Molten Steel and 9/11: The existence and implications of molten steel in "the pile".

reply to post by Stewie


I find this type of reaction typical for the truth movement. Every time when any truther is either asked for some real evidence or a coherent alternative theory, that person resorts to these kind of personal attacks and ego boosting. The more I read from truthers, the more I get the feeling it is not about truth at all, just about their ego. Too bad serious and critical questions are ridiculed and ignored, it makes any thread about this subject DOA.

reply to post by -PLB-

Fair enough,
but what I expect from certain "trusters" is this inability to see what is clearly there. Many of you seem to have this mental block that forces you to defend the indefensible. Of course you want to talk each minor detail to death trying to find a hole in a hypothesis put forth by a truther. That is what you are here for.
You offer nothing but a defense of a pathetically absurd position which is the official story. If I am wrong, bring it!

Originally posted by Stewie
reply to post by -PLB-

 

Fair enough,
but what I expect from certain "trusters" is this inability to see what is clearly there. Many of you seem to have this mental block that forces you to defend the indefensible. Of course you want to talk each minor detail to death trying to find a hole in a hypothesis put forth by a truther. That is what you are here for.
You offer nothing but a defense of a pathetically absurd position which is the official story. If I am wrong, bring it!

That is just typical truther arrogance. Everybody is supposed to view events in the same distorted way you do.

Fact is that at 9 years and counting none of you can offer solid evidence for any of the plethora of truther theories.

And what is this about a hypothesis ? Please give me a coherent truther hypothesis as an alternative to the "OS".

reply to post by Stewie


I am not a truster nor a supporter for of the official story. I find the question of what is so obviously wrong a valid one. Why don't you just answer it? So far, nobody has been able to put forward real evidence of molten steel, just a couple of eye witness reports. We all know a brief observation of coincidental witnesses isn't really evidence, but just motive to do further investigation. And so far nobody has been able to come up with a sensible theory of what would be the cause if there actually was molten steel. The implications of molten steel seem to be nonexistent.

I know I will probably not get any sensible answer to this. I kinda lost hope of getting anything sensible from the truth movement. I only see outrageous claims with nothing to back it up. I am just expected to believe it without giving it any critical thought, and told I am stupid and a blind follower just for asking questions.

Originally posted by Stewie
reply to post by -PLB-

 

Fair enough,
but what I expect from certain "trusters" is this inability to see what is clearly there. Many of you seem to have this mental block that forces you to defend the indefensible. Of course you want to talk each minor detail to death trying to find a hole in a hypothesis put forth by a truther. That is what you are here for.
You offer nothing but a defense of a pathetically absurd position which is the official story. If I am wrong, bring it!

Isn't talking "each minor detail to death trying to find a hole" exactly what the truthers do? Stretching every possible theory to the point of absurdity while ignoring any refutations. Posting video clips with colored lines and circles that purport to show something conspiratorial. Claiming to be seeking the truth as long as the truth consists of conspiracies and villains that satisfy predetermined conclusions.
Finding holes in theories is fairly easy with the "pathetically absurd" hypotheses put forth so far. There doesn't seem to be any better or more consistent explanation than the reports published by the Government investigators. If you should ever happen across any new, defensible hypotheses, be sure to post them.

reply to post by Alfie1

You didn't bring it.

second line.

reply to post by -PLB-

The towers being imploded is so obvious that, if you cannot see it, what good are words?

That is simply incredible to me.

Originally posted by Stewie
reply to post by -PLB-

 

The towers being imploded is so obvious that, if you cannot see it, what good are words?

That is simply incredible to me.

The towers actually collapsed from the impact points of the planes. There is absolutely nothing that was obvious about them being imploded.

The American Society of Civil Engineers, some 120,000 plus strong, who were involved in the NIST investigations, does not consider the towers were imploded nor does the worldwide engineering community.

There is not a shred of evidence of demolition. If there was you should be taking it to law enforcement/court.

It is incredible to me that you are so ready to propagate such a minority view as " obvious".

reply to post by Alfie1

And isn't THAT what the conspiracy is all about? Why they would tell such bald faced lies?

I am not buying your assertion by the way that the scientific community is in any sort of agreement. Of course, all of the groups around the world that have and continue to demonstrate the absurdity of the reports you quote carry no weight with you.

The towers being imploded is so obvious that, if you cannot see it, what good are words?
That is simply incredible to me.

What qualifies you as an expert in this area? Youtube?

I don’t get stock advise from the guy at Quickmart. And I’ll not blindly believe Youtube experts when the real experts are telling me something else.

It’s astounding that people who distrust everything TPTB say, will turn around and believe someone on a website who admits to not working and has dropped out of society. (No one in particular but a common characteristic freely mentioned by more than one around here.)

If anyone has any real proof to a conspiracy, sue the person/agency in court. Write a book, get yourself on with Matt Lauer and pocket the millions. Oh but that would mean you would have to participate in the real world instead of griping about it.

Originally posted by Stewie
reply to post by Alfie1

 

I am not buying your assertion by the way that the scientific community is in any sort of agreement. Of course, all of the groups around the world that have and continue to demonstrate the absurdity of the reports you quote carry no weight with you.

