for those not deluded http://www.911myths.com/index.php/FB...entagon_videos

johnny even if a plane crashed into your house you would see a missile or orb.

you are extremely deluded or possible insane.

that is why your claims about truth are laughable. you see only what you want to see. not what is front of your eyes.

did you even read that you fucking moron?

no of course not. you are despite you MIT claims you also pretty much illiterate. maybe ask your mom or neighbor to read that to you slowly.

I love the part where he says "words can be deceptive".

Then he says "Do you see the rapid ejection of explosive material?". As a matter of fact, no, I do not. I see exactly what I would expect to see when one floor falls onto another floor in an air tight building.

Do you know what else I learned today? WTC 7 had gas lines leading up from the basement level to higher floors to power emergency generators there.

Imagine that.

Ok...

Sigh... forgive my use of the word "melt" - actually the temperatures never reached the heat, hotness, height, that would engender melting, softening, weakening or in any way compromise their integrity...

First, you're right, many things got broken.

And second, you're wrong: while small bits of iron doesn't mean the tower was brought down by explosives, small beaded aerosoled iron means that temperatures above the melting point of iron had to be present. Temps that couldn't be present in office fires, as NIST classified the temperature conditions in the building, btw....

Regardless of what ignites a fire, it's fuel determines its burning temperatures.

These "gasses" you make reference to do not increase the temperatures at which carpets and desks burn. Use your logic.

First, the temperatures reported did not explain why the steel weakened.

Second, the myth that the WTC was a "tube" or air tight has been proven as a lie. Wny do you keep repeating what has been proven a lie?

Yeah, you just don't read my posts, which provide the information that explosives and incendiaries were present in the towers...

Then you apparently don't even have an instinctive understanding of what you're looking at...

There were no explosions reported.

Even if there was natural gas, how dould that affect steel?

:D

Coach Trip as in "We're being taken for a ride"

Bart waves wad of cash "It's being done for money"

Notice the Coupon/Coup On at the bottom right :thumbsup

This CLOWN is exactly why people jump to conclusions. He is is not looking at this video from a skeptical point of view - just the opposite - he is instead looking for what he believes, and then reenforcing his belief, and worst of all, pushing his beliefs onto the view.

Want proof?

The very first thing is "The starting point in SCIENCE is observation". This is his only mention of science. Everything else is observation, and conclusions he draws only from those observations.

At 0:25 he says "What do you REALLY see happening here?" This is a suggestion to the viewer that everything is not as it seems. He is creating doubt with an agenda to push his own opinion.

AT 0:33 he asks if you "See the rapid explosions of ejected material". and at 0:42 he says he will "call them explosions because its hard to find other words that describe what we are seeing here".

What he should have said is "See the rapid ejection of material?". While they may look like explosions, he cannot know if they are or not from that video, or even if he was standing there. In this stupid video he uses the word "explosion" many times as if it were fact.

At about 0:52 he says "The (explosions) move progressively down the building". They are not explosions, they are "ejected material", and of course they move progressively down the building. Millions of tons are crushing the floors, and some of the pressure is causing materials to be ejected out the sides. The amount of energy is so high that it is ejecting the material at 100 miles per hour or more out of the sides of the buildings.

At 1:04 he says "notice the "explosions" are occurring over a wide zone", as if this is proves anything. From our point of view, WTC seems to be falling fairly straight down but of course it is not. Some parts are falling faster than others, some parts of some floors weigh more than others, some points are stronger than others or have different materials. OF COURSE the Ejections would be random and spread out. Barely 1 minute into the video and this guy has already proved himself to be an asshole.

He then switches into stronger language. "Squibs" and "controlled demolition". He has already made up his mind as to what he is seeing, despite the fact that everything so far is pure conjecture and imagination.


Haha I love this : At 2:39 he asks "What could hurl such girders with such force and such speed? What a fucking tool this guy is. The energy from the collapse could easily have done this.


They idiot goes on and on to make one stupid mistake and assumption after another. This idiot is the worst conspiracy theories ever.

Your making stuff up again.

We know what the temp of the fire was. Are you now telling me it was much hotter? That's seriously funny.

