9/11 What evidence would make you believe in a conspiracy?

Originally posted by jfj123
Look obviously you're not interested in having a real discussion here. Please take your antics elsewhere.

Well why did you ignore the information i just posted for Pilgrum?

It sure seems like i am 1 of the few who actaully posts information to suport what i post.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Look obviously you're not interested in having a real discussion here. Please take your antics elsewhere.

Well why did you ignore the information i just posted for Pilgrum?

It sure seems like i am 1 of the few who actaully posts information to suport what i post.

Oh for god sake. You FINALLY post 1 thing after all those pages of chest thumping and you're suddenly redeemed? I'll give you credit that you FINALLY posted SOMETHING that you've backed up in some way. If you did that all along, we would have avoided about 20 pages of complaining about your posts.

Originally posted by jfj123
Oh for god sake. You FINALLY post 1 thing after all those pages of chest thumping and you're suddenly redeemed?

Well you just proved you have ignored most of my post. I have and keep posting information to support my posts.

Still waiting for others to do the same.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Oh for god sake. You FINALLY post 1 thing after all those pages of chest thumping and you're suddenly redeemed?

Well you just proved you have ignored most of my post. I have and keep posting information to support my posts.

Still waiting for others to do the same.

I have not ignored any of your posts. You have required others to provide more proof then you have posted.

I have and keep posting information to support my posts.

I will hold you to this. Keep in mind those are your words in your quotes and it says nothing about refusing to post info unless other people do first. Here's your chance to redeem yourself or.......

I have asked others to post source information just as I have asked you to do the same.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


That pic looks like a zoom-in on a shot I've seen quite a few times already. A picture of something a little beyond red-hot but obviously still solid enough for the excavator to hold it and something appearing to drip off it. The colour and incandescence doesn't look quite right for molten steel but that could be something to do with the camera and perhaps that's the hotspot where the FEMA corroded sample came from. I suggest reading their findings and the statement about the likely temperature at which the effects would have occurred IE 700-1000C long term heating in a corrosive environment which really does not support any thermite theories.

The melting point of aluminium is 660C and there was a large amount of it in the buildings. Again I'm not saying some steel could not have melted but if it did there'd be rivers of red-hot molten aluminium which is why I'd be interested in any analysis of material observed in a molten state (after it cooled down of course) and just putting a magnet on it would be proof enough if anyone thought to do that simple test. A magnet won't stick to cherry red steel because that's past its curie point btw.

Here's a pic of a car that was caught in an ordinary bush fire hot enough to melt the alloy wheels






[edit on 29/5/2008 by Pilgrum]

Originally posted by Pilgrum
reply to post by ULTIMA1

 

That pic looks like a zoom-in on a shot I've seen quite a few times already. A picture of something a little beyond red-hot but obviously still solid enough for the excavator to hold it and something appearing to drip off it. The colour and incandescence doesn't look quite right for molten steel but that could be something to do with the camera and perhaps that's the hotspot where the FEMA corroded sample came from. I suggest reading their findings and the statement about the likely temperature at which the effects would have occurred IE 700-1000C long term heating in a corrosive environment which really does not support any thermite theories.

The melting point of aluminium is 660C and there was a large amount of it in the buildings. Again I'm not saying some steel could not have melted but if it did there'd be rivers of red-hot molten aluminium which is why I'd be interested in any analysis of material observed in a molten state (after it cooled down of course) and just putting a magnet on it would be proof enough if anyone thought to do that simple test. A magnet won't stick to cherry red steel because that's past its curie point btw.

Here's a pic of a car that was caught in an ordinary bush fire hot enough to melt the alloy wheels

[edit on 29/5/2008 by Pilgrum]

Previously I've posted articles about tunnel fires hot enough to melt car frames into molten material and turn concrete to powder. The tunnel fires were started by gas fires and continued to burn from combustables from vehicles. The molten metal in the trade towers just doesn't seem like a big deal to me ?????

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by scottie18
I am just amazed he has been allowed to post here this long. He lies about what others say, he says one thing and then changes it when called on it, he insults people. What are the mods doing?

Maybe becasue the mods on here are not biased and can see that i post facts and evidence to support what i post, unlike others.

Nah, I don't think that's it. I think it's because they laugh at your antics as much as the rest of us do.


Keep being the biggest joke around.

Originally posted by jfj123
Previously I've posted articles about tunnel fires hot enough to melt car frames into molten material and turn concrete to powder. The tunnel fires were started by gas fires and continued to burn from combustables from vehicles. The molten metal in the trade towers just doesn't seem like a big deal to me ?????

