So what did create the meteorite on 911?

I have been asking this question a few times via PM on what on earth can cause this meteorite looking thing that reached temperatures as hot as the inner hearth.
Its 4 different floors of the WTC compressed into this odd looking thing.
I don't believe termite can do something like that even less jet fuel.
Mind you guys open my eyes?

by the way you can clearly see the beams cut in 45 degrees angles.



[edit on 24-3-2007 by piacenza]

Extreme temperatures, I think we both know.

Check out this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Mod Edit: Fixed link.

[edit on 26/3/2007 by Mirthful Me]

Well, those micro nuclear weapons that we allegedly don't have and were supposedly not used to bring down the towers could certainly do something like that.

I'm having a difficult time believing that the "New World Order" people could be so dumb - I mean they have left a heaping mountain of evidence to debunk the official 9/11 story. I was a hardcore supporter of the whole "Terrorist" theory for about 2 years until my eyes were opened by the evidence that has been trickling forth - now it's rushing like a fire hose! This whole thing was such a staged event - and a poorly staged one at that!

I hope to God that the perps of this event are ultimately identified so that we may stone and hang them in public. Rest assured, I have my bucket of rocks ready and waiting.

the beams were probably cut like that so they could be freed from the wreckage.......

Whats your point?

Did you even watch the video DJNothing? What beams. Cut how? Are you in the wrong thread?

There is NOTHING in the official story line that can account for the meteorite. I REPEAT NOTHING in the OFFICIAL STORY can account for the energy required to create that 'ball'... certainly not a gravity driven collapse.

And we're the ones that they call crazy. If anyone can believe that a gravity driven collapse and fires (even if they were underground magical coal mine fires) could do that, then I'd say it is time for you to get a psychological check-up.

Also, notice that the "debunkers" here have left this one alone. Is it because it's not mentioned in the "official report"?

Whilst thermate/thermite (whatever) may not be sufficient pre-collapse to create that, post-collapse, when it is all stuck together in the basement, it might be enough to do just that.

Looking at the size of it, whilst it seems to be a large ball, it is relatively small compared to the area of a single floor of the WTC (like you cut a section of the floor out).

I agree completely that a collapse could not have caused that.

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
Looking at the size of it, whilst it seems to be a large ball, it is relatively small compared to the area of a single floor of the WTC (like you cut a section of the floor out).

I thought they said that it was 4 floors of the trade center mashed and heated together? What could take 4 acres worth of floor and combine it into that mess that's shown there?

The fact that it probably isn't an amalgamation of 4 complete floors.

Originally posted by kozmo
This whole thing was such a staged event - and a poorly staged one at that!

Are you serious?

IF 9/11 was a staged event, then it was the greatest single execution of a unified plan by multiple operatives in the HISTORY of MANKIND.

I have no clue what the explanation for the "meteorite" is. But you all are hanging your hat on its existance as some kind of SMOKING GUN while chattering on another thread that the SMOKING GUN is the fact that the government WHISKED away all the evidence before it could be examined.

IF 9/11 was a staged event, why didn't THEY remove the meteorite along with the other "incriminating" evidence?

Originally posted by GriffAlso, notice that the "debunkers" here have left this one alone. Is it because it's not mentioned in the "official report"?

Speaking only for myself it's because I don't have the technical knowledge to explain exactly how it was formed and so I won't spout any load of old claptrap about it. When I don't know I am content to say so rather than charging off on some flight of fancy which has no evidence whatsoever to support it. (Micro nukes anyone?).

As has already been said, I dont believe that there was any intent to suggest that this was four complete floors, but rather that it comprised of a sandwich of (part of ) four floors of material crushed together.

I would say, however, if it is an artifact which can not be explained in any way by a "conventional" collapse it does seem rather foolish of those that currently posess it to allow it to be seen on mainstream TV doesn't it? It also makes something of a nonsense of all of the comments on many other threads which suggest that you never see any bent beams in the rubble, only neatly cut straight ones.

Maybe its a new weapon for demolition purposes. First it blows up and then it absorbs and melts the steel and other debris and sucks it up into a ball to look like a meteorite. Better than the cutting version by thermite.

And how long did those fires burn???

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
The fact that it probably isn't an amalgamation of 4 complete floors.

Ahhh...toche. I thought about that as I walked home.

Edit: It is still noteworthy that that is 4 floors molded (for lack of a better word) together. I'm pretty sure gravity doesn't have enough energy to meld them together. And hydrocarbon fires aren't hot enough to "carbonize" printing paper.

[edit on 3/26/2007 by Griff]

I am simply asking the debunker what you theory might be.
Even a guess it appreciated.

My take on the meteorite is basically what has been said by many others already.It would take an EXTREME amount of heat to do that.Not to side track the thread ,but the burnt out cars are something else that is puzzling(there is a thread about these btw).What caused these extreme temps?Nukes?I don't know,but if 9/11 witnesses start dying from radiation poisoning then we can pretty much bet they were used.But then again the gov. would blame the asbestos.

Originally posted by crowpruitt
But then again the gov. would blame the asbestos.

It might work on the masses. But the rest of us know that asbestos cancer (I forget the technical term) is different than radiation poisoning or cancer. Plus, asbestos cancer takes 30-60 years to develope.

[edit on 3/26/2007 by Griff]

Wow,didn't know that Griff.Learn something new everydayThanks man.

No problem. I just looked up asbestosis and it didn't say anything about a timeline. I do know that it takes more than 10 years to develope and it is more like 30-60 years. Anyone else more involved with the medical industry might be able to back me up on that.