You tell me how hot the fires were.

The guy who made the video seems to think he sees explosives. I see god only knows what shooting out of an airtight building.

Clearly this guy has never set foot in the WTC and doesn't understand it was air tight.

The fuel for the fire was jet fuel and a lifetime supply of office furniture and paper.

Steel starts to weaken at 400 degrees. The fire was three times that.

This is not open to debate. The buildings were in fact airtight. The only openings in the building were the entrances at the bottom, and at the top. You couldn't open up a window; The entire building was air tight. Even the elevator doors were air tight, so each floor was air tight.

And before you ask how fireballs went down elevator shafts to other floors, the elevators were compromised at the point of impact and followed the path of least resistance - to the lobby and the sky lobbies.

You have no proof that any explosives in the building. We discussed thermite at length and determined that it was used in welding, communications trunks, electrical connections, and power sub stations - and then we discussed the fact that the WTC was built over a CON ED sub station.

In order for explosives to have been used, someone would have needed tons of it. It would have taken dozens of people weeks to do it, and you can't hide it.

You got nothing more than a handful of half baked accusations that are completely false.

I'm pretty sure I saw Satans face in the smoke. The end is near.

Wait for it... you won't believe his explanation for this one... !

Look into the Turner Construction WTC renovations in 2000 :2 cents:

you're just having a laugh now right? :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Right. In other words, nothing that would melt steel.

First of all, it depends on the alloy used to make the steel. But iron itself melts at about 1300 celsius, which is about 2250-2500 Farenheit.

The fire was not three times the temperature it takes to begin to melt iron. According to NIST it wasn't, at it's hottest, even half that.


Eh.... when the planes smashed into them, the buildings were no longer air tight.

Even before this, the buildings did not manufacture their own breathable air - a submarine is air tight, but no office buildings are...

In theory, there's nothing wrong with that story.
How they could have managed to blow apart all your air-tight connections to air-tight floors without losing strength or energy and then somehow blowing apart generators and concrete floors in the basement however is another story.

I don't claim I have any proof to anything. However, there is proof of military grade incendiaries, and the presence of residuals that could only be present if such were used.

"We" didn't determine anything about thermite. You found a link to Wikipedia that mentioned thermite is used in exothermitic welding - railroad ties and thick-cable electrical network building. You didn't show any proof that it was used to build the WTC or any building in NYC, or that raw thermite was kept on the premises in case of the need for repairs.

The whole point of thermite welding is that it's dangerous and generates huge amounts of dangerous heat; that it's easier to weld a tie at the site of the accident than to drag it back to a shop. There's no indication that it's convenient to use thermite in building construction.

I don't know about "tons" of it - from the incendiary element found in the dust, explosives wouldn't be needed in such large amounts to destroy the building; their use would have been to "move" or shift the parts that were cut by the thermate.

I don't know how many people or days or weeks would be needed to set up the destructive elements. However, the WTC itself was shut down completely recently before the "attacks". Until there's an actual investigation, all that stuff is complete speculation.

Who the heck did I accuse of what? lol I don't believe the government theory and accusation, and apart from my own "common sense" of what I saw that day I have some basis for backing up my disbelief.

What, exactly, do you guys have apart for the "common sense" that a plane and kerosene "could" do what the buildings were designed not to do in precisely that scenario.

All I hear from you guys is "could" "should" and all sorts of speculation. I still haven't heard any facts.

I never said steel needed to melt. I said steel starts to weaken at 400 degrees. The missing support combined with the weakened steel remaining is what did the towers in.

Not at all. A number of floors had been compromised, but not all of them. In fact, most of them weren't. Only the floors hit, the sky lobbies, and the main lobby. The rest of the building is still air tight.

Again, your lack of knowledge about the WTC complex is stunning. All of the breathable air was pumped in - and pumped out. All sky scrapers are built like this.

There's no proof of anything in the debris that points to any kind of explosives. The truth movement came up with thermite which was disproven, and then they came up with nano thermite. Then they came up with this iron particle stuff.

And all of this is kind of silly anyhow because anything found in the debris might be there because they used it to dismantle the debris to remove it.

