The Serious 9/11 Arguments Compilation.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Scrutinizing

Like military nano termites? Or hybrid alien steel eating termites?

Neither! Though this seems the question, It was really military nano hybrid alien steel eating termites. I'd strongly recommend a third layer of foil in that headgear. Whatever you do, as seductive as it sounds, don't listen to those touting a controlled demolition by alien silent explosives technology, though, of course, the planes were holograms. We can all agree on that.

What is it with this "silent detonation/explosion" conundrum when

NIST FOIA 09-42: R14-UC -- Jim Huibregtse 1A-25 (WTC1 Burning/WTC2 Collapse/WTC 1 and 7 Plumes)

has audible evidence; minute marker 14:48 to 15:15

www.youtube.com...

originally posted by: democracydemo
What is it with this "silent detonation/explosion" conundrum when

NIST FOIA 09-42: R14-UC -- Jim Huibregtse 1A-25 (WTC1 Burning/WTC2 Collapse/WTC 1 and 7 Plumes)

has audible evidence; minute marker 14:48 to 15:15

www.youtube.com...

Do we need to wear special headphones to hear the explosions ?

a reply to: waypastvne

No

Just turn the volume nob to south east.

originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: waypastvne

No

Just turn the volume nob to south east.

For a supposed implosion that had to supposedly take out the resistance of each floor? An implosion system that survived jet impacts and fires to start the implosion in the areas of the jet impacts? For WTC 1 and 2, left long sections of vertical columns still standing for whole seconds after the complete hitting the ground collapse of the towers’ floor system? A floor system that fell at 68 percent the rate of free fall, and a core system that fell at 40 percent of free fall?

Please go read this ATS 9/11 forum, its new thread :
Crucial Evidence Steel NOT preserved from Twin Towers, NOR from WTC7.

It will stop all the OS defenders their endlessly repeated arguments, as laid out in this endlessly going on, arguments exchange in this, by now, becoming quite boring thread which has become a playground for bad and good research on only ONE subject.....the Harrit paper.
Tens of pages long.

I intended, and hoped it to become a serious rebuttal thread for all those old, stale arguments from far too many not informed pro and contra Official Story posters all over the internet, but as usual, it has become a slug fest for the usual OS supporting suspects.
Without corrective moderation, this kind of behavior is destroying this once great forum, where pro and contra Official Story defenders posted quite interesting thoughts and strong arguments. BOTH SIDES did then. In those first 14 years after 9/11.

Perhaps move all the Harrit paper discussion, but one left here with a link to that new thread about the Harrit paper, to a new thread. ?

Take the time (scroll to the bottom last post) to read ""The Source: Recent remarks by Steven Jones at 911Blogger"" Oystein's Blog, and especially read all the 42 Comments (link at bottom), and all reactions on Oystein's blog posts.

That's for the still interested pro and contra Harrit paper readers. Defenders and attackers of that paper alike.
Damn it, read it first all to the end, before hastily posting again. It's damn good research, from all sides.

a reply to: LaBTop

Funny, how often does a structure get preserved after it is sampled, photographed, video taped, tested, and documented from an arson investigation.

What do you mean preserved?

A hangar at JFK became the tomb of 9/11. Now nearly empty, its job is done

By VERA HALLER
JUN 12, 2016 | 3:00 AM
NEW YORK CITY
www.latimes.com...

Since the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the relics of the World Trade Center – shafts of broken metal, warped elevator doors, a crushed taxicab – have been entombed here in Hangar 17 at John F. Kennedy International Airport. But its somber purpose, as a way station for remembrances of 9/11, is ending. The final few pieces of that September morning are being carted out of the cavernous structure.

www.theatlantic.com...

The biggest chunk of steel, weighing 47,000 pounds, was given to the Stephen Siller Tunnel to Towers Foundation, which raises money for first responders injured or killed in the line of duty

Where did you want them to keep 1,400,000 tons of toxic rubble anyway?

There are not memorials full of relics from 9/11?

Is there not multiple angles of the towers’ collapse on video?

Anymore stupid arguments?

a reply to: LaBTop

Stale arguments? What new items has the truth movement produced. How did that AE backed WTC 7 evaluation project work out in the context of three other studies concluded fire related collapse of WTC 7. One study being a signed deposition. When is the WTC 7 evaluation going to be released as a completed study?

What, a 300,000 dollar study that will never be released. That is pretty much the truth movement in a nut shell.

a reply to: Jesushere

This how clueless Skeptics are. Leslie Robertson who was involved in the building of the towers on 9/11 was shown melted steel in the rubble. FEMA investigator Abolhassan Astaneh said he saw Melted Steel girders. Ron Burger - Public Health Advisor at the National Center for Environmental Health claimed he saw melted steel Ken Holden involved in the cleanup said this quote Underground, it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from [WTC] Building 6. There much more highly credible eyewitnesses who saw it. I guess this picture doesn't show anything?

Why are you replying to me like I said there wasn't any molten steel/metal?


I guess you cannot read the post you are replying to and answer the one question asked.


The post was addressing one thing and asking one or 2 question about it.

Can you link to what the hell you are on about?

