• "Where Did the Towers Go?" - Lasers vaporized the twin towers
    203 replies, posted
All I know is that there is a lot we don't know, but I don't want to come to any conclusions without actually [i]knowing[/i] what happened.
[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;34721850]Metal and concrete does a damn fine job of keeping in heat, and without a source of oxygen a hot piece of metal's not exactly going to just catch fire or smolder (and even then, it'll only do so when the proper materials are fused/nearby, such as crap you'd find in an office.) [/QUOTE] You mean the kind of "office crap" that is mandatory to be fire resistant in high-rises? you mean the same high-rise that firemen that day, and i quote, "charged in there" to save lives, because they knew such a building collapsing to fires was an impossibility? these fireman are all "truthers" these days. And you are instigating the theory yourself. "Metal does a damn fine job at keeping heat" ? So why wasn't that investigated. Where is all the heat coming from. Must have been planes and their fuel burning for months on end? i don't have a degree in physics, or anything of the sort, im just the common citizen looking to form an educated opinion, and all i get are people that didn't investigate a damn thing on the official side of it, and on the other people that actually did and said non of this would have been possible unless it was done under special conditions. So investigation vs no investigation. I will always take the first.
[QUOTE=teslacoil;34721898]All I know is that there is a lot we don't know, but I don't want to come to any conclusions without actually [i]knowing[/i] what happened.[/QUOTE] Well the evidence points a long long way away from the official theory.
Another addition: [video=youtube;lDnbfXLUyI4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDnbfXLUyI4[/video]
Someone learned how to use Photoshop.
[QUOTE=teslacoil;34721898]All I know is that there is a lot we don't know, but I don't want to come to any conclusions without actually [i]knowing[/i] what happened.[/QUOTE] The problem with that way of thinking is that it can potentially continue indefinitely. If the evidence seems to be pointing in an uncomfortable direction (or just [I]any[/I] direction) you can always demand more evidence and comfortable claim that "the issue is still controversial" or "both sides have strong arguments". You have to draw the line somewhere and reach a conclusion.
[QUOTE=Techno-Man;34765451]Another addition: [video=youtube;lDnbfXLUyI4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDnbfXLUyI4[/video][/QUOTE] Why are all conspiracy videos so blurry and shaky?
[QUOTE=Wolfmatyr;34778862]Why are all conspiracy videos so blurry and shaky?[/QUOTE] Clearly because its all edited and done under some sort of video editing software. Done to cover the REAL truth, and by people living in a basement, and...i forgot the rest you think of them. Because those videos DO NOT show NIST lead investigator(s) being caught in their own lies. Just poorly edited stuff to try and make them look like phonies. I wonder if the girl from texas is going to win dancing with the stars...
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;34778704]The problem with that way of thinking is that it can potentially continue indefinitely. If the evidence seems to be pointing in an uncomfortable direction (or just [I]any[/I] direction) you can always demand more evidence and comfortable claim that "the issue is still controversial" or "both sides have strong arguments". You have to draw the line somewhere and reach a conclusion.[/QUOTE] So you should believe the lie just because it's easier/comfortable and provides false closure?
My uncle, aunt and cousin died on one of those planes. Don't try to say that the planes didn't exist.
[QUOTE=Brymir;34781314]I wonder if the girl from texas is going to win dancing with the stars...[/QUOTE] What is this? Some sort of "wake up!" gimmick crap?
[QUOTE=Brymir;34781314]Clearly because its all edited and done under some sort of video editing software. Done to cover the REAL truth, and by people living in a basement, and...i forgot the rest you think of them. Because those videos DO NOT show NIST lead investigator(s) being caught in their own lies. Just poorly edited stuff to try and make them look like phonies. I wonder if the girl from texas is going to win dancing with the stars...[/QUOTE] Your idiocy aside: They never denied there was any molten metal, they only proved that said metal could not have been steel. Also considering no demolition ever leaves behind pools of molten steel would you mind explaining why exactly molten metal is proof there was a conspiracy?
