Yes and they excluded thousands of testimonies from their report. In fact, there was more excluded from the final document than was included.

It has been referred to off-handedly as the "9.11 OMISSION" report...

True. But NIST refers to FEMA as a solid source, and bases its conclusions on their findings...

You might have a point here. You'd have to prove it but you you know how much I like evidence...

Oh come on now. The amounts and the form the iron was found in deny any happenstance source...

No it was not "glass and other metals". It was iron, which was somehow separated from its alloy in the steel.

No, even if they were present in the construction of the building, of which there is no proof, there's no reason they would be in the dust of the collapse.

"Stuff" does get hidden and buried. However there's no proof that thermite was used in the construction of the WTC.

So this is some form of proof for the "cities" that were the WTC???

So there was always an opportunity for crews to move in and place explosives? What are you trying to prove with this?

Whether God or whoever you want... maybe somebody should provide proof before making blanket statements...

Of course. This is to be expected. The final report released the public was 400 pages long. They spoke to thousands. If they devoted half a page to each person, the entire report would have been nothing but interviews. And if they only devoted half a page to each interview, you should would have complained that not enough detail was given to each interview and you would have complained that the report contained nothing but interviews.

How many people witnessed this live? Five thousand people? Ten thousand? Fifty thousand people worked in that building, only three thousand of which died. Does that mean forty-seven thousand people waiting to enter the building or who had just left the building needed to be interviewed? My younger brother watched the towers fall from Newark, NJ. Did they need to interview him? And the hundreds of people from his office that witnessed it?

Do you see my point here? There was so much information that if they published it all, it would be volumes.

The amounts of iron found must be staggering. It's so common that it's not funny. I'm drinking a Red Bull right now; Iron is in Red Bull. It even mentions it on the can. And I'm missing your point here - All this proves is that there was iron present, which is common and to be expected. Was it liquified? I would imagine so. Fireballs, fires, crushed by tons of concrete.

You need to specific about what your talking about here. Are you talking about the "molten steel" at the time of the fire caught live on video (which wasn't steel) or are you talking about the "molten steel glow photo" which wasn't a glow at all, but instead a flashlight?

There's no proof that it wasn't used. Is there a list of "all materials used" at the WTC in the past forty years? I'm guessing not. And btw, the materials to make thermite is so common that Myth Busters was able to whip up their own batch.

But here's the odd part. You accept that they found thermite. But explain to me why people collected dust from multiple locations to examine years later? What did they do, scoop it up in vials and say "I might need this later".

LOL.

It would have taken tons of explosives to pull of a demolition to take down the towers. There's no way they could have planted it without people knowing, and no way they could have hid it.

While I'm thinking about it... thermite burns at (gasp!) four thousand degrees. We've already determined the fire never got that hot - not even close to four thousand degrees F. If the fire never got that hot, then I guess thermite wasn't used?

They cherry picked the testimony to exclude any evidence of explosions prior to the impacts, as well as any explosions whatsoever.

And the crime doesn't warrant volumes? The final report was pre-written, the conclusions scripted by Zelikow, anything that didn't fit the script were omitted.


The iron in your Red Bull isn't the same as that found in the dust from the destruction of the towers, which was much larger. An office fire and tons of concrete wouldn't turn iron to liquid, no matter the form.

I'm talking about the iron found in the dust by multiple investigators who weren't sanctioned by the government - insurance investigators, scientists, etc....

You're right - there's no proof either way, at least presented in this thread. However there's no proof that it was kept in storage at the site as well - and no reason for such a volatiile substance to be kept there. Thermite is usually carried to a site needing repair for this very reason.

And thermite isn't a point of contention here so much as thermate, which is a military grade version of thermite and shouldn't have been present in the debris from WTC.

That's exactly what happened. And how companies such as RJ Lee had samples of the dust at Deutche bank...

I don't know about "tones of explosives" as well as thermite and thermate are not explosives. I saw three buildings come down in one day in such a way that "natural" causes couldn't be considered.

"We" never determined the fires never got that hot. The official story claims there couln't have been such temperatures at WTC. Your claim contradicts your quote from the FEMA report about the damaged steel. It's not my position that there weren't such temperatures at WTC - it's obvious that there were. But the official story of office fires and the denial of post-destruction molten steel goes counter to this.

I'm sticking with the Taco Bell dog. He's an illegal immigrant anyways

Time to wrap this up.

You - and the entire 9/11 so called "truth movement" has told us time and time again that the fires never got enough in the towers to cause the collapse. You've told us the fires never got hot enough to melt the steel, and you've told us the fires were 1500f.

But your auguring that Thermite and little particles of iron are proof that Thermite was used to bring down towers. Thermite burns at 4000F.

Thermite burns at more than twice what you've augured the fire temp was, and more than plenty to melt steel.

So which is it? Was the fire 4000F degrees and hot enough to melt steel? Or was the fire only 1500F, meaning it thermite was not used?

Never. I just helped bump it. LOL! See! :1orglaugh

haha.. you're relatively new at this i guess. The answer to your question is usually "well, we don't really know because..." or something that again relies on conspiracy and "just asking questions" and "seeking answers" and "why won't they tell us" or "why are they lying" etc.

