So the Taxi cab/driver story/photos is total wishy washy bullshit. Completely questionable if not a total lie and setup. That or the guy is totally insane. :helpme How can you blame anyone for not believing this shit and asking questions ............

Light Poll #1 : BULLSHIT

and what the fuck are you clown? :1orglaugh:321GFY

I don't give a fuck what you do :2 cents:

Other than that, I was agreeing with you. It's bullshit, a setup. If it's not than the taxi driver is totally insane... unless you have another explanation for his story other than he's telling the truth ?

Sounds like light poll number one was staged to me.

Lighten up Francis ...

no big whoop:321GFY

not only listening to this guys testimony which would make anyone question the validity of this whole "Lightpole #1" event .... but the physical evidence is fucking impossible to believe. A plane traveling how fast was it ?

Now you have the taxi driver headed straight for it at 40mph ... plane hits poll ( 200 pound light pole ) and not a scratch on this guys hood. Yes, if you believe that you need your head examined. :1orglaugh

can we please just concentrate on one bullshit incident at a time please :1orglaugh

If "Lightpole #1" was a criminal case for damaging public property all this "evidence" would be a complete joke and thrown out of court if it was even presented in the first place it's so laughable. That is a fact.

I don't know about everything else, not an expert on giving a fuck much but this is absolutely fucking questionable at the very least ........ :1orglaugh we're all fucked

google it fucker, i don't know :thumbsup :1orglaugh

There was thermite in the Pentagon!

Can you show me where on the Washington Post website this picture is online with a date?

My point is anyone can grab a picture of the Pentagon eight months AFTER and then claim the Washington Post had put this picture online months BEFORE.

As usual, you couldn't be more wrong. If you're not selling survival gear, food, survival books, seeds, and any other prep supplies in mainstream right now, you are missing one of the biggest money making boats that has come along in a while. If I could legally sell firearms and ammo I'd be doing that too. People are consuming this stuff at a rate that is apparently beyond your comprehension. And they are far from broke. Prepping isn't cheap and those who have it are spending it like the end of the world is right around the corner, because that is exactly what they believe.

Preppers = $$$$$$$$

If you actually tried to sell to them you would not have made what may be your dumbest post ever on GFY. :2 cents:


The police in that video would be the ones I'd believe. Their stories (along with every other witness in that video) contradict the official report. But the cab driver seems bat shit crazy to me. Not sure what is up with that loon.

i am talking about running and selling from a conspiracy site. unless you are one of the top dogs very hard to monetize. and i'm speaking from experience, not your stupid theory of how you think things should be.

what are you selling and how if i may ask?

like 95% of people here you don't read what was written but what you want you see. if you did you would have seen i was talking about starting a conspiracy site and monetizing it specifically.

is there also a huge demand for survival shit, especially in 2012? of course, two different things.

And gun sales...

Here is a hint of what is going on there:

I really wish I was in the gun and ammo biz right now. :2 cents:

My stupid theory of how things should be, actual works. I'm making money from them and you're saying you're not. So... not sure what else to say.

Sure, call me stupid then ask what I'm selling. :thumbsup

I actually have survivalist sites, not conspiracy sites. And while there is a difference between a survivalist / prepper and a conspiracy guy, you do get a lot of conspiracy cross over people. It's not really difficult to sell to them. You just have to sound like you know what you're talking about and really offer them good information. That is all they are after, info, so if you have it and they believe it, it's fairly easy to sell to them. If you didn't have success in that market it is probably because you don't believe in what you are trying to sell them and they can see that.

As far as what I sell, I do the best with smaller items. Tactical weapons / survival accessories, knives, lots of books, freeze dried meals, small emergency kits, adsense, food storage e-book, and so on. Nothing large like power generators or huge food storage racks. Keep it small, affordable, and practical.

Steel doesn't melt from jet liner fuel.
The fires underground lasted six weeks, minimum.
What caused them in the first place? Airline fuel?

If you were aware of the temperature at which iron liquefies, you would be surprised.

Thermate is a military grade incendiary. I believe they hold the copyright. Thermite on the other hand, upon which thermate is based, is a more common material. It's use in the initial construction of the WTC wouldn't produce residue in the concrete dust of its destruction, nor is its presence on site even confirmed by anything you've written...

And what makes you right? Is there any testimony of any explosive event besides the plane impacts anywhere that day?

I think that yes, people who worked in the WTC (for 20 and 30 years) would know the difference between explosions that occurred beneath them while they were in the basement levels and pushed them up from the ground and explosive events that occurred above their heads...

Who said it was steel? Was it steel, or a steel alloy? Or was it just metal?

Are you really telling me that there was weeks of underground fires, and that your surprised metal melted?