[QUOTE=Brymir;34721868]Official investigation suggests the whole building collapsed in 6.5 seconds out of office fires. Also, from debris from towers 1 & 2, the tall buildings. Which, when you look at it, also makes plenty of sense, because WTC 3 4 5 AND 6, all took with debris, were closer to the 1 & 2 towers, got partially destroyed, yet non of them collapsed not in 6.5 seconds, or 6.5 hours, or 6.5 days. Not as of Febuary 15, 2012 at least. And they gone now aswell. So no need for an investigation. It was obvious why it fell.[/QUOTE] Erm... [URL]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLHwvwJCmgk[/URL]
[QUOTE=asteroidrules;34783549]Your idiocy aside[/QUOTE] Well the idiocy here comes from other users, where instead of researching, they question why the video is blurry. What sort of answer are you to expect? Please. [QUOTE=asteroidrules;34783549]Your idiocy aside: They never denied there was any molten metal, they only proved that said metal could not have been steel.[/QUOTE] Yes they did, and still do. NIST hasn't changed views since the report in 2008. Here: [video=youtube;lihj-Kz9wjY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lihj-Kz9wjY[/video] He doesn't acknowledge molten steel. On the other hand i have heard it was dismissed as molten aluminum, just like you mentioned, correct? ok, so first, notice that John Gross over there DOES NOT dismiss it as Aluminum in any circumstance, and second, in the video evidence that is nowadays public domain, the metal u see dripping from the building(s) is yellow/orange. Molten Alluminium is silver. They are hardly similar colors in order to be mistaken with one another. So there is molten steel dripping from the tower(s) and there was molten steel on the bottom of the buildings after collapse. Do you agree? If so, why wasn't it investigated? [QUOTE=asteroidrules;34783549]Also considering no demolition ever leaves behind pools of molten steel would you mind explaining why exactly molten metal is proof there was a conspiracy?[/QUOTE] How am i supposed to know that? or anyone? all there is, is samples collected from the dust with thermite residue in them. Thermite would have created the molten steel if present. Thermite that NIST refused to investigate. No one, within these so called truthers, forces their views on you, well i for one don't, and i guess you categorize me as a truther by now. All people are saying is that NIST ignored one too many evidence to even come to proper conclusions, and want all of it re-opened for a proper criminal investigation, and see what was what. [QUOTE=IrishBandit;34783611]Erm... [URL]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLHwvwJCmgk[/URL][/QUOTE] So let me get this straight. If i show you a video with just some text and a poor quality image by an anonymous, all of the sudden its a truther living in a basement with too much free time on his hands to be "making" evidence. If on the other hand, the video serves you, then it turns into irrefutable evidence. Ok sure. But i'll take it anyway. All i saw in that video was someone that started counting the very first second he saw any penthouse budging, well thats not how everyone does it. Since they were looking to verify the resistance the building found upon collapse initiated, it starts as the building started to come down on itself, and the average 7 seconds is where the relevance is because there was 0 resistance until that building hit the ground, which is quite strange since it was just fires affecting it. So in what does stretching the time from 6.5 seconds to 13 change the event? Any given question about the buildings sort of still stand, or: - was it a natural collapse? and how is this verified. It clearly didn't fall in portions but quite rapidly. - how many buildings are there reports of, that fell in seconds and symmetrically like that, that weren't done under controlled demolition? - how many high-rises do you know that ever collapsed completely out of fires? You had high rises burning for nearly 24 hours with raging fires and at best they collapsed partially, like the Windsor tower in Spain, see how that building ended up totally disfigured, yet some 85% of it still stood. So what happened here for this building to fall in a few hours, specially when the fires weren't that enormous and pouring out of the windows? There are also talks of debris hitting the south side of WTC 7 as reason for collapse. So wait, WTC 3 4 5 & 6, 4 buildings, all took a ton of debris more than WTC 7 since they were so much closer, got damaged, gravely affected, and not ONE structure even buckled, and some damage on the building further away (WTC 7) brings it down just like that? That makes sense.
Thor did 9/11.