I have trouble seeing what the kerfuffle is about myself.

All this happened AFTER the collapse of the buildings and there's no doubt that there were very hot fires burning for a long time in the rubble, hot enough to melt some common building materials. Maybe even hot enough in isolated locations to melt some steel.

So fires burn for an hour or so, and that's enough to take down a steel framed skyscraper in an even global collapse, and then keep the steel molten for weeks to come?

We should build a skyscraper and then run a remote controlled jetliner full of fuel into it, see what happens. I dount anyone would do that, though. They'd rather not know what happened, so they can still suckle on the fairytale they've spun out of American Pride.

They said there were "Rivers" of molten metal below the rubble. Did a volcano erupt beneath the towers?

I shouldn't even bother coming here. Some people are so frickin' afraid of the truth, because it might destroy their ego as well as their confidence in the intelligence of humankind.

It's a tough one. I hope, for the sake of everyone's sanity and well-being, that you guys can work this out and realize the truth together.

Peace.

Originally posted by Pilgrum

Originally posted by jfj123
Previously I've posted articles about tunnel fires hot enough to melt car frames into molten material and turn concrete to powder. The tunnel fires were started by gas fires and continued to burn from combustables from vehicles. The molten metal in the trade towers just doesn't seem like a big deal to me ?????

I have trouble seeing what the kerfuffle is about myself.

All this happened AFTER the collapse of the buildings and there's no doubt that there were very hot fires burning for a long time in the rubble, hot enough to melt some common building materials. Maybe even hot enough in isolated locations to melt some steel.

Metal melts in common house fires so it's no surprise to me that there was molten metal at the WTC. I agree. I have NO idea what the problem is.

Originally posted by dunwichwitch
So fires burn for an hour or so, and that's enough to take down a steel framed skyscraper in an even global collapse, and then keep the steel molten for weeks to come?

The fires alone didn't bring down the WTC's. They were also struck by big planes that severely damaged the structural integrity of the buildings.

We should build a skyscraper and then run a remote controlled jetliner full of fuel into it, see what happens. I dount anyone would do that, though.

Probably because it's not reasonable???

They'd rather not know what happened, so they can still suckle on the fairytale they've spun out of American Pride.

What do you think the cost and organization involved in rebuilding those buildings to the EXACT specs using the EXACT building materials of the day, making sure the EXACT same variables are considered with both the impact and the building. It's simply not reasonable.

They said there were "Rivers" of molten metal below the rubble. Did a volcano erupt beneath the towers?

Who are "they" ? Please post evidence that this is actually the case.

I shouldn't even bother coming here. Some people are so frickin' afraid of the truth, because it might destroy their ego as well as their confidence in the intelligence of humankind.

Some people simply want evidence to support claims before coming to conclusions.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Oh for god sake. You FINALLY post 1 thing after all those pages of chest thumping and you're suddenly redeemed?

Well you just proved you have ignored most of my post. I have and keep posting information to support my posts.

Still waiting for others to do the same.

You know, I don't know why you're giving me such a hard time about everything. I only started this thread as a favor to YOU ! You mentioned in another thread that it would be nice to see a thread from this perspective so I thought I'd be a nice guy and do it for you and here we are.

Oh by the way
YOU'RE WELCOME !

reply to post by jfj123


Well, I for one am man enough to step up and say Thank You, jfj!!

Glad you started this thread!! High five!!!

WW

USA Military Officers Challenge Official Account of September 11
Thursday, 22 May 2008 10:15 Pakistan Daily

Twenty-five former U.S. military officers have severely criticized the official account of 9/11 and called for a new investigation. They include former commander of U.S. Army Intelligence, Major General Albert Stubblebine, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Col. Ronald D. Ray, two former staff members of the Director of the National Security Agency; Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, PhD, and Major John M. Newman, PhD, and many others. They are among the rapidly growing number of military and intelligence service veterans, scientists, engineers, and architects challenging the government’s story. The officers’ statements appear below, listed alphabetically.

www.daily.pk...


Maybe it's the Official Story that's truly a lousy conspiracy theory, after all.

reply to post by sarcastic


Wow!!

sarcastic, could you keep this going, because it is very interesting.

I will F&S it, just to keep it on my RADAR.

Thanks!!

Originally posted by scottie18
Keep being the biggest joke around.

Sorry but the biggest joke around are people that still beleive the official story even though they cannot post evidence to support it and there are tons of facts and evidence that question it.



[edit on 30-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]