Why would anyone debate this? Everyone in the world saw huge fireballs. When the towers collapsed, some of it was on fire. It continued to burn underground. There was a shopping complex, a subway station, and a power sub station underground, as well as over six hundreds cars. Why does it surprise you that it was on fire and why does it surprise you that it burned for weeks underground?

Stop thinking of this as a two story building. It was a city of fifty thousand people.

They are discussing thermite, which is very common. And when that failed they started calling it "nano thermite".

Did they use thermite after the towers fell to start cutting away the debris?

There was no explosive event.

There was an explosion from when the planes hit, and then multiple explosions from there on out when flaming debris hit other buildings, setting them on fire.

Again, you thinking of this as a building. It wasn't "just a building". This was a massive city with hundreds of thousands of gallons of gasoline, back generators, sub stations, subway stations, a shopping mall, a parking garage etc etc etc. Once there was multiple fires at multiple locations, there was explosions everywhere.

I think that people work worked six or eight stories underground had no idea what was happening above ground. Even if they were able to hear it, I would imagine that it would echo around and they would be unable to determine the original source. It's entirely possible they never heard the original impact, but instead heard smaller and local explosions as fireballs raced down elevator shafts.

No one said iron had to liquefy. It starts to melt at 1500 degress, and the fires were above that.

I don't even understand your point here. Your talking about a huge amount of different metals that was set on fire by jet fuel and burned for weeks. If something didn't melt I would be stunned.

Never gonna happen. All of the cctv footage that was seized that day will remain locked in a vault for some unknown reason.

In order for there to be small, microscopic balls of iron in the dust, there had to be foundry-level temperatures which if the official story were true could not happen.

Regardless of how much office furniture was ignited in the ten minutes jet fuel was present, steel would not be melted.

:D

The color of the lava-like flow of metal reported says it was steel and iron.

The metal melted prior to the collapse, or during the collapse if you want - but it wasn't the cause of melting metal. The melting metal was caused by temperatures the equivalent of a foundry, inexplicably.

Everybody who saw fireballs could not say what their cause was. They were victims of instant, explosive immolation. Their testimony is reserved to what they and only they saw. The conclusion that there were fireballs is reserved to one conspiracy theory - the one that ignores testimony of explosions from below.

Why would one set of testimonials be ignored over another?

What does the amount of flammable material matter? Does any of that stuff combust and then burn at temperatures above the melting point of steel?

No, it doesn't.

Regardless, does anything in any city catch fire at temperatures considerably below the melting point of steel and then burn hotter than that?

Are buildings in cities built so that they melt upon ignition?

Quite to the contrary no discussions of thermite "failed".

Thermate is quite different from thermite.

Entirely possible. Except that none of the "debunking" sites brought it up.
All evidence points to standard acetyl propylene torches, but that wouldn't cause iron mirospheres to appear in the dust several days and weeks after...

This goes against what much testimony the 9/11 Commission disregarded.

What other "multiple explosions" that the 9/11 commission didn't refer to are you talking about?

None were reported.

Entirely possible, that they would be unable to distinguish the source of the impacts. But the force and effect of explosions beneath them? Come on...

So what cause the "fires above that"? Certainly not jet fuel...

No. Microscopic balls of iron would be expected. It's in everything from printer ink to breakfast cereal. Then it was pulverized.

There's pretty much going to be microscopic everything in the debris.

A huge plan loaded with Jet Fuel crashed into a building and exploded. Fireballs traveled down (and up?) elevator shafts. Other buildings were hit with burning debris. Once you have fire, it doesn't matter what started it. Once you have fire, fire burns. When you have fifty thosand desks and millions of tons of paperwork, plus a mall, plus 600 cars.... It will burn for weeks.

Not in the reported amounts, nor the sizes reported. Find a better debunking site...

Well, contrary to what you believe, it matters very much what ignites a fire.

And the temperature at which that fire will burn matters very much on what the fuel or material to burn is; nothing in the WTC would have or could have melted metal....

Iron is very common. This is not a surprise at all. I don't need a website to tell me that Iron is part a of my diet and is rather common.

You keep back to this fire and I understand why. Everyone saw the fireball, the flames, the smoke. Yet you seem to be surprised that it continued to burn for weeks. Well, if you take a city of fifty thousand people and then bury it, supply it with hundreds of cars, a shopping center, a power station, a subway station, and enough office furniture and paper for fifty thousand people... And then supply it with air (subway tunnels plus) and bingo, your gonna have a fire that will burn for weeks.

Why does this escape you? Give fire enough fuel and it will burn forever.

Look it up. Iron is not common in the form that it was nor the amounts in which it was present in the dust.

It will not burn at the temperatures it did.

No matter the fuel, fires don't burn hotter than a certain point. Iron, for example, will not burn beyond or BEFORE it's ignition point - the same for all substance and their ignition points.

For steel to have been melted under the ruins for weeks after the collapse, it would have to have been there before and during the collapse.