[QUOTE=Brymir;34789528] Yes they did, and still do. NIST hasn't changed views since the report in 2008. Here: [video=youtube;lihj-Kz9wjY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lihj-Kz9wjY[/video] He doesn't acknowledge molten steel. On the other hand i have heard it was dismissed as molten aluminum, just like you mentioned, correct? ok, so first, notice that John Gross over there DOES NOT dismiss it as Aluminum in any circumstance, and second, in the video evidence that is nowadays public domain, the metal u see dripping from the building(s) is yellow/orange. Molten Alluminium is silver. They are hardly similar colors in order to be mistaken with one another. So there is molten steel dripping from the tower(s) and there was molten steel on the bottom of the buildings after collapse. Do you agree? If so, why wasn't it investigated? [/QUOTE] No. molten aluminum CAN BE silver, it can vary by temperature. Also just a point: thermite can cause molten steel yes, but wouldn't an explosion of jet fuel also cause the [i]steel frame[/i] of the tower to melt? Also to every idiot that says thermite was used: go on youtube and look at what a thermite explosion actually is. The collapse in no way resembled anything close to it. [editline]20th February 2012[/editline] And another thing: the guy was just asking why it is you truther trolls can't shell out for a decent camera, he wasn't saying it refuted your blatant lies in any way, he was just curious.
[QUOTE=asteroidrules;34793063]No. molten aluminum CAN BE silver, it can vary by temperature.[/quote] Not what the expert(s) say, at all. Instead, that there is a distinct difference between molten steel and aluminum, one is orange, the other is silver, period. But if you have experience in the area, i wouldn't mind seeing it debated between you and them. [QUOTE=asteroidrules;34793063]Also just a point: thermite can cause molten steel yes, but wouldn't an explosion of jet fuel also cause the [i]steel frame[/i] of the tower to melt?[/quote] Everyone agrees that no, jet fuel wouldn't melt steel. Specially when burning in open air. FEMA 9/11 reports also state that the Jet Fuel had burned off just after a few minutes. Fuel burning at max temperature produces no smoke. Smoke just shows how oxygen deprived the fire is, and how its burning at lower temperatures, instead of optimal ones. Besides that steel frame you talk of, had been tested by UL at 2000F. Jet A Fuel burns in open air at 600/700F. So those tower steel frames were tested at 3 times the temperatures they suffered that day. But WTC 7 never took a plane, no jet fuel, so that issue can be put aside for this building at least. Molten steel was also found there, and it collapsed in the same fashion as the other two, free fall. How? [QUOTE=asteroidrules;34793063]Also to every idiot that says thermite was used: go on youtube and look at what a thermite explosion actually is. The collapse in no way resembled anything close to it.[/quote] I haven't seen anyone saying thermite was the main cause of it all, not so far. I seen and heard that it was found, and from there, people are trying to put the pieces together since NIST did nothing. And the bigger portion of thermite would have been used at the bottom not the top, so what kind of explosions are you looking at to set comparison terms. But if you wanna talk youtube, and call others idiots, feel free to look for controlled demolitions, and see how they resemble. Cheap statement, much like yours, just i didn't call anyone an idiot. [QUOTE=asteroidrules;34793063] And another thing: the guy was just asking why it is you truther trolls can't shell out for a decent camera, he wasn't saying it refuted your blatant lies in any way, he was just curious.[/QUOTE] Thank you for such a direct explanation. Yes, i believe its because all truthers are poor? or...just plain bums. Not even sure how that one got his hands on a toaster and do the video. Because the other video mentioning 13 seconds was so much better. And lies, yes. Also makes sense.
