9/11 truth movement topic

[d3adp00l]

First of all, blast furnace with what for fuel, a desk?!? The kerosene aka jet fuel aka stuff that won't run in any other engine was 800 feet up and burned away. And on top of that a blast furnace is just that not a laser beam 45 degree cut, and other flat cuts. If the steel had an area of melted steel, I would say there is not fuel to support the theory but there is more damage than could be described by a shape charge, which is the only way I can think of or have seen that can cut 4" of solid steel in a single pass. As far as what your point was about there molten balls of iron and debris I didn't get it. If a thermite/mate compound was used it would leave as a by product molten iron, not steel, iron, which was what the sames where tested for. And they came up with iron, less the carbon and other additives. The big balls, best know was the "meteorite" could be explained by only one thing molten iron flowed and gather in a low point and mixed itself with the debris it ended up in. And there is not a single plausible explanation for the liquid metal, neither the balls of it or what was seen by construction workers flowing down c channels and i beams. There was nothing in the towers that could produce that heat FOR WEEKS AFTERWARD, end of story. The only possible explanation is something was in there that shouldn't have been and some of that something didn't ignite when the rest of it did. Which can happen when the source of ignition is severed when a building comes apart and breaks the connection. Which could later be reignited by the proximity of other stuff that wasn't supposed to be there.

Think about the bigger picture involved. were talking about alot of mass seeking to reach a rest point. Building and contents, the contents are flamable for the better part. the fuel you ask? The contents are the fuel so yes the desk the entire contents of the cubicles the entire contents of the offices and the whole contents of every floor. As for the heat, I would think it's pretty hot at the core of the planet with molten elements churning about like they do. There is no magic to this the sheer mass with the contents as fuel a fire roaring with red hot iron inject air at high pressure and you have a cutting torch of macro portions. that's not taking into account for the carbon minoxide present in the air, add the fact that churning elements of great proportions tend to get very hot (due to friction) as with the core of the earth. You may research how a blast furnace works to better understand what was happening in the buildings as they were collapsing. no thermite required! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blast_furnace 

Essentially the heat wanted to rise but was forced downward by debris/fuel/energy seeking a rest state via the path of least resistance. This was an enormus release of energy with an extreme amount of mass with more than an ample amount of fuel. If it didn't burn for weeks than i would be suspicous. 

Once again ring you surprise me with justification of a flawed idea. No wonder tpus don't work. 1st Thing, the contents of a building are not flamable "for the most part" quite the opposite, unless you add a highly flamable source to get the temperatures up high enough. Offices have the basic contents of kindling most of it has a poor rate of burn. Paper burns fast, carpet slow,plastic slower. No ring you are wrong in the assesment of the available fuel. 2nd Those items do not spontaniously combust from pressure, and given the fact that the fires were 800 feet up there is no way that the two instances of heat (fire, melted steel) are connected, therefore another source of heat is need, which is not explainable by you contents theory, otherwise every steel building the caught fire would colapse and none other than the towers ever has. 3rd The mathmatics of the heat you suggest because of mass does not work, its very simple add the potential energy of the mass in the building THEN SUBTRACT THAT ENERGY FROM THE ENERGY NEEDED TO BREAK THE MECHANICAL BONDS OF ALL THE FLOORS, the energy used to turn the concrete to dust, the energy to bend the steel, the energy to throw human remains a block away (with an ave size of 3/4") the amount of energy transfered into the ground as vibration, the sound energy, the energy to push a cloud of dust weighing thousands of tons into the atmosphere, and so on, there is a huge list of negative energy components, which make not only your friction theory a load of bs, but it makes the fact that the building fell into its own footprint impossible, end of story, only if energy was added into the equation, or better said energy used to reduce the negative energy component of the equation could the building even fall in the manor it did. By the way do you really believe that pressure alone is what causes the earths core to be warm, you really need to re-look the world you live in, if that was the case the the earth itself would be O/U, unless of course we lost a lot of mass in the energy transfer of E=mc2. Which doesn't happen so beither can the rest, The core of the earth is not hot because of pressure alone. Why doesn't the ocean bottom spontaneously boil? Sure is alot of pressure down there. Btw there wasn't some massive fuel fire, when the building colapsed on it it would have suffocated it, NO OXYGEN. And carbon dioxide doesn't burn or release energy, I don't know what your trying to say with that other than more distraction."Blast furnaces are to be contrasted with air furnaces (such as reverberatory furnaces), which were naturally aspirated," a quote from your wiki link A blast furnace is one in which the oxygen is blown into the the reactor, in the buildings case air would and was blown out the windows, so again no blast furnace. The heat from the friction internal to the steel as it was bend would have dispated faster than the heat does when its forged, which doesn't last weeks. A single small area of heat may have lasted a little while from the floors that were actually on fire, similar as when a building is burned to the ground and there is still heat the day after, but again not for weeks, and not when there is not fire. If that was the case when buildings are dropped there would be the same problem, but there isn't is there.