You would have needed tons of explosives to take down that towers and there would have been no way to install any of it without anyone knowing.

Steel starts to weaken at 500-600 degrees farenheit, after extended exposure, on the order of several hours not 60 minutes.

If it was "missing support" why did the buildings not come down asymmetrically, which would be more likely accroding to the odds, but increasingly unlikely with each building that fell, one by one, that day?

How were the lobbies compromised exactly?

I would have to look this up since as with your idea that thermite was present in the buildings in advance you provide no links or corroboration for the statements...

But I'll take your word for it. However, if air could be pumped in or out, how would that make them air tight and how would that make them more vulnerable to collapses that were designed to not happen?

Nobody "came up" with anything of the sort... what mail-order books are you reading? First of all, the proof of thermate was found in the dust, blocks away from the crash, and thermite was never "disproven" by anyone.

The iron particles were found by insurance company investigators as well as scientists outside any commercial interests.... read a bit more on that...

They didn't use thermite to dismantle anything in the debris. Acetyl propelyne torches wouldn't cause residue to appear in the dust weeks after the event....

But if you used incendiaries to cut the steel and then a few explosives to start the collapse by displacement as we saw then "tons" wouldn't be required....

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/...n/consp600.jpg

11 years after the attack we may never know the entire story, but will always remember the people who we lost on this tragic day.

I would think the torch cutters for the steal would have probably produced tons of the iron spheres when rescue and cleanup were going on.

But in the dust after the collapses?

:D

Mediaguy poked me on ICQ this morning. Seems he has this post bookmarked and doesn't want to let it die. So...

Steel weakens at 500-600 degrees. The fire was plenty hot enough to begin weakening what little support was left.

You keep going back to thermite, and I don't understand why. Thermite is used in welding, communication trunks, electrical wiring, and power sub stations - all of which was present at the WTC complex. Again, stop looking at the WTC complex as a "building" and start looking at it like it was a city of fifty thousand people. Of course there was thermite present.

Air was pumped in and out. Making them air tight did not make them more vulnerable to collapse, but instead play a part in explaining the so called "squibs". Everything in the building was under pressure - air, hydraulics, steam, and even glass cleaner (which ran to the very top of the building for the people who cleaned the windows from the outside). All of this was under pressure, and when floors started to collapse all everything was compressed and found the weakest exist point.

I had never heard about "iron particles" until they were mentioned in this thread. Iron particles are so common that they are every where. It's in the food we eat, the clothes we wear, the fabric on our chairs, and in printer ink. Your saying "Oh my god there was iron particles so there must have been a bomb" when reality is iron is every where.

So they didn't use thermite to take apart the welds? Why wouldn't they?

Most varieties are not explosive, and would be used in small amounts to dismantle welds.

It takes hours and hours at those temperatures for steel to begin to "weaken".

Spheroid iron can only occur at temperatures that liquefy iron, and then aerosilze it, and turn it into a spray... were any temperatures at WTC that hot, according to your government-based theory?

After the planes punched holes in these building, could what you say be true?

Iron in spherical form can't be found in regular dust absent some external source of heat - other than the temperatures of office fires.

Thermite is highly energetic and unsafe to use in enclosed spaces.


But the fact is that thermite wasn't used in the dismantling. Even if it was, there wouldn't be little iron spheres in the dust from the collapse days and weeks earlier...

:D

Really?

The original argument was that "steel didn't melt" at a the temperatures reached in the fire. But it didn't need to melt, it just needed to bend.

Steel starts to weaken at 500-600 degrees. The steel in question faced higher temps, and started to weaken. It didn't need hours to weaken - an hour was plenty.

Spheroid iron is in printer ink. Mystery solved.

Yep. A number of floors were obviously compromised and no longer air tight. This also applies to the sky lobbies as well. But other floors were still air tight when the towers collapsed.

Your the only one saying it was used in enclosed spaces. Everyone else seems to think it came from multiple sources, including the clean up.

Says you. Common sense tells me they needed to dismantle all of those steel beams, and they most likely used welding to do it. I haven't done welding in ages, but it seems to me if you have two steel beams welded together and need to take it apart, your going to using welding to take them apart. Thus, more thermite.

