciate the sentiment.

Trust me, this ain't my first rodeo here

You see Paddy this why your coming accross as deceptive, you allow a skeptic to think its funny or see the funny side, but you wont allow others to find it funny.

Now that makes this thread all the more interesting.;)

Now what a cop out.

Penn

mysterious wrote: »

I don't get involved with details that don't actually make sense to the reality of why and how it happened. You can go overboard in the dangerous "left brain" area on this fiasco, but i'm going to go on a more balanced approach by using my cop on and awareness to understand what is the real core problem here.

Fire DOES not make a skyscraper to free fall speed in that time like that. There was molten steel found under all three buildings. Dude wake up and smell the coffee.

You are a minorty on this opinion you have. Remeber the truth always gets out. You can deny the truth and want me to get bogged down in your conformed belief system that our governments love us bla bla. But I'm going to face reality and deal with the truth and make the most of what we have to do now to make the world a better place. It was in the past and we can't change the past. But we can learn from the past and then come to accept things as they are.

The denial part is just pointless.
Face up to the sinister side of life, and that the US government have been planning this event for years. It ties into the occult, and freemasonary to the T.

It was done and now dusted, you need to face up to it. Scary i know.. eek. But the truth is always stranger than fiction. ya know.

I'm sorry mysterious, but you've been making a lot of assumptions about me. As I said before, I am NOT going by what the official report says. I am judging this based on my own opinions. I'm not even considering the governments in this, and I don't know why you think I would hold any sort of loyalty to the US government.

You can accuse anybody of anything, but the TRUTH is in the details. That is how the truth will out. That is the only way the truth can be revealed.

If you don't want to discuss the details, then I welcome others who do want to discuss the details. Because that is why I'm here on this discussion forum. To discuss things.

TalkieWalkie

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

As I said before, I'm not going by the official report, I'm going by my own opinions, having certain experience and knowledge of structural design. In my opinion, it was a combination of the plane and the fire. And I don't think they were built to withstand a plane of that size being flown at that speed with the intention of crashing into the building. Same with the fire, buildings are designed to withstand the fire for a certain period of time, depending on the building regulations and codes of practice, loading factors (etc etc). But if the fireproofing and some of the steel members themselves were damaged by the impact of the plane, then it no longer matters. Because once one steel member is damaged or weakened due to fire, the rest have to compensate. And if that goes over the safety factors, the steel will fail, causing a partial or full collapse.

From wiki

NIST found a three-page white paper that mentioned another aircraft-impact analysis, involving impact of a Boeing 707 at 600 miles per hour (970 km/h), but the original documentation of the study, which was part of the building's 1,200 page structural analysis, was lost when the Port Authority offices were destroyed in the collapse of the WTC 1; the copy was lost in WTC 7.[10] In 1993, John Skilling, lead structural engineer for the WTC, recalled doing the analysis, and remarked, "Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."[11] In its investigation, NIST found reason to believe that they lacked the ability to properly model the effect of such impacts on the structures, especially the effects of the fires, though NIST offers no evidence for this belief.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center#Safety_concerns_regarding_aircraft_impacts

uprising2

airvan wrote: »

You'll notice it's just at the point where the aircraft hit and the fire was raging. Explain that? Are we expected to believe these mythical demolition experts anticipated the exact point of impact and then exploded the charges which remained undamaged by the impact and the fire? Truly these people are geniuses, evil geniuses.

Explain that!

Yea evil

Penn

mysterious wrote: »

You see Paddy this why your coming accross as deceptive, you allow a skeptic to think its funny or see the funny side, but you wont allow others to find it funny.

Now that makes this thread all the more interesting.;)

Now what a cop out.

I'm coming across as deceptive?

mysterious

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

I'm sorry mysterious, but you've been making a lot of assumptions about me. As I said before, I am NOT going by what the official report says. I am judging this based on my own opinions. I'm not even considering the governments in this, and I don't know why you think I would hold any sort of loyalty to the US government.

You can accuse anybody of anything, but the TRUTH is in the details. That is how the truth will out. That is the only way the truth can be revealed.

If you don't want to discuss the details, then I welcome others who do want to discuss the details. Because that is why I'm here on this discussion forum. To discuss things.

The truth is the reality.

The details can swing to any side or personal opinion of someones "own reality"

Which can be delusional or one sided.

The reality is what we are dealing with. Not your personal opinion of what happened that day. The truth is something you have to take as a whole as everything.

Most who deny the 9/11 truth will not ever take that into consideration. They will pick details to continously or obsess to any point to negate the 9/11 truth, with a minor detail to cover the whole truth of what actually happened. It's why its very dangerous to get bogged down in details.