The small groups around the world demonstrate nothing. They only postulate and posture and some lift the cash of the gullible for their own profit. The gullible never see this and fantasize that they are part of an important movement that will expose the all the complex plots behind world events.
The vast majority of the scientific community doesn't pay any attention to the unfounded claims that populate the "somegroup-for-truth" sites.

reply to post by Stewie


What exactly do you mean by imploded? What is the difference between imploding and collapsing? How are you able to tell this difference, and why is this difference obvious?

reply to post by samkent

Not an expert, are you?
Assuming you are not, then we both have a-holes and an opinion.
I am not whining, just stating the obvious. The buildings did not collapse because a plane flew into each relatively close to the top of the towers. Impossible. Can't happen.
Any "credible" source that said it did, is no longer credible. The question for me is why are they lying? Fear? Money?
And, finally, this IS ATS. Conspiracy site, just so you remember.

reply to post by Stewie


So it is not obvious at all, but you need to be an expert to make that assessment? If so, why did you claim it is so obvious? Are you an expert? If so, what are your credentials? And can you point me to the explanation (paper or article, including the physics) that explains why it is impossible that the buildings collapsed because of a plane impact and resulting fires? Or even better, can you come with this explanation yourself?

If you can't give a satisfying answer to these questions, why should I take your word for what you claim? And how does it make my position absurd?

reply to post by -PLB-

The towers were brought down by controlled demolition. End of story on that front.

Think of it this way. If I were to cut a third or a quarter of one of the towers off cleanly, and lift it up a hundred yards or so, and dropped it onto the the tower what in your mind would happen? No, there would not have been a pancake collapse, roughly equal parts of the two colliding parts would have been destroyed.
The part of the tower that was compromised by the heat of burning jet fuel would have put up slightly less resistance to the collapsing top, but the remainder of the tower(s) would. Fierce, unmovable resistance... once the top had lost its mass through being destroyed in the collision on floor at a time, the remaining tower would still be there.
In fact, the top should have not even come down onto the remainder at all, the fires just don't burn that hot and the jet would not have compromised the tower to that degree.

Big ass lie, that is all it is.

reply to post by -PLB-

Like I pointed out to Varemia,
not everyone can "get" it. It is okay. You have the government story on your side, you are in good hands.

Originally posted by Stewie
reply to post by -PLB-

 

The towers were brought down by controlled demolition. End of story on that front.

Think of it this way. If I were to cut a third or a quarter of one of the towers off cleanly, and lift it up a hundred yards or so, and dropped it onto the the tower what in your mind would happen? No, there would not have been a pancake collapse, roughly equal parts of the two colliding parts would have been destroyed.
The part of the tower that was compromised by the heat of burning jet fuel would have put up slightly less resistance to the collapsing top, but the remainder of the tower(s) would. Fierce, unmovable resistance... once the top had lost its mass through being destroyed in the collision on floor at a time, the remaining tower would still be there.
In fact, the top should have not even come down onto the remainder at all, the fires just don't burn that hot and the jet would not have compromised the tower to that degree.

Big ass lie, that is all it is.

Ah, I see someone has been taking Richard Gage and his cardboard boxes seriously :-

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by Stewie


And on what exactly do you base this? Please show me the physics behind this.

You cleverly ignored all my questions. Questions seem to be a bad thing in the truth movement. I am just supposed to accept whatever you, or other truthers, say. To make it worse, it seems truthers can't even agree on one thing amongst each other. So I am supposed to accept all kind of contradicting ideas, as long as it is not the official story. Which actually is largely backed up by science.

The buildings did not collapse because a plane flew into each relatively close to the top of the towers. Impossible. Can't happen.

You mean it didn’t happen previously. How many examples of planes hitting hi rise buildings do we have to compare the results?

Just because the results are not what you expect doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

Who would have thought 2 ships, both with radar would collide at sea?
But the Andrea Doria did.

Who would have thought square windows would cause a jet to come apart mid air.
But the Comet did.

Just because it didn’t happen before doesn’t mean it can’t.

Would anyone build another hi rise using the same construction design as WTC? Not much chance of that after this flaw was pointed out by the terrorists. Seen any square windows on jets lately?

reply to post by Stewie

The buildings did not collapse because a plane flew into each relatively close to the top of the towers. Impossible. Can't happen.

Obviously , you can't back this up with anything that would confirm it .

However , it CAN be proven to be wrong . Planes hit both towers , fires broke out in both towers . One tower collapses due to these events , and , and , and , wait a minute folks , what is this ? THE OTHER TOWER collapses also .

The collapse of the first tower proved that it could happen . The collapse of the second tower , CONFIRMED that the incident could be replicated . THAT , my friend , is science in it's truest form , whether you like it or not .

The ludicrous thing about truthers , is that if only one tower had collapsed , you guys would be screaming that it was a conspiracy and the one tower should not have collapsed because the other tower had also been hit by a plane and sufferred massive fire damage , and did not collapse .

You would be screaming that the standing tower is evidence that the other tower should not have collapsed . And yet , here you have seen one tower collapse already and you find it inconceivable that the second tower also collapsed .

Which just goes to show , you guys would be screaming inside-job , no matter what might have happened .

As for implosions , please explain to us how implosions will eject debris and tons of steel , hundreds of feet outward and away from the building .

You can't prove any of this and you know it . In case you haven't noticed , most of the "debunkers" on here are more than just slightly educated .

Show me PROOF that will confirm just ONE of your conspiracy theories , Just one . Is that easy enough for you ?