Little iron spheres... Come from printer ink. It doesn't mean there was any explosives.

You keep going back to "iron" which seems to prove to you that explosives were used, and I'm just not seeing that. Iron speheres, 7 microns in size, are used in magentic printer ink - lots of those in the WTC, and lots of documents with ink.

And that's only once source of "iron spheres". We can talk a lot more about them too.

It wasn't my original argument. "Bend" Weaken" "soften" are all terms for the same result on steel after hours of exposure at those temperatures... none of the steel at WTC was exposed to these temperatures fo this amount of time.

The steel in question did not in fact confront those temperatures. Find a quote. Temperatures at WTC werre regular office-fire temperatures....



Not in the amounts in which it was found. And this still doesn't explain nano-thermite found in the dust.

Regardless, this goes against what proof was found.

I'm not the only one. Use your wikipedia to find where thermite is used. It's not in enclosed areas...

"Common Sense" rears its ugly head again. It has nothing to do with reality.

The dust that was deposited across Manhattan on the day of the event/s did not result from welding done on beams days and weeks later.

Nope. It means there were temperatures hot enough to create liquid iron and turn it into a mist that solidified when they were away from those temperatures.

Iron micros-pheres in the amount they were detected is not justified by normal buliding debris.

Go ahead, and then source me the amounts of iron spherical objects found in regular building dust versus the amounts found in WTC dust...

:D

Steel bends / melts / softens at 500-600 degrees. Fire in the WTC was 1800f.

<
"Common Sense" rears its ugly head again. It has nothing to do with reality.
[/QUOTE]

Common sense rules. In this case, it's pretty difficult to separate those steel beams without cutting them.

What do you mean across Manhatten? So this dust wasn't even at the WTC site? It was found "some place in Manhatten"? Well, that's proof that explosives were used "some place". But whatever.

What makes you think it was liquid iron? Could have been anything. In fact, I thought it was glass with aluminum.

Says you. You don't seem to understand that Iron is everywhere. It's in concrete, concrete that was pulverized and smashed by tons of god only knows what. Saying there was "too much to be justified by normal building debris" is hog wash. There was not "normal building debris" at the WTC site. Nothing about it was normal - and generally speaking no one goes around looking at "normal building debris" to measure microscopic bits of anything.

There is nothing not normal about what they found at the WTC site. Period.

I think the Taco Bell Dog, Ronald McDonald and that Jack In The Box CEO were behind this to distract us from the American obesity problem that fast food is creating.

A known terrorist, wanted for planting mini-nukes in the towers

Eh... you're the one who's making stuff up here.... quote yourself some links here. The fire was nowhere near this hot except perhaps for a few seconds, which is nowhere long enough to cause the steel to weaken.

Did I make a mistake? I meant that the dust from the collapses was propagated far and wide from the site of the "collapses". Anything done at the site/s would not have gotten into apartments and work places a mile away after the fact.

No, when little beads of iron are created that means temperatures were so high that iron was not just molten, it was vaporized. There's no way around this one.

You're right. Normal building debris wouldn't have iron micro-spheres in it at all; that there were points to temperatures very much above that of an office fire.

Actually, there's nothing normal about what they found at the WTC. The metal was all pre-cut to convenient lengths, the so-called collapse caused all the concrete to be pulverized... you name it, it wasn't normal or rather what you would expect...

Sure.

However, the FEMA report did find that regions of steel in beams of the WTC had been subjected to "severe high temperature corrosion attack" and subsequent melting.[71] Further, the report found that temperatures of these regions of the steel beams investigated approached 1,000C degrees (1,800F), temperatures far lower than would be necessary for melting steel under ordinary circumstances.

( source )

Your telling me that dust collected "far and wide" (in Manhattan) is being used as evidence, and I'm trying to tell you that dust "collected" from any site a distance away from the WTC is most likely contaminated. You can't even be sure the dust being collected was from the WTC or another building.

If it was vaporized, how do you know it was iron?

Iron is in everything. Iron was smashed into a billion little pieces when the buildings fell. Not to mention the fireball.