Melting point of AL 660 degrees C
melting point of steel 1200 degrees C
Why do you think it took man so long to begin the steel era ring.

[d3adp00l]

Also a collapsing building doesn't create 3/4" pieces of peoples remains, the people in the building were blown to chunks.

[joe dirt]

There,s to much confusion...    I can,t get no relief...

Jimmy Hendrix 

[Dingus Mungus]

1300 deg? BS I can get higher teperatures just fueling a fire with wood. have did it many times right here in my driveway. You can keep denying that higher temperatures were involved, focusing only on the jet fuel but the buildings was filled with fuels in the form of objects adding fuel to the fire increasing the temp. I melt hundreds of pounds of aluminium with a full sized truck load of wood. It's not that difficult. were really talking about hundreds of thousands of tonnes of iron. no it's not overunity. Just energy bieng released by fire.

Wow... No kidding good thing we're NOT talking about Aluminum since it melts at those temperatures. Unfortunately we're talking about liquid steel. Which requires temps twice what you claim to achieve in your drive way. So tht point made very little difference.

Also wood doesn't burn as hot as jet fuel. Theres this little thing called energy density, and wood has very little energy density when compaired to Fuel. Also all burning materials reach a max possible temp. Jet fuel can only reach a max temp of 900 degrees celcius. Otherwise the "blast furnace" we call a jet engine would melt before take off.

"So... Yeah... Kinda odd not a single new source reported this ignorance." the ignorance is in not seeking what was going on inside the buildings or the mechanics of what was going on in them prior to and during collapse. It takes a little mechanical genius and a lot of common sense which the average mind just isn't capable of understanding.

You are such a rotten little dip shit. Twisting my words. The ignorance (meaning unaware of) was John Gross publiclty saying there was never any claim of molten steel. Now that sounds pretty ignorant to me, considering all the pictures and eye witnesses. Ignorant could apply to a lot of people, but we both know it wasn't ignorance that caused him to deny the presence of molten steel. Why would he say it doesn't exist???

Your looking for a single new source? I look this thread over and see that there doesn't seem to be any single source involved in it. there are hundreds of sources some conflict eachother. so in general the sources posted only support the arguement at the time.

My points:
WTC7 fall time
Molten steel

My sources:
Any that show physical evidence
(pics, vids, siesmology data, eye witness accounts)

Example: your saying 1300deg but i know i seen 3 different accounts where firemen are stating that it was 2750-3500 deg 5 days after the collapse. Now what?

Ummmm that makes my point... Firemen reporting temps fire could not make...
Not my words, John Gross from NIST's words.

So it is quite apparent that the multiple sources are unintentionally  misleading and conflicting when it is viewed in fragments siting mute points via uninformed or averaged minded wittness. that are unreliable at best.

This coming from a guy who supports the 9-11 commision report...

You stated something like you don't watch tv as it conditions people to believe certain things. well the sounds representative of an explosion is an edited or manipulated track in many cases. so who say's that any of these wittness's have actually heard a real explosion to make a realistic comparison?

The firemen in the video all acknowledge the expolsions?!?!?!
I'm not claiming explosions due to a soundtrack! You skew the facts!

Yeah i know it add's up. but apparently you don't. Your still trying to find the conspiracy in it, not focusing on the facts and potentials involved.  But don't include me in your ignorance of it. Things burn and explode in a fire get a grip on reality.   

Ok so after all this you never answered:

Where did the molten steel come from then?
(melt a grade8 steel bolt in your drive way for "proof")

Why would John Gross (Co-Project Leader) claim there was no molten steel?
(Obviously there was molten steel right?)

Wouldn't he have seen more photos and real world data than us in 3 years time?
(Including some of the pictures and videos that were classified)


Rather than attempt to confuse and smear facts, answer a question.
~Dingus Mungus

[ring_theory]

@ring_theory

it seems you still have not watched the 9/11 Loose Change and the other movies listed
here in the thread in the earlier pages...

The fires were almost out before the WTC towers were destroyed via controlled demolition.

This was seen due to the black smoke which tells you the fires were not hot but lacking oxygen.

