Trying to resolve 9/11

a reply to: stonerwilliam

Your pic, was taken when the Towers were still under construction. The Towers, were designed to have wide open floor plans....i.e. few interior walls. Now, if you are going to claim there was nothing in the Towers when they collapsed, well, that tells us everything we need to know about you.

And, for five years, I have been working at a complex that has built six buildings in that time...so yeah, i've spent time working on a construction site.

a reply to: mrthumpy

You do spout some utter rubbish. Where did you get the idea that something that BURNS VERY QUICKLY would still be burning 3 months later? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever - not that you care about that

It takes a lot to get metals on fire, once you do it takes a lot to put that fire out. Throwing water on it just put the water on fire at first. But given enough time and water the fire will eventually burn itself out. With the official story failing to account for this source of heat, thermite placed all through out the WTC buildings to bring it down does.

There where lots of cars transformed to rust in the vicinity of the collapse. The photo I posted of the police car half burnt is just one example where one car was caught on the edge or some how partly protected as the pyroclastic cloud rolled down the streets. What every did happen to them did happen quick.

As for how you can twist this around to mean that a quick hot fire must also burn itself out quickly, no wonder you are still confused. A fire stops when either the heat, oxygen or fuel stops. There is a lot of fuel with 9/11, especially once the fire got hot enough to burn metal. Thermite also contains an oxygen source, so trying to smother the fire does not do a lot, just have to wait. Which was done, for three months.

a reply to: neutronflux

If the car was hit with a pyroclastic dust cloud, wouldn’t there be actual dust on the car?

You can see from the surroundings that some clean up had already taken place, a lot of the dust on the road and surroundings was also cleaned up. It is also quite likely that the police car was not in that exact location at the time and quite possible just moved to the side of the road until the tow trucks got around to it.

Here is another photo of how the cars responded to the events.



Of course not everyone caught in the dust cloud that day got burnt, but for those closer to ground zero where all the heat and intensity was at its strongest. Not so lucky.

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

Thanks for finding Col Rick Gibney.

I am not exactly sure just who made the call to shoot down flight 93, but have seen enough to know that flight 93 was shot down. The location of one of the engines in reference to the main impact point it just one clear indication of this. It does appear that that Col Rick Gibney was working with his support team and was not completely rouge in trying to make sense of events that day.

Is Col Rick Gibney lying? He is a patriot following orders. Of course he is lying, the whole big show is one big lie.

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: mrthumpy

You do spout some utter rubbish. Where did you get the idea that something that BURNS VERY QUICKLY would still be burning 3 months later? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever - not that you care about that

It takes a lot to get metals on fire, once you do it takes a lot to put that fire out. Throwing water on it just put the water on fire at first. But given enough time and water the fire will eventually burn itself out. With the official story failing to account for this source of heat, thermite placed all through out the WTC buildings to bring it down does.

There where lots of cars transformed to rust in the vicinity of the collapse. The photo I posted of the police car half burnt is just one example where one car was caught on the edge or some how partly protected as the pyroclastic cloud rolled down the streets. What every did happen to them did happen quick.

As for how you can twist this around to mean that a quick hot fire must also burn itself out quickly, no wonder you are still confused. A fire stops when either the heat, oxygen or fuel stops. There is a lot of fuel with 9/11, especially once the fire got hot enough to burn metal. Thermite also contains an oxygen source, so trying to smother the fire does not do a lot, just have to wait. Which was done, for three months.

Epic lack of understanding.

As you said " A fire stops when either the heat, oxygen or fuel stops."

According to you the fuel was thermite

Thermite burns very quickly.

You claim that thermite was still burning three months later!


This is the problem with conspiracy theorists. You have to explain to them what it is that they're claiming before you can explain to them what is wrong with their claim

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: neutronflux

If the car was hit with a pyroclastic dust cloud, wouldn’t there be actual dust on the car?

You can see from the surroundings that some clean up had already taken place, a lot of the dust on the road and surroundings was also cleaned up. It is also quite likely that the police car was not in that exact location at the time and quite possible just moved to the side of the road until the tow trucks got around to it.

Here is another photo of how the cars responded to the events.

Of course not everyone caught in the dust cloud that day got burnt, but for those closer to ground zero where all the heat and intensity was at its strongest. Not so lucky.

Another swing and a miss by you.
You just debunked pyroclastic dust cloud again. There are still cars with there their paint intact, still have there plastic taillights unmelted, and there is a convertible that still has its canvas top. Your still confirming there cars caught fire by contact from flaming debris, not a 1300 degree Fahrenheit cloud.

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: neutronflux

If the car was hit with a pyroclastic dust cloud, wouldn’t there be actual dust on the car?

You can see from the surroundings that some clean up had already taken place, a lot of the dust on the road and surroundings was also cleaned up. It is also quite likely that the police car was not in that exact location at the time and quite possible just moved to the side of the road until the tow trucks got around to it.

Here is another photo of how the cars responded to the events.

Of course not everyone caught in the dust cloud that day got burnt, but for those closer to ground zero where all the heat and intensity was at its strongest. Not so lucky.