Penn

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

From wiki

It is impressive that the World Trade Center towers held up as long as they did after being attacked at full speed by Boeing 767 jets, because they were only designed to withstand a crash from the largest plane at the time: the smaller, slower Boeing 707. And according to Robertson, the 707's fuel load was not even considered at the time. Engineers hope that answering the question of exactly why these towers collapsed will help engineers make even safer skyscrapers in the future.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/minu-trans.html

As for your point about the analysis, I have no answer for that.

TalkieWalkie

With all due respect, It has been reported that thermite was found in the rubble. Unless you or anyone else can come up with a good reason why it was there... you don't have a case. The goverment had proir knowledge or was actively involved and did everything in their power to assist the hijackers and cover their tracks.
Simple as that, you dont have a case.


Were explosives used ????? well yes, they found thermite. Case closed

bonkey

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

With all due respect, It has been reported that thermite was found in the rubble.

No, it hasn't.

Rather than engage in a Punch and Judy, though, maybe you could tell me which particular claim or claims you're referring to, and I'll address them specifically.

Penn

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

With all due respect, It has been reported that thermite was found in the rubble. Unless you or anyone else can come up with a good reason why it was there... you don't have a case. The goverment had proir knowledge or was actively involved and did everything in their power to assist the hijackers and cover their tracks.
Simple as that, you dont have a case.


Were explosives used ????? well yes, they found thermite. Case closed

http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf

bonkey

Guys...a bit more calm and civility from some wouldn't go astray.

TalkieWalkie

The Open Chemical Physics Journal

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe
pp.7-31 (25) Authors: Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley, Bradley R. Larsen

http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

Some video evidence from one author of the report - this vid is not allowed on youtube and the mainstream media have never mentioned thermite/thermate.
http://hk.video.yahoo.com/video/video.html?id=1214907

Here is another video which shows how thermite reacts spillling molten steel as seen in the previous video. It looks the exact same as the molten steel pouring from the wtc tower.
http://hk.video.yahoo.com/video/video.html?id=872225

uprising2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXM-H9vNUP4

TalkieWalkie

Thanks for those clips, confirms what I already knew. It's fantastic that this is finally being reported, but when the American people hear about this on a large scale they are going to go nuts and martial law will be implemented, hence the FEMA camps all over the states. This is it folks, this is the big one.

If I spent the last 10 years denying the truth, I'd be feeling very silly now.

namloc1980

uprising2 wrote: »

Yea evil

Could you elaborate on this please. A folded $20 bill and a picture of the towers burning???

TalkieWalkie

namloc1980 wrote: »

Could you elaborate on this please. A folded $20 bill and a picture of the towers burning???

Since he's not here.... you can see in the center of the bill, two buildings with smoke coming from them, looks similar to the burning towers. Coincidence ? more than likely

namloc1980

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Since he's not here.... you can see in the center of the bill, two buildings with smoke coming from them, looks similar to the burning towers. Coincidence ? more than likely

Yes coincidence. What I'm trying to understand is why did he post it? What's the point?

bonkey

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

The Open Chemical Physics Journal

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe
pp.7-31 (25) Authors: Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley, Bradley R. Larsen

http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

Ah yes...the latest in a long series of "it was thermite" papers which S.E.Jones was involved in.

This has been discussed here (and elsewhere, obviously) at length before.

From memory, they found some material in dust-samples which apparently come from the site. I say "apparently" because the provenance of tehse samples is far from ideal...but lets just accept that as a weakness and move on to see if that's all that's wrong.

The samples were found to contain chips of some substance which contains - amongst other things - elements which one could conceivably use in a form of thermite. There are other things where one would expect to find these elements as well...and the authors don't go to great lengths to rule out these alternatives. Again, I say "a form of thermite" deliberately. Thermite is any substance which exhibits a thermitic reaction

The samples are combustion-tested. The combustion test is pretty flawed, in that they test that the material burns in air. There's lots of stuff which burns in air. A proper test for a thermitic reaction would be to show that it combusts in an atmosphere devoid of oxygen. Unfortunately they didn't do this.

Its additionally worth noting that the combustion tests they performed do not show some sort of instantaneous combustion of the entire sample. Think about that for a second. Explosives are used for demolition because the timing and sequence of hte "cuts" that shaped charges make is key. You can't just cut a number of columns at an unpredictable and comparatively slow rate....well, you can, but you won't get any sort of controlled demolition.

Ultimately, on top of all of these weaknesses, we end up with some other problems. Thermite became a popular feature in the conspiracy theories at least in part because it doesn't cut by explosion....which would explain the lack of shock-waves. Explosives cut by generating a shock-wave which is what does the cutting.....but those shock-waves are missing. Thermite, it was theorised, could melt the columns, which would result in no shockwaves. Unfortunately, science gets in the way again....because the melting would not occur fast enough (no matter how much thermite you use) to control the demolition. Also...the notion that it would result in clean angular or horizontal cuts is also problematic as it ignores hte effects of gravity. I know of one skeptic who has, since then, created some sort of device to use thermite to create angular cuts, but even then its not a clean cut, and doesn't happen in the type of timeframe needed to make a controlled demolition.

