9/11 truth movement topic

[Dingus Mungus]

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."

Most of "loose change" is crap... I won't debate that. I'm only interested in facts.

"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?

Avoiding the issue are we? The fires were reported as almost out by FDNY.
You should explain that away first...

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.

This isn't a standard building demo now is it?
Are you saying its impossible to demo from top down?
Are you sure it's 100% not possible to demo from top down?

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.

The difference is: We see inconsistencies in the story. HUGE HOLES! What bothers me about you is; you believe theres a whole religion capable of that kind of evil, but a 40 man crew in NYC... No way...

"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.

Because all sky rise building have tires and oil on high floors?
I agree synthetic rubbers and oil burn black, but where did all the "hydrocarbon" materials come from. Most sky rise buildings are built with less flamable materials, and theres no reason I could see for hundreds of pounds of rubber or oil to be in the building. What is your point with this?

"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.

Thats not what I've read/seen photographic evidence of...
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc1_core.html
How many building cores have you examined in making that hypothesis?

"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.

No matter what it won't be conducting heat above 1000 degrees celcius... And since there was so much more steel in ratio to fuel, that makes even less sense.

"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.

Read it... Check the facts yourself.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911security.html

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.

Our country back... It's being eroded away, but you don't notice I guess.

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?

We would need to fix some things and punnish those who knowingly took part in this. Eventually people would roll over and we would be lead to the "people" behind this.

Don't kid yourself, the world already hates us. You should really read up on our foreign policy, and the list of countries we've invade, and list of dictators we've installed. It's time to remove the power of the "millitary industrial complex". If we are not a war nation, then we are of no use to them. We need to earn back the trust of the world already. We want justice, and no matter how many people we kill in the middle east justice will not be done untill those truely responcible are found.

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.

Charging the administration with treason would not equate to anarchy... Maybe one big sigh of relief, but not anarchy. Thats silly... Speaker of the house would assume command untill the next election, and local/state governments wouldn't be effected. Well maybe guilani would have some hell to deal with, but he would deserve it. He's made so much money off the war on terror that its crazy!!!

Just read some of this stuff then go research it yourself.
No matter how much you don't want to believe it, you can't change the facts.

~Dingus Mungus

[ring_theory]

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

"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."

The point was and I didn't make it apparent. through doing such is a lessen learned. if i try it with 3 sticks of wood insufficient heat is obtained. 100 pieces of wood isn't enough, now 500 pieces is sufficient to melt the aluminium from the iron leaving the iron red hot. Ok I concede that we are talking about iron in the case of the wtc. However the point is that if i add more fuel to the fire the end result is a hot enough fire to melt the aluminium from the iron. 

"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."

Ok i agree wood does not burn as hot under normal conditions. However change the conditions and you can have a hotter than "normal" fire. simply inject oxygen. Refering a jet engine to a blast furnace is just wrong. Now on the other hand it is in effect closer to a gas axe. Maximum possible temp again i agree however there is also a flash point involved.   

"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???"

Why thank you.  However i didn't mean to in this case i misunderstood in what spirit it was meant. I apologise. 
"Why would he say it doesn't exist???" Denial. I know that makes your point as well. However given that I cannot seem to get what i concider some of the brightest minds in the world to understand how it come to be. I'm certain that he himself don't understand it's presence so he in his own mind denies it's existance. simply because he cannot even begin to comprehend how it came to be. He cannot explain it so he don't want to discuss it and the easy and fastest way is to deny it's existance. Which brings to bare the whole point of Witness reliability bieng well, unreliable.

"My points:
WTC7 fall time
Molten steel"

Fall time: newton covered that maybe you need to address some of his works again as You won't listen to me. Citing pancaking of floors which i doubt was the case as the structure partially twisted as it fell. which is another point i make that you dismiss readily but evidence proves different.
Molten iron: well a fire was involved, enough heat was generated to melt iron with the potential as the structure fell to blast oxygen past or into the allready red hot iron.

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

I've never seen it to my knowledge. However i may have come to some of the same conclusions.

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

I'm not skewing the facts the firemen are. I don't hear explosions. all i hear is a collapsing building going through it's last throws of resistance. do a side by side comparison of WTC collapse and a building bieng imploded by soundtrack alone. you will hear a distinct difference between ignited charges and shearing structural supports as the building twists and collapses.

"Ok so after all this you never answered:" Whatever i have answered your questions time and again.

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

"Why would John Gross (Co-Project Leader) claim there was no molten steel?" addressed earlier in this post
"(Obviously there was molten steel right?)" 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)" Yes seeing it. Understanding it is a whole different ballgame for some.


"Rather than attempt to confuse and smear facts, answer a question." I've been answering questions all along but you just percieve the answers as smearing of facts or not note worthy.