Another swing and a miss by you.
You just debunked pyroclastic dust cloud again. There are still cars with their paint intact, still have there plastic taillights unmelted, and there is a convertible that still has its canvas top. Your still confirming there cars caught fire by contact from flaming debris, not a 1300 degree Fahrenheit cloud.

a reply to: neutronflux

There is no indication the steel at the WTC was exposed to the temperatures at which thermite burns.

It is these kind of statements that really puts a lot of people off with even trying to have a reasonable discussion about 9/11 on ATS. For someone who does have a strong knowledge base about the events of 9/11 your reputation falls apart as an objective voice. It does make one consider things like COINT or maybe you are just still passionate for the government and just do not want to consider who was truly responsible for this truly horrible event? Being ATS, maybe you are counter counter intelligence? Trying to find the truth while protecting your reputation as an official story supporter? Maybe you are just as lost as the rest of us in the maze of mixed up lies and misdirection?

The truth movement has done a lot of work over the years, it did explore a lot of possibilities and came up with a lot of theories to try and make sense of the inconsistencies that are there. Over time a clearer picture has developed with lots of the debates and investigations that took place.



The case for controlled demolition is solid.

a reply to: kwakakev
You

It takes a lot to get metals on fire, once you do it takes a lot to put that fire out.

Reality

Class D fires involve combustible metals - especially alkali metals like lithium and potassium, alkaline earth metals such as magnesium, and group 4 elements such as titanium and zirconium.[2]
en.m.wikipedia.org...

One. Steel cannot “burn” unless it is in contact with an oxidizer. Steel does not support a class D fire by itself. If thermite was present, it would have been consumed in minutes. Not months.

Two, molten steel that would result from a metal fire would result in steam explosions when hit with water. Any documented steam explosions from ground zero when spraying water?

a reply to: kwakakev

I am not exactly sure just who made the call to shoot down flight 93, but have seen enough to know that flight 93 was shot down

Based on what? The falsehoods and misconceptions of flight 93 debris field?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: kwakakev

I am not exactly sure just who made the call to shoot down flight 93, but have seen enough to know that flight 93 was shot down

Based on what? The falsehoods and misconceptions of flight 93 debris field?

Based on becasue he says so. You know how this works

a reply to: neutronflux

Based on what? The falsehoods and misconceptions of flight 93 debris field?

Based on the fact that people can lie, buildings, planes and other inanimate objects cannot.

a reply to: kwakakev

I am not watching you video. Either cite facts and create a logical argument, or just stop.

And if you are going with molten metal road, it’s a dead end.

Thermal imaging from space of ground zero shows the pile was never hot enough to support molten steel.

Molten steel causes steam explosions when hit with water and rain.

There wouldn’t be pure molten anything. Metals like copper, lead, aluminum have lower melting points than steel and would result in molten metal. Even they would be mixed with burning materials, embers, and molten plastic.

Again, the truth movement said itself there was no indication the fires were hotter than normal office fires. Is that false?

There is no proof by thermal imaging and there is no proof by metallurgical evidence the steel was exposed to the temperatures at which thermite burns.

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: neutronflux

Based on what? The falsehoods and misconceptions of flight 93 debris field?

Based on the fact that people can lie, buildings, planes and other inanimate objects cannot.

And you have not cited any direct evidence of cut columns. A burnt car is not proof of a cut columns.

Again, I can link to a video of WTC columns bowing and buckling.

Please post a video of columns being actively cut to initiate collapse.

Please post a picture of a column cut by thermite from the WTC.

a reply to: neutronflux

Are you even listening to what you are asking for? How is any video or pictures suppose to survive an event like that?

How, convenient?

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: neutronflux

Are you even listening to what you are asking for? How is any video or pictures suppose to survive an event like that?

How, convenient?

There are videos of the collapse of WTC 1 and 2. From different angles.

Your not helping your credibility.....

After thinking about it a bit. It is expected that the WTC did have a very extensive security camera system. Lot of hot stuff on that if you can find it. Sure the main severs are a wreak, but was there an off site back up?

If I was pulling off a job like this then I would not have any off site backups of the security data systems. There was a lot of purging of data that day. But being the more interconnected society we are, not sure. I have not come across much of this in my travels, but do remember seeing some scenes of the lobby after the planes hit, but before it all fell some where, lot of broken glass around.

There are videos of the collapse of WTC 1 and 2. From different angles. Your not helping your credibility.....

The main core columns are secured through the middle of the building, without security access to these parts of the building all you have is the rubble to go through. I have already provided evidence of that with the fire fighters account of molten metal flowing through the buildings remains. That is what thermite does, turn the metal liquid.

BURN VERY FAST

originally posted by: kwakakev

There are videos of the collapse of WTC 1 and 2. From different angles. Your not helping your credibility.....

That is what thermite does.

What thermite does is BURN VERY FAST

Obviously this doesn't fit with your narrantive so you'll just ignore that awkward fact and plough on regardless in true Truther style

a reply to: mrthumpy

What thermite does is BURN VERY FAST

We can kinda agree on this. It does get to a very high temperature very fast. As for the burn, this depends on how much fuel is available. Takes a lot longer to burn a big tree than it does a little stick.