Ultimately, the claims in the paper are far from absolutely established. They claim that a thermitic material was found. What they establish is that a material which contains (amongst others) chemicals one might find in thermite was found, and that this material could combust (but not necessarily thermitically).

It looks the exact same as the molten steel pouring from the wtc tower

Many things look like one another.

For example, many molten materials look similar, which begs the question as to how anyone could possibly know that it was molten steel that poured from the tower. In fact, they can't, but it hasn't stopped people making the claim.

Not only that, but the molten whatever-it-was poured from the tower quite some time before the collapse....and nowehere near the point-of-failure. Interestingly, it did occur at a point where there was a large UPS system installed...which offers a perfectly reasonable explanation of the molten material that doesn't require anything sinister.

Yitzhak Rabin

Not to mention that the fact that the journal they submitted it to is an absolute sham of a journal.

uprising2

namloc1980 wrote: »

Could you elaborate on this please. A folded $20 bill and a picture of the towers burning???

In the post, if you look back you will notice that I quoted something by airvan, this and especially the bold undelined part,
"Are we expected to believe these mythical demolition experts anticipated the exact point of impact and then exploded the charges which remained undamaged by the impact and the fire? Truly these people are geniuses, evil geniuses."

So I posted a pic of a folded $20 with the exact points of impact.

Now if you couldn't make out the connection without me having to explain, it says a lot about why you believe what and how you do.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWW-aiTXmKc

TalkieWalkie

bonkey wrote: »

Well, until I see a scientific paper stating the was NO thermite found, I am gonna go with Mr Jones on this. I think they used thermite to do the cutting and for intense heat to destroy evidence and while there is a possibility that it wasn't molten steel pouring from the tower they did find molten steel at a later stage. Regarding shockwaves, they are not missing. As each building began to collapse, seismographs recorded significant earthquakes measuring 2.1 and 2.3 respectively, were recorded prior to the rubble hitting the ground. This is another unexplained mystery regarding 9/11.
On the whole, it makes a lot more sense that the Gov were involved.IMO There are to many unanswered questions, coincidences, doubts, lies and apparent cover-ups. 19 hijackers ? no hope.

thecommander

uprising2 wrote: »

Now if you couldn't make out the connection without me having to explain, it says a lot about why you believe what and how you do.

So what are you trying to say? That a note that was designed with the purpose of being a blueprint to a future attack?

humanji

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Well, until I see a scientific paper stating the was NO thermite found, I am gonna go with Mr Jones on this.

That's hardly the way to go about things. You're not going to find a paper saying the tooth fairy wasn't involved but that doesn't mean they were. Sorry if that comes across as overly sarcastic, but if I said I believe the official story because it was on tv, you'd wonder how I could blindly believe it. It's the same for a questionable paper like this.

namloc1980

uprising2 wrote: »

Now if you couldn't make out the connection without me having to explain, it says a lot about why you believe what and how you do.

I ask a question so why the aggressive tone in response?? :rolleyes:

So anyway, are you saying that the US Govt plotted 9/11 and knew exactly where the planes would impact and hid that fact in a $20 bill, that can only be seen when it is folded in a particular way by some random punter on youtube?

bonkey

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Well, until I see a scientific paper stating the was NO thermite found, I am gonna go with Mr Jones on this.

Fair enough. I would point out that the scientific stance would be that until presence is firmly and well-established, one does not assume it.

The evidence for the presence of thermite is shaky. THe logic for the presence and use of thermite is shaky.

From a scientific stance, that's sufficient to say there isn't sufficient reason to believe thermite was present and used.

Further....its impossible to prove a negative. Lets say that someone did produce this paper. The immediate response would be "well, they didn't test every possible piece of dust, so maybe it was there and they missed it".

If thats the standard you want to accept...go for it. I would only note that it is this acceptance of lower standards which leads to a whole lot of the dispute in this issue. We have people wondering why the mainstream refuses to believe this evidence....when the reason is simply that the mainstream has long-established standards which this evidence fails to meet.

while there is a possibility that it wasn't molten steel pouring from the tower they did find molten steel at a later stage.

No...they didn't.

There have been some pictures (colour-adjusted) which show glowing metal, and there ahve been comments from people about molten <something>, but which was never tested and never found to be steel.

Regarding shockwaves, they are not missing. As each building began to collapse, seismographs recorded significant earthquakes measuring 2.1 and 2.3 respectively, were recorded prior to the rubble hitting the ground. This is another unexplained mystery regarding 9/11.