Steel beams evaporating?

How does a steel beam which is solid steel evaporate?


Evaporation is when something changes from liquid form to gaseous form.

How is something solid a liquid?

Bull# more nonsense written by skeptics.

Yeah like steel evaporating

An excellent video exposing the Skeptics again. 5 minutes to watch the experiment.


The guy carried out an experiment over 24 hours with a prolonged fire using diesel fuel. Gypsum (drywall) aluminium scraps and plastic, rainwater all used. Did not even dent the steel.

FEMA recommended an investigation to be carried out in 2002, but NIST decided to not touch upon what they found and we can only guess why that was! For instance, if they did experiments and they got the same results would they have revealed it, very unlikely!

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: LaBTop

Stale arguments? What new items has the truth movement produced. How did that AE backed WTC 7 evaluation project work out in the context of three other studies concluded fire related collapse of WTC 7. One study being a signed deposition. When is the WTC 7 evaluation going to be released as a completed study?

What, a 300,000 dollar study that will never be released. That is pretty much the truth movement in a nut shell.

It, not a half-baked and full of lies study. Dr Hulsey knows Skeptics will be looking to debunk his work. So he checking everything is correct and can be backed up by science. Every possible collapse explanation has to be reviewed and tested and verified before he can release the final report for peer review. JREF forums are hoping he releases a botched study of WTC7 but Dr Hulsey is too smart for that.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: waypastvne

No

Just turn the volume nob to south east.

For a supposed implosion that had to supposedly take out the resistance of each floor? An implosion system that survived jet impacts and fires to start the implosion in the areas of the jet impacts? For WTC 1 and 2, left long sections of vertical columns still standing for whole seconds after the complete hitting the ground collapse of the towers’ floor system? A floor system that fell at 68 percent the rate of free fall, and a core system that fell at 40 percent of free fall?

Do you wear glasses, have troubled eyesight? Nanothermite loves fire why do Skeptics keep ignoring this? All you have to do is take out the steel to bring down a building.

FEMA got their hands on steel samples and the steel beams had huge bits taken out of it. If the seat holding up the girder got melted, along with the shear studs and fasteners and plate the buildings are going to fall.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Jesushere
neutronflux I'm finished you clearly an idiot and have no interest in a real discussion.

Because you cannot answer how thermite evaporates steel? Because thermite doesn’t evaporate steel? Because you cannot cite evidence of evaporated steel, cite evidence of columns worked on by thermite, columns cut by thermite, columns melted by thermite?

Because you flat out have no evidence of cd, especially for WTC 1 and 2?

Or because you get called out on your blatant fantasies, blatant falsehoods, and your pseudoscience?

FEMA steel samples are evidence nano-thermite was used. There no other valid explanation for what can cause that.

Nano thermite+ office fire will raise the temp of a fire above the melting point of steel and Iron. The loaded gun was when FEMA confirmed a liquid made of primarily Iron and Sulphur was found on the steel.

Skeptics are ignoring the liquid (melted) contained Iron. Where the Melted Iron come from?

NIST does not even claim fires were hot enough to melt Iron in WTC7. The steel beam girder on floor 13 was only subjected to a heat of 400c after 4 pm.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jesushere

You

400c caused the steel to melt has no basis in real science.

Quote who said steel metls at 400c?

Corrosion attacks on steel results in the metal being eaten away, and new compounds with greatly reduced melting points? What corrosion are you saying can only take place at 1000c or hotter?

Nobody does that's the point. That FEMA found steel beams with holes and this could not have been done by just fire. To melt, evaporate, rip apart, disappear steel you need a temp in excess of 1300c +

Corrosion is the cause is fantasy. Office fires don't melt steel.

a reply to: Jesushere

Again, how does termite evaporate thermite. It not. The claim by the truth movement is thermite, not thermate. So, where does the duly come from.

How is saying WTC 7 collapsed from evaporated steel. The argument is thermite cut steel. And Harrit’s paper in a fraud. And you never explained how slow acting thermite could be used in a sophisticated CD. Or how the CD systems would survive jet impacts, fires, and building damage.

Again, you killed your credibility with this statement.

Corroding steel requires a temp of 1000c to 1500c.

You

The guy carried out an experiment over 24 hours with a prolonged fire using diesel fuel. Gypsum (drywall) aluminium scraps and plastic, rainwater all used. Did not even dent the steel.

A 24 hour fire is not the same as smoldering in a pile for up to three months. Allowing chemicals to leach into water, then having the water evaporated to condense the chemicals for caustic attacks.

How do we know the guy even came close to using representative plastics and drywall? The PVC piping, building materials, office furniture, and office equipment.

Then you did not list batteries from emergency lighting that would have been wide spread through the buildings, large industrial battery supplies for backups to servers and other computers, batteries from cell phones, batteries from cordless phones, Freon from AC units. Seems like the individual purposely left out the most reactive and toxic chemicals on purpose.

What other false arguments do you have.

Again, how does thermite evaporate steel. Steel must get to temperatures over 5000F to evaporate. Pleaec cite the thermal imaging you invoke for temperatures above 5000F.