You missed my point entirely. What I was saying is that no one takes microscopic samples of "normal building debris". And it's irreverent - A normal building isn't a city of fifty thousand people.

The 9/11 Truth Movement have become so desperate for attention that they have over analyzed everything, and they are grasping at straws to prove there was explosives. Tiny iron particles aren't proof that there was explosives, it was proof that there was concrete.

http://datingsymbol.com/wp-content/u...wning_5106.jpghttp://3.bp.blogspot.com/_ON1QYE9Ii8...politician.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_ON1QYE9Ii8...politician.jpg

Conspiracy theories won't go away

please stop posting in this thread..it is depressing

Dude... the Gasses themselves reach a flashpoint, and THEY BURN TOO.

A fire started in the living room of an average house gets to over 1100 degrees in only about 3 and a half minutes. Your whole argument is that jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel.

The truth is that there was so much fuel (jet fuel + office materials + oxygen) that it got more than hot enough to WEAKEN the steal which caused the collapse.

Geeze...!

Bump that!

This is some more wonderful bullshit. John Farmer was in fact on the 9/11 Commission, but he hasn't come out on the record saying there was a government cover up.

He wrote a book called "The Ground Truth: The Untold Story of America Under Attack on 9/11" which, oddly enough, talks about 9/11... and Katrina, as in the hurricane. He talks more about what the government failed to do before 9/11, and then tells us the "seven things we should have learned from 9/11". His book discusses that the FAA was unaware that the US State Department had a "terrorist watch list", which really shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone - It's not big surprise when two government agencies don't talk to each other.

If anyone had a smoking gun, it would be this guy - direct from the 9/11 Commission itself. Yet he's got nothing.

Anyone can make a graphic and tell a lie.

Nobody said it was. All the video I have seen shows it was heavily damaged by debris from WTC's 1 and 2, and it burned for 7 hours I think before it collapsed.

These temperatures however contradict the official theory, since only substances on the order of thermate would have allowed the steel in question to react the way it did. This part of the FEMA report was entirely overlooked by NIST, basically because it doesn't fit their theory.

Original source: http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf

The chain of custody had to be verified and re-verified. Regardless, how would an insurance office, a bank or a housewife all happen to have unignited thermate in their WTC dust?

The iron was turned to vapor - liquefied droplets - then solidified. Vaporized doesn't mean "disappeared".

The iron in question was separated from its still alloy. It wasn't part of the composants of orange juice, for example, and it was in a form that suggests it had been liquefied.

For all intents, the WTC were buildings, albeit large ones. They didn't stand outside the laws of physics and normal building construction.

I don't speak from or for the "9/11 Truth Movement" and I don't know why you bring that up.

Liquefied, spheroid iron is evidence of extremely high temperatures, not explosives nor of concrete.

FEMA and the New York Times both characterized the melted, eutectic steel as highly mysterious and warranting further investigation, which was not followed up on...

:D

You've seen video that shows it was heavily damaged? Link it?

And why would it collapse even if it burned for 17 hours? When has this happened before?

:D

I thought you said there was no investigation?

Anyhow, there was multiple investigations with multiple official stories. Shouldn't come as a surprise at all being as they were independent of each other.

A report by FEMA was entirely overlookd by the NIST? I'm sure it was. I'm also sure it happened dozens of times. I'm sure thousands of reports were written by dozens of government agencies, and not every one was taken into consideration.

What chain of custody? Dust was collected from around the city by uncertified and untrained cilvilians? That would hardly stand up in a court of law.

And it doesn't matter. We've already discussed at length how common thermite is.

So your saying that iron from printer ink and OJ wasn't liquefied in the fireball?

They stand completely outside of normal building construction. I don't think any other skyscrapers have been build like the WTC towers.