Also simular skycraper towers burned for more than 20 hours and did not collapse.

Steel is conducting the heat very well away from the fire source to other colder floors, so it does not reach melting points...

The WTC towers were brought down by computer controlled demolition charges,
which were planted some days/weeks before 9/11 into the towers.
In themovie it was said, that the brother of Bush, who was responsible for the WTC security,
removed the explosive bomb sniffing dogs and there were drills a few days before 9/11
were also the power went out and all security cams were disabled, so the
hidden demolition troups could go in and plant the explosive charges..

I really wonder how many people were involved in all of this and
if nobody from these guys wanted to come forward with the truth,
but I guess they are all too scared about the consequences then for them...

These must have been very professional guys, who planed to bring the towers
down and did all the demolition charges, etc , so to look as if the plane crashes had done it...

Also the smoke clouds emmiting from the WTC controlled demolition
proves it all in all already, that the towers just did not collape only,
but were brought down by these controlled demolition charges.

Also the thermate charges which were used in the underground base of the
WTCs burned for a few weeks after 9/11 as it ignited with very hot temperates
all the steel beams,so they were weakened and crashed.


I also wonder, if somebody has already researched, who exactly profited
from the drop (put) orders at the brokers, that the airline stocks would fall
1 and 2 days before 9/11 ?

I guess if this could be traced you will have the real guys who are responsible
for 9/11.

Just trace the money being made from it and you will have the bad guys...
It is always the same...

Yes i did watch the loose change video. I just don't believe everything that i hear or see in it. I'm not going through a frame by frame evaluation of it either. as i said in my previous post "I look this thread over and see that there doesn't seem to be any single source involved in it. there are hundreds of sources some conflict eachother. so in general the sources posted only support the arguement at the time."

"The fires were almost out before the WTC towers were destroyed via controlled demolition." Ok what is your evidence that it was a controlled demolition?? 1 and 2? this really mystifies me because "if" (and that's a really big if) it was a controlled demolition it would be the first ever to be done from the top down. just that fact alone dissmisses the whole controlled demolition thing. I might be crazy but i'm not dumb and if i was instructed by anyone to carry explosives into a occupied burning building they would be doing it themselfs. would you?? It would take weeks possibly months to prepare the buildings for implosion. Sure you can assume that a normal maintenence crew or an improvement like new ducting or whatever could have been a the beginnings of a conspiracy. but I highly doubt it was anything other than exactly what it was said to be maintenence or improving the ventalation system.

"This was seen due to the black smoke which tells you the fires were not hot but lacking oxygen." get ya a couple of rubber tires stack them up pour oil on them than take a propane torch and light the oil. when the tires are burning as hot as they can possibly get you'll notice that the smoke is pure black but yet it isn't starved for oxygen. so black smoke doesn't indicate it was starving from lack of oxygen.

"Also simular skycraper towers burned for more than 20 hours and did not collapse." there is not a building on the planet that is simular to the former WTC #1 and #2 towers.

"Steel is conducting the heat very well away from the fire source to other colder floors, so it does not reach melting points..."
Well partially agreed. however what about the exo skeleton of the towers? wouldn't it reflect a great amount of heat back to the core of the fire? With that also deserving mention is that the heat would have also been radiated outwards much like a heat sink.

"The WTC towers were brought down by computer controlled demolition charges,
which were planted some days/weeks before 9/11 into the towers.
In themovie it was said, that the brother of Bush, who was responsible for the WTC security,
removed the explosive bomb sniffing dogs and there were drills a few days before 9/11
were also the power went out and all security cams were disabled, so the
hidden demolition troups could go in and plant the explosive charges.."

Stefan really? Did you ever think to note how many times "loose change" offers an alternate or objective opinion in his short films? Before i would believe one word of it I would have to see where they offered some other explanation other than what they present. It's a little bit one sided if you ask me.  It also concernes me greatly as to what they stand to gain from it.

I mean really. If today was the day that irrefutable evidence was provided what would that mean? I'll tell you that the result would not be favorable for the good and honest american people who generally mean well. As if our honor has not been dishonored enough? Is the rest of the world going to turn their back on us? are we going to become outcasts among the world community? What would that do to our local, state, and federal government? Anarchy would be promoted as the terrorists want. They win, we lose. I agree that those responcible for this terroristic act should be held liable!! But before I or anyone can make that call we had damned well be 100% sure we know and can prove irrifutably that this is exactly how this happened. And at this point i don't see enough real evedence just some accusations based on biased opinions at best. And at that they don't offer an alternate explination.