You are doing the equivalent of trying to use reason and logic to prove their is no God and Heaven to someone who just his family get murdered. You're not going to win.

The government theory has told people that office fires somehow managed to destroy the buildings.

The presence of liquid steel and iron spheres, while denied by the official theory, point to temperatures above those of office fires.

Since office fires have never before demolished buildings, there has to be another explanation than the official theory as to why those buildings were destroyed.

Which is it?

:D

You didn't answer my question. How hot was the fire(s)?

If you say not hot enough to melt steel, then thermite couldn't have been used.

If you say the fire was caused by thermite, then the steel obviously melted.

No, at that point Rochard actually misunderstood what the 'conspiracy' side of argument is actually trying to prove. Read back and you'll see

Continue...

Everyone fully understands ALL sides of the arguments. This conversation is over 10 years old.

And i'm not going to fall prey to the typical, intentionally vague, "go do some homework" response of a conspiracy nut and you can then rely on the oft-used "you just need to open your eyes and do some research" crap as if a sane person needs to research whether or not someone secretly planted tons of explosives and miles of wire to bring down to buildings in front of millions of witnesses, unnoticed WHILE allowing 2 planes to be hijacked and were also successful crashing them into the towers as well.

If you espouse the government theory, the temperatures could never have reached the point they could soften/weaken steel.

Evidence points to temperatures above that.

The presence of thermite and thermate explains the differences between the official theory and reality.

I believe in facts. The official theory doesn't follow facts.

:D

Maybe you didn't read through the posts above, there was certainly a misunderstanding at to what the conspiracy side is arguing, evidence is above in this thread

So the fire was hot enough to melt steel.

It would appear so, but not if your theory is followed...

:D

Lol Greg... just lol.

Prove me wrong, then. Just... prove me wrong.

So now that we've agreed that the fire was hot enough to melt steel, well, the government's theory makes sense.

Of course not. The government's theory is that office fires brought down the buildings. The government theory refuses to acknowledge temperatures above that. We haven't agreed that the fire was hot enough to melt steel. You contradict yourself by buying the government theory while at the same time saying there were temperatures hot enough to soften/weken steel, which according to NIST did not occur.

So which is it? The government theory or temperatures hot enough to soften and melt steel?

:D

But you said the fire was hot enough to melt steel.

Soften steel... Soften steel Soften steel Soften steel Soften steel Soften steel ..

SOFTen...a nice warm fire gets steel to relax... to take a load off...there ya go... take a deep breath... you're so .. stiff! Come on, relax... here's a little more fuel... there ya go... warming up now... just let yourself soften and bend and NO NOT THAT MUCH Arrrghh... crash.

But he just admitted it was 4000F in the towers... Plenty hot to melt whatever.

I heard Obama was behind this one too LOL!!!

If the government theory is right, not so.

But the government theory is obviously an incorrect theory, and thus temperatures high enough to melt steel are probable.

Now the reason for these temperatures can't be accounted for by the government theory.

However the presence of thermate and/or other incendiaries would account for these temperatures.

:D

What the hell are you basing this bullshit on? Where is the actual math and formulas for what you are stating?

Does this work?


I guess it does

So what your saying is no one really knows how hot the fire was.

where is the official report as to how exactly the towers collapsed ?

it was really weird how the towers collapsed - i dont understand how the steel was heated to such a degree that it weakened the integrity of the whole structure but nothing ignited first ?

It was all metal and steel, dude. WTF? I can't believe people read conspiracies into this shit. It was a conspiracy actually. Isn't the legit one bad enough? It beat out Pearl Harbor as far as the Media goes.

I mean how hot does metal have to get to melt? Then how hot can it get in a fucking glass tower that actually holds in the heat? Use some common sense. What do you really have to check this against? Math and physics is the only thing so if you're not an expert in that you dont' know what the fuck you are talking about.

Al Queda didn't even know it was going to be this big. They just wanted to take down some American symbol that turned out to be the twin towers. They would have probably been happy if it just took out the top floors and left an ugly building behind.

Now, Lil Bush is a stupid fuck for sure, but you'll never get me to believe that he had anything to do with this. He wouldn't be smart enough in the first place.

The funniest thing about all these conspiracies is that two people can't keep a secret. Now you want me to believe that all the people it would take to pull these things off can do so after the fact.

Actually Al Queda seems to keep the best secrets up to a point or at least until the mission is over now that I think about it. Even the Mafia can't keep it's mouth shut any longer. They are always ratting out their own family members LOL.

basically all i was saying is that i that i never expected the towers to collapse like that

i dont think there is any conspiracy myself

now why dont you pop round and we'll have a cup of tea together luv :) :)

i got 2 jetskis - bay is lookin great today - oh yeah oh yeahhhhh

few fucken chongos mate and we can get otu there and get amongst it heh

No problem. Anytime. :1orglaugh

You have to be slick to pull off a conspiracy. Lil Bush and his drunk daughters who were caught buying booze with fake ID's while other American's were being killed in the war he started, aren't that slick.