There was initially some claims about the shockwaves not matching. Closer analysis of the seismograph records showed that there was nothing unexplained. The seismic signature of controlled explosive demolition is not present.

On the whole, it makes a lot more sense that the Gov were involved.IMO

As has been often said....if the government wanted to be involved, the easiest way to pull this off would be to get a bunch of fanatics, make them believe they were working for a pro-Islamic terrorist organisation, and get them to fly aircraft into buildings.

robtri

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Well, until I see a scientific paper stating the was NO thermite found, I am gonna go with Mr Jones on this.

this will be interesting for you , if you believe mr jones.....

http://www.debunking911.com/ironburns.htm

francois

Pure bollocks, apply occam's razor

uprising2

thecommander wrote: »

So what are you trying to say? That a note that was designed with the purpose of being a blueprint to a future attack?

namloc1980 wrote: »

I ask a question so why the aggressive tone in response?? :rolleyes:

So anyway, are you saying that the US Govt plotted 9/11 and knew exactly where the planes would impact and hid that fact in a $20 bill, that can only be seen when it is folded in a particular way by some random punter on youtube?

No I think it was a commemorative 9/11 note released September 23rd 1998, an earlier version of this one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eF3mzTpFCrU

And the great lads who bring such great things about.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1836483377108563321#docid=-9023187359471101619

TalkieWalkie

bonkey wrote: »

No...they didn't.

Yes they did. If it wasn't steel, what was it ? chocolate doesn't go to 2500 degrees. If you remember, it was all over the news, suggesting the evidence WAS good enough even by their high standards.

In response to the numerous reports of molten metal under ground zero, defenders of the official version of 9/11 have tried to argue that it was not steel, but some other kind of metal with a lower melting point.

Well, here are what top experts who eyewitnessed the molten metal say:

* The structural engineer responsible for the design of the WTC purportedly described fires still burning and molten steel still running 21 days after the attacks (page 3)

* A retired professor of physics and atmospheric science said "in mid-October when they would pull out a steel beam, the lower part would be glowing dull red, which indicates a temperature on the order of 500 to 600 °C. And we know that people were turning over pieces of concrete in December that would flash into fire--which requires about 300 °C. So the surface of the pile cooled rather rapidly, but the bulk of the pile stayed hot all the way to December"

* The head of a team of scientists studying the potential health effects of 9/11, reported, "Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel"

* Hazardous materials experts also stated that, six weeks after 9/11, "There are pieces of steel being pulled out [from as far as six stories underground] that are still cherry red" and "the blaze is so 'far beyond a normal fire' that it is nearly impossible to draw conclusions about it based on other fires" (pay-per-view)

* An expert stated about World Trade Center building 7, "A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been PARTLY EVAPORATED in extraordinarily high temperatures" (pay-per-view). Note that evaporation means conversion from a liquid to a gas; so the steel beams in building 7 were subjected to temperatures high enough to melt and evaporate them

* According to reporter Christopher Bollyn, Mark Loizeaux, president the world's top demolition company, and Peter Tully, head of a large construction firm, said the following:

Tully told AFP that he had seen pools of “literally molten steel” in the rubble.

Loizeaux confirmed this: “Yes, hot spots of molten steel in the basements,” he said, “at the bottom of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven levels.”

The molten steel was found “three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed,” he said. He confirmed that molten steel was also found at WTC 7, which mysteriously collapsed in the late afternoon.

thecommander

uprising2 wrote: »

No I think it was a commemorative 9/11 note released September 23rd 1998, an earlier version of this one.

Again, was the note designed with the purpose of being a blueprint to a future attack?

tricky D

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Yes they did. If it wasn't steel, what was it ? chocolate doesn't go to 2500 degrees. If you remember, it was all over the news, suggesting the evidence WAS good enough even by their high standards.

Molten this, molten that. Utter rubbish. Any half-arsed civil engineer knows that steel fails way before it's molten. Plastic failure and all that.

Basic stuff.

namloc1980

uprising2 wrote: »

No I think it was a commemorative 9/11 note released September 23rd 1998

A commemorative 9/11 note released in 1998????

TalkieWalkie

tricky D wrote: »

Molten this, molten that. Utter rubbish. Any half-arsed civil engineer knows that steel fails way before it's molten. Plastic failure and all that.

Basic stuff.

eh yeah, and your point ?

uprising2

thecommander wrote: »

Again, was the note designed with the purpose of being a blueprint to a future attack?

No, just a little joke between a few friends, but YES I believe it was placed by a few men interested in geometry.

namloc1980 wrote: »

A commemorative 9/11 note released in 1998????

Think about it, seriously, think about it.