[Dingus Mungus]

The point was and I didn't make it apparent. through doing such is a lessen learned. if i try it with 3 sticks of wood insufficient heat is obtained. 100 pieces of wood isn't enough, now 500 pieces is sufficient to melt the aluminium from the iron leaving the iron red hot. Ok I concede that we are talking about iron in the case of the wtc. However the point is that if i add more fuel to the fire the end result is a hot enough fire to melt the aluminium from the iron.

That doesn't negate its max temp. Max temp is determined by the speed and energy of the oxidation. Molecules always have these kinds of factors limiting the ammount of energy you can release in a time span. The point I was making is nothing in that building was capable of producing those temperatures. (except the explosives) Use wood and jet fuel in your smelter... If your right the unit will melt itself. 5$ says your safe...

Ok i agree wood does not burn as hot under normal conditions. However change the conditions and you can have a hotter than "normal" fire. simply inject oxygen. Refering a jet engine to a blast furnace is just wrong. Now on the other hand it is in effect closer to a gas axe. Maximum possible temp again i agree however there is also a flash point involved.

"Refering a jet engine to a blast furnace is just wrong." Ummmm...  What about swapping coal or coke for JET FUEL. So you say the jet fuel with moving air acted like a blast furnace in WTC, but when the air and fuel move through an engine suddenly its not like a blast furnace??? Explain...

Why thank you.  However i didn't mean to in this case i misunderstood in what spirit it was meant. I apologise. 

Well then I may have over reacted. It sounded as if you were calling me ignorant. Which would be rather offensive considering I've tryed to read all sides of the story. Including the silly reptile and alien shit to the straight laced official story, and much in between.

"Why would he say it doesn't exist???" Denial. I know that makes your point as well. However given that I cannot seem to get what i concider some of the brightest minds in the world to understand how it come to be. I'm certain that he himself don't understand it's presence so he in his own mind denies it's existance. simply because he cannot even begin to comprehend how it came to be. He cannot explain it so he don't want to discuss it and the easy and fastest way is to deny it's existance. Which brings to bare the whole point of Witness reliability bieng well, unreliable.

HE HEADED THE "FALL AND BURN" SECTION OF THE REPORT!!!!
Thats not something I want ignored! Thats my POINT!!!
You must now understand why there must be a new investigation.

Fall time: newton covered that maybe you need to address some of his works again as You won't listen to me.

WTC7 fall time: 6.5seconds
free fall in vac: 6.0seconds

Due to "wind resistance" there's simply no extra time left for any pancaking to take place. Per floor fall time would be measured in two times; fall time and resistance time. You understand fall time, but you need to analise resistance time. There is an exchange of energy that needs to take place when one object turns another to dust... This would slow its fall speed considerably on each impact. Please research this point for yourself. It's simply impossible from a physics stand point. No extra time!

Citing pancaking of floors which i doubt was the case as the structure partially twisted as it fell. which is another point i make that you dismiss readily but evidence proves different.

So if pancaking didn't happen why was concrete turned to dust? and steel melted? Where does all the friction come from? (Silly question considering prefall molten steel)
You never adressed that by the way... If it was the fall and friction why was there several fountains of molten steel spotted?

Molten iron: well a fire was involved, enough heat was generated to melt iron with the potential as the structure fell to blast oxygen past or into the allready red hot iron.

You still haven't sited a source, so untill you show me something proving you can achieve those kinds of heat with those fuels you're talking out your ass. I've shown several sources that clearly state the max tamp of jet fuel is 900 celsius. Show me something scientific!

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

I've never seen it to my knowledge. However i may have come to some of the same conclusions.

LMAO! So then basicly your regurgitating what then? Because if you arived all on your own it must be a miracle. Considering you've never seen most of the material we post. What have you read that varies from the offical rant?

I'm not skewing the facts the firemen are. I don't hear explosions. all i hear is a collapsing building going through it's last throws of resistance.

Yeah, because you watching a youtube clip should be a much better judge of that.

do a side by side comparison of WTC collapse and a building bieng imploded by soundtrack alone. you will hear a distinct difference between ignited charges and shearing structural supports as the building twists and collapses.

Here this is brand new, it required a lot of stabilizing.
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/744529/9_11_new_collapse_footage_rare_demo_clearly_seen/
Side by side no audio, but you heard the audio in last clip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73qK4j32iuo
Mini version of wtc 7...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAyyHQQXX_0

Now you find me a video of a building falling from structural damage like wtc7 did!

I've been answering questions all along but you just percieve the answers as smearing of facts or not note worthy.

No you dodge most issues thats why I jump on other people questions. To help point out the complete lack of objectiveness you follow. You never answer questions or show a source... You repeat "talking points". No evidence yet... Show me a quote where you posted some "hard evidence" or a "source".

~Dingus Mungus

[hartiberlin]

@ring_theory
you should really study the videos and try to understand and not twist the facts
over here.
Here is another video you should view:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItWsP1o2Tmg

[nutekk]

DENIAL: THE 51ST STATE
http://sandbox.cedarconedesign.com/misc/den51state.html

This is a super article. I had posted it before but didn't realize they had moved it.

It is enlightening.