Now, Obama is sort of slick. I mean he killed the guy Bush was chasing for eight fucking years, right? I can't understand how anyone could ever vote republican ever again after these ACTUAL FACTS that don't have to be looked up. The republican party should be as extinct as the dinosaurs.

Do you know what I think... .























http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/h...6/EveMGTFH.jpg

What I'm saying is that the government theory can't account for temperatures hot enough to affect steel the way the FEMA sample demonstrated.

What is known is that liquid metal thousands of degrees hot endured under the rubble for weeks after the inexplicable collapses.

Connect the dots.

:D

it's all bullshit. my scientifical analysis

Have you seen any actual math for the explanation of the total collapse of three skyscrapers on 9/11?

You can't add up structural damage to office fires to equal complete structural collapse and physical pulverization.

While the facts published by the government agencies might all be actual, the conclusion they LEAP to isn't held up by those facts.

There are studies and findings you can refer to:

http://www.benthamscience.com/open/t...001/7TOCPJ.SGM

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evid...WTC_apndxC.htm

http://www.findthatfile.com/search-8...646-mp-pdf.htm

There's more. Follow the trail.

I've connected the dots. A fucking airplane hit a skyscraper. I saw fireballs and hour of flames. A portion of the support was gone - JUST FUCKING GONE. And now your telling me the fire was hot enough to melt steel. Well, that's that.

Hot enough if thermate was present.

Not if the government theory applies.

Support was "gone" non-symmetrically. So how did symmetrical collapse ensue? In three cases...

I don't care if a fucking airplaine hit the buildings - it wouldn't create heat enough to melt, soften or weaken steel.

You saw fireballs... where? OUTSIDE the buildings. And flames/fire for an hour at most on a few floors. Nothing to eradicate support for 100 floors in their entirety.

You're a smart guy man, use your reason.

/

You keep saying it was symmetrical, and it wasn't. It looks symmetrical thanks to the distance the various cameras were away from the WTC. If you were far away, it would like they they fell straight down. If you were right beside it, it would be falling in a chaotic mess all around you in all different directions. A "Symmetrical collapse" is a perceived notion only.


If it were ONLY the jet fuel that was burning, maybe you're right, but other materials including gasses were burning as well. Jet fuel can burn at temps up to 980 degrees celcius. The temperature at which steel changes from cementite and pearlite (strong phases of steel) to austenite (significantly less strong) is 702.5 deg. Celsius.

Don't forget too that there was lots of damage to the building too. Damage + heat + time weakend a couple of beams (maybe only one, who knows) which caused it to bend, which caused more weight on those beams, which then bent even more, until the collapse.

Yes, but they originated inside the buildings. Why is that even a concern?

On the contrary, there is LOTS to eradicate the total destruction of WTC.

You too...!

Dude : You know I'm no engineer or scientist, but I have more than a passing interest in science, technology, physics and even astrophysics. Everything I have seen of ever video of the event clearly points to nothing more than fire and damage caused by planes which caused the collapse.

I have seen the side-by-side video of WTC and a controlled demolition of some building. They look similar for sure and the comparison is quite interesting, but its only interesting for a few minutes. All it takes as a little zooming in onto the details of the WTC collapse to see that it was very different from a controlled demolition.

So it was hot enough to melt steel only if your theory was correct, but not when we apply the government theory.

You sat there and you argued that it wasn't hot enough. NOW your telling us it was more than hot enough. You don't believe the government theory, but when it's your theory it was plenty hot enough.

Simple. Any third grader can explain it with their blocks. Build a tower of blocks, quickly remove an entire "floor" of blocks, and the the next row (floor) of blocks falls straight down. In other words, the blocks would fall down on each other.

I saw fireballs and an hour long fire. We all did. The fireballs were so big that they traveled down ninety floors and exploded in the lobby.

You don't get it, do you?

The core on one floor failed, passing the weight of the floor above it to the outer columns - of which thirty percent was destroyed. An hour long fire weakened outer columns until they were unable to support the weight above it. Note that columns on multiple floors were missing and others damaged. There was no way the tower could continue to support itself.

This like third grade blocks here. Build a tower, remove one of the supports, and the tower falls down. A number of the outer columns were destroyed, others damaged, the core was destroyed, and when the weight was passed over to the outer columns... Eventually they gave way.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

lolz lolz lolz lolz lolz lolz lolz lolz lolz lolz lolz lolz lolz lolz lolz lolz lolz lolz lolz lolz lolz lolz lolz lolz lolz lolz lolz lolz lolz lolz lolz lolz lolz lolz lolz lolz lolz lolz lolz lolz lolz lolz lolz lolz lolz lolz lolz lolz lolz lolz lolz lolz

14Fitty conspiracy theories:pimp

Good point sperbonzo, I'm coming round to your way of thinking :winkwink:

Now that we know how the Twin Towers came down, what about Building 7? :upsidedow

http://i2.listal.com/image/3170297/500full.jpg

Two huge towers - millions of tons of steel and concrete and what not - fell at the foot of WTC7. It was like an earthquake. Setting aside the fact that the building was on fire for hours, and damaged, it'a amazing any of the buildings are remained standing.

No no, that makes sense. Something conspiracy nuts won't accept.