There is no office fire or subway fire or any fire that could have caused that slag to occur, under your official theory of what happened that day.

In fact, most of what happened that day couldn't have occurred if you and the government are correct about the events....

:D

BTW where do you get that the fires were above 1500 F? That's not in the NIST report... which in fact actually reports temperatures about one third to a quarter below that...

?

:D

Really? It took me ten seconds to find this on Wikipedia showing me it was clearly well above 500f...


The NIST found that the fireproofing on the Twin Towers' steel infrastructures was blown off by the initial impact of the planes and that, had this not occurred, the towers would likely have remained standing. A study published by researchers of Purdue University confirmed that, if the thermal insulation on the core columns were scoured off and column temperatures were elevated to approximately 700 °C (1,292 °F), the fire would have been sufficient to initiate collapse.

I would imagine that Iron was present in every possible form when a city of fifty thousand people caught fire and crashed to ground.

Your making mountains of molehills here and it's comical.

There was microscopic particles of iron. All this proves was... There was microscopic particles of iron present - nothing else. There are microscopic particles of iron in glass. Case solved.

Next.

Look what just came in the mail....

http://www.rochardsbunnyranch.com/rock/myths.jpg

This message is hidden because JohnnyClips is on your ignore list.

[QUOTE=Rochard;18845938]Really? It took me ten seconds to find this on Wikipedia showing me it was clearly well above 500f...

Note that there are multiple "ifs" in that paragraph.

More hypothesis.

What the study failed to mention, beyond the fact that collapse could not have been initiated at those temperatures according to NIST, is that the steel would have to have been exposed to those temperatures (actually higher than those) for about three hours before completely collapsing the structure.

Another "if" is the absolute removal of thermal insulation, which is entirely theoretical.

Regardless, the melting point of iron is way above 500f - more like 2800f, or 1500 celcius if you were maybe off in your charts.

Iron wouldn't turn to fine aerosol form and solidify as hard little droplets if a city caught fire and crashed to the ground unless that city was attacked by powerful elements such as thermite and/or thermate ...

Iron in this form is present only when temperatures present are high enough that it liquefies and turns into a mist - solidifying upon contact with air and becoming little hard balls.

Explain that.

[QUOTE=MediaGuy;18846148]For the most part, the conditions of the tower are completely hypothesis - being as we didn't engineers and scientists up in the burning towers taking notes.

[QUOTE=MediaGuy;18846148]Not true. The temps didn't need to melt anything, only bend it. That with the combined damage was more than enough.

[QUOTE=MediaGuy;18846148]Really? When hundreds of tons of concrete fall, I'm guessing things get broken into little tiny pieces.

And small bits of iron doesn't mean the towers was brought down by explosives. At all.

Not True.

Jet fuel starts the fire, but its the other materials such as carpet, desks etc, that burn longer and hotter. After a short while the gasses that these materials emit become extremely hot and the Gassess too begin to burn, and burn at extremely hot temperatures. Oxygen sucked in from the broken windows only add to the fire.

All the iron beams had to do was melt enough to weaken the structure. As a weak point bends inward, millions of tons of pressure start to push in on it.

Say it with me. No. Controlled. Demolition.

video is of course definitive proof these days heh

theres video of a plane and people will still call it an ORB lol

You are screwing up by using "melt". The steel does not need to "melt". It weakens. Not "melts".

Nutjobs continue to rely on the word "melt" and point to the fact that it was not hot enough to melt steel as if ANYONE said the steel melted. Regardless of the temperature required to melt the steel, its irrelevant to the fact that it was quite hot enough to weaken the steal, allowing it to buckle.

Yes, we all saw the buildings collapse. Thats not an event that's in dispute.

If you think I take any offense to being called moron to the one person who currently stands alone as the biggest lunatic on a forum known for its lunatics, you're mistaken.

I couldn't agree more. The iron didn't melt, it got weakened until the point it buckled.

You mention oxygen getting sucked in from the broken windows. You also need to remember the oxygen getting sucked up to the fires. The WTC towers were closed - air tight. The elevator shafts were air tight when sealed, but they were compromised somewhere along the line. So air was forced up to the fires too.

Damn,this is so long thread :)_

You are right.

Page 27. Any evidence yet for all these claims?

Let me guess, no?

GFY structural engineers to the rescue.

That is your style.

this isn't MIT ROCKET SCIENCE.

Apparently it is.

You'd think it would be cut and dry, two planes hit the world trade centers and buildings fall, but a lot of intelligent people, some scientists and engineers, dispute the official story.

dwb just because someone is in a position of AUTHORITY does not mean they are correct.

it is called an appeal to AUTHORITY. look it up.

again, this is not MIT ROCKET SCIENCE.

stored in the same place as your MIT degree maybe.