Your dedication to falsehoods and pseudoscience is appalling.

a reply to: Jesushere

To melt, evaporate, rip apart, disappear steel you need a temp in excess of 1300c +

False as the day is long.

The steel didn’t evaporate at the WTC.

Please post pictures and video of “Rip apart” steel from the WTC

Please post pictures or video of partially melted, or melted columns from the WTC.

The core columns from the twin towers fell last after the complete collapse of the floor systems.

Thermite does not evaporate steel. It makes molten iron and aluminum oxide.

1300c does not do crap to steel other than make it lose strength, glow, and expand.

The steel would not “evaporate” until 5000F. There is no proof of evaporated steel condensing back into steel crystals. No reported burns from a cloud with a temp of 5000F floating around.

The steel you are referring to underwent chemical attacks from the toxic soup of the pile. The chemicals attacks are not by chemicals found in the composition of thermite. The chemical attacks can occur at room temperatures, and were only accelerated by the conditions of the WTC pile.

Please list the special corrosion that could only take place at 1300C plus?

Like chloride stress corrosion cracking? Pitting corrosion? Galvanic corrosion?

What is this magical corrosion you keep referring to, and what is its chemical equation?

a reply to: Jesushere

Corrosion is the cause is fantasy. Office fires don't melt steel.

Again. Thermite does not contain corrosive chemicals.

Where did NIST, or the other reports that conclude fire related WTC collapse, ever state the cause was from melted steel?

Do you have any video or photos of columns cut by thermite at the WTC? Funny the core columns of the towers fell at rates slower than the floor systems.

a reply to: Jesushere

To put it more simply. You are attributing corrosions that have noting to do with the iron oxide and aluminum found in thermite.
Corrosions that have noting to do with a thermite reaction. You say heat caused corrosions that can only be caused by chemicals, and the only thing heat can do is accelerate the reactions of those chemicals.

Any more totally false rants by you based on pseudoscience?

How would anyone know the state of the steel for you to make the false claim it evaporated if your claim it was all sent to China with no examination was true?

Falsehoods, pseudoscience, and contradictions are you have to offer?

Here is a interesting thread that makes you wonder

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jesushere

Again, how does termite evaporate thermite. It not. The claim by the truth movement is thermite, not thermate. So, where does the duly come from.

How is saying WTC 7 collapsed from evaporated steel. The argument is thermite cut steel. And Harrit’s paper in a fraud. And you never explained how slow acting thermite could be used in a sophisticated CD. Or how the CD systems would survive jet impacts, fires, and building damage.

Again, you killed your credibility with this statement.

Corroding steel requires a temp of 1000c to 1500c.

You

The guy carried out an experiment over 24 hours with a prolonged fire using diesel fuel. Gypsum (drywall) aluminium scraps and plastic, rainwater all used. Did not even dent the steel.

A 24 hour fire is not the same as smoldering in a pile for up to three months. Allowing chemicals to leach into water, then having the water evaporated to condense the chemicals for caustic attacks.

How do we know the guy even came close to using representative plastics and drywall? The PVC piping, building materials, office furniture, and office equipment.

Then you did not list batteries from emergency lighting that would have been wide spread through the buildings, large industrial battery supplies for backups to servers and other computers, batteries from cell phones, batteries from cordless phones, Freon from AC units. Seems like the individual purposely left out the most reactive and toxic chemicals on purpose.

What other false arguments do you have.

Again, how does thermite evaporate steel. Steel must get to temperatures over 5000F to evaporate. Pleaec cite the thermal imaging you invoke for temperatures above 5000F.

Your dedication to falsehoods and pseudoscience is appalling.

Thermate is thermite, it just contains Sulphur. The truthers don't claim thermite was used the always say nano-thermite was used. Will you ever get this right?

The steel disappeared FEMA found holes in the samples they had.

New York Times article 2001
Perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation involves extremely thin bits of steel collected from the trade towers and from 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story high rise that also collapsed for unknown reasons. Perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation involves extremely thin bits of steel collected from the trade towers and from 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story high rise that also collapsed for unknown reasons. The steel apparently melted away, but no fire in any of the buildings was believed to be hot enough to melt steel outright. A preliminary analysis of the steel at Worcester Polytechnic Institute using electron microscopes suggests that sulfur released during the fires -- no one knows from where -- may have combined with atoms in the steel to form compounds that melt at lower temperatures.

If you want to know who said the steel evaporated well here is the link www.nytimes.com...
Dr Barnett and Mr Baker are part of an assessment team organized by the American Society of Civil Engineers and the Federal Emergency Management Agency to examine the performance of several buildings during the attacks

His quote and you clearly see Dr Barret was perplexed by what he saw and could not explain it.
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, Dr Barnett said.

You keep claiming Professor Harrit work is a fraud yet there hard evidence the steel members in WTC got melted.

When someone does an actual experiment to test the claim and results show sulphur + fire did not result in the steel melting, people like you dismiss this. If you so convinced this what happened why not doing experiments? Do you not think its important to find out if sulphar+ fire does melt steel? Implications for public safety! The fact NIST did not bother to know what caused the steel to melt is just more evidence they are covering up.