No, but your use their standard arguments and accept them as fact. The "Iron droplets" is the latest idea the 9/11 Truth Movement has come up with, and it's laughable. Are they really debating that the fire wasn't hot enough to liquefy microscopic particles of iron? The melting point of iron overall is one thing, but the melting point of a piece of iron that is 1/7th the width of a human hair is another thing - a lot less. And by the way, who in the world claims that liquefied droplets of iron happen at the WTC? Everything at the WTC originated from someplace else. How the fuck do we not know that a steel beam was created in the 1960s in New Jersey using thermite that created liquefied droplets of iron that wasn't shaken loose years later? How do we know that liquefied droplets of iron came from the towers themselves, and not another part of the WTC complex - such as the millions of gallons of fuel stored for back up power? Maybe they came from the acid explosions when back up batteries exploded?

Do you get my point? We don't know where "liquefied droplets of iron" came from, it shouldn't be that unusual, and it no matter what it's not proof of anything.

Excellent observation.

I too believe that "big food" engineered 911, The War on Terror, and Pearl Harbour.

It is also the perpetrator of the great Holocaust lie.

We need more fast food so that the jews dont starve. Yeah right.

:1orglaugh

There was no valid investigation. The 9/11 Commission and such weren't "investigations" but rather reviews.

NIST actually used most of FEMA's findings, with the exception of the inexplicable steel damage.

This is why the chain of custody was verified by the various scientists who established the presence of incendiaries in the dust.

Thermite has been used for exterior welding purposes. There's no evidance that it was used in the construction of the WTC. Even if it was, there wouldn't be remnants in the dust forty years later. Also, thermite is a common, commercial product. ThermAte is a different product, and copyrighted by different/external agencies...

Your "fireball" wouldn't be hot enough to liquefy any iron.

You may be right. I don't know. But they were buildings, period, and they weren't exempt from the laws of physics.

It actually isn't the "latest idea" since the RJ Lee Group investigated the damage to the Deutsche Bank in 2003 and found and established the presence of the iron spheres in 2003.

Yes they are, and the temperatures weren't reported by NIST or FEMA as being hot enough to do this to steel.

Everyone. RJ Lee Group investigating for Deutsche Bank 9 years ago for example. The iron wasn't present in the building as is. It was part of an alloy that composed the steel that made up the structure of the WTC.

If thermite was used to create beams in the superstructure of the WTC, it isn't documented. If it was, there wouldn't be iron by-products in the final products.

You're wrong. Iron wouldn't be left behind by any production process, and it wouldn't be cleaned up before delivery.

How could he do that?

It was one of the most in depth investigations ever done. It was created "to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11 attacks". Not only did they produce multiple volumes of findings, but also published a book and handed it out to the public. They interviewed thousands of people.

One agency hand picked another agency's findings. No big surprise there.

There was no chain of custody. "Dust" was collected off site by random people that was examined by people outside the government. You can't even prove it was from the WTC complex.

When the iron is already microscopic, of course it will.

Exactly. So it's common to find these elements in buildings. That's what I've been telling you.

I have no idea what you talking here. There is some discussion about "molten steel" on 9/11 sites, but it wasn't steel at all. It was really glass and other metals.

We've been over this time and time again. These are common chemicals used in construction, for communication hubs, and power sub stations - all of which were present at the WTC complex.

Clearly you know nothing about construction. You assumed that everything is "cleaned up". The truth is stuff gets hidden and buried.

When they built my parent's house, the back porch was originally a garbage pit. Anything they didn't need they threw into a huge pile, and then eventually they covered it up with concrete. I'm sure if you ripped open the walls of any large building, you would find the same. Hell, I've found all kinds of crap in my attic including an entire set of tools.

On top of all of this, WTC was a massive construction site. You look at this as a "completed building" but the truth is the WTC was always a construction site. At any given time there was a number of construction zones there - Every time they had a new tenet they had to move walls, re-wire things, and god only knows what else. Half of both towers had been ripped apart over the past ten years to have asbestos removed or fire proofing installed.

God only knows what they stored down in the basement levels to support this activity.

And Mediguy... Here's something new..... Entire floors were "Mechanical floors" where electrics, wiring, machines, havac, and everything else required to run a city of fifty thousand people were stored.

God only knows what was stored in these floors.

You keep thinking of the towers as "buildings". They were so much more than that. More people worked in the WTC than live in my home town here. It was so big it had it's own power sub station.