[QUOTE=Brymir;34797221]Not what the expert(s) say, at all. Instead, that there is a distinct difference between molten steel and aluminum, one is orange, the other is silver, period. But if you have experience in the area, i wouldn't mind seeing it debated between you and them.[/quote] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A796N_YZTm8[/media] [quote]Everyone agrees that no, jet fuel wouldn't melt steel. Specially when burning in open air. Fuel burning at max temperature produces no smoke. Smoke just shows how oxygen deprived the fire is, and how its burning at lower temperatures, instead of optimal ones. Besides that steel frame you talk of, had been tested by UL at 2000F. Jet A Fuel burns in open air at 600F. So those tower steel frames were tested at over 3 times the temperatures they suffered that day.[/quote] Not one official source has ever said the the steel supports were melted. Steel looses half of it's strength around 800 degrees Fahrenheit, which with the massive amounts of damage, caused the buildings to collapse. And with the towers reaching around 1100 degrees, was enough to melt the aluminum of the planes, but not the structural steel of the towers. [quote]But WTC 7 never took a plane, no jet fuel, so that issue can be put aside for this building at least. Molten steel was also found there, and it collapsed in the same fashion as the other two, free fall. How?[/quote][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kSq663m0G8[/media]
[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;34797466][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A796N_YZTm8[/media] Not one official source has ever said the the steel supports were melted. Steel looses half of it's strength around 800 degrees Fahrenheit, which with the massive amounts of damage, caused the buildings to collapse. And with the towers reaching around 1100 degrees, was enough to melt the aluminum of the planes, but not the structural steel of the towers. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kSq663m0G8[/media][/QUOTE] hello. Well on video 1, you can see what happens to the alluminium as soon as it gets in contact with the air outside no? it turns silver. You were trying to prove me wrong or agree? And video 2, you can see some of the other buildings of the WTC complex during the first minute or so, and how non collapsed even when hit several times worst when compared to building 7. Quoting the video itself, "due to the heavy smoke", again, means oxygen deprived fires, so lesser temperatures? this comes from firemen, not myself. "And then came the fires". These two contradict themselves? If there was black smoke in order for them not to be able to see, there was low temperature, yea? so, you implying that those same fires and some debris damage brought the whole thing down? so what separates WTC 7 from 3 4 5 or 6 really? office fires? And about 25% of the depth of the building was scooped out? when and how did they come to this conclusion? did they just assume things, like on those sketches they did for tower 1 & 2? EDIT [quote]Not one official source has ever said the the steel supports were melted. Steel looses half of it's strength around 800 degrees Fahrenheit, which with the massive amounts of damage, caused the buildings to collapse.[/quote] There was a user just above that said it, or strongly suggested, put it that way. Seems there are different versions to the same event. And im quite sure that the FEMA report showed 560F not 800. But even assuming that would have been the case, and that it was 800F and that it would have weakened it, how does the building BELOW impact area cave in like its made of cheap legos? all the structural steel BELOW IMPACT AREA is still there and not exposed to 800F? how does that simply cave in and disappear?
[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;34797466] Not one official source has ever said the the steel supports were melted. Steel looses half of it's strength around 800 degrees Fahrenheit, which with the massive amounts of damage, caused the buildings to collapse. And with the towers reaching around 1100 degrees, was enough to melt the aluminum of the planes, but not the structural steel of the towers. [/QUOTE] How could the NIST investigator come to the conclusion that 25% of the depth of the building was scooped out? Nevermind that the NIST report itself is flawed. And again, as even shown in that video, WTC 3,4,5 and 6 were ravaged by much worse fires and decimated by rubble (WTC 3 Marriot Hotel especially) yet still standing. If Truss 1 was so important for support and collapsed first, the northeast-east section of the building would've collapsed with it, not just the East Penthouse. All columns failing symmetrically couldn't happen, there would always be resistance. As for the Twin Towers, as you can see again there are lots of squibs at specific locations many floors below the collapse area, and ejections happening at the collapse zone. Don't forget the sections of multi-ton beams flying outwards at a massive distance.
[QUOTE=Brymir;34797788]Alex Jones copypasta[/QUOTE] Conspiracy theorists like you make me sick. Going off telling families who had to bury their mother/father/daughter/son that their loved ones never died/were in on it too. How do you sleep at night? Try telling this to my aunt, who had buried (What was left) of her sister who died on flight 11. I'm pretty sure she would be interested in hearing this.
[QUOTE=asteroidrules;34798870]I'm just saying: a thermite explosion/fire is a very distinct combustion, very visible to the naked eye, and it causes a massive glare on camera, believe me if thermite had been used, then the videos would prove it beyond any doubt, but they don't. And don't say the smoke could've hidden it because that just proves that you've never seen thermite.[/quote] Im struggling to understand this. If its all done within the building structure, how are you capturing any of this outside? And i have tried looking at everything, from thermite explosions to thermite reactions. Can you please link what sort of video caused such an impression? you're making it seem that a thermite explosion would blind everyone in a 2 mile radius. [QUOTE=asteroidrules;34798870]Also I HAVE seen controlled demolitions, and I encourage you to do the same because they don't resemble WTC 7.[/QUOTE] In all honesty, they do. There are even videos that puth the two side by side, and they are coming down at nearly the exact same pace. [QUOTE=asteroidrules;34798870]I'm fairly certain that the substance on the floor was aluminum and it remained orange for at least thirty seconds. Also the aluminum turned silver and solidified because it was no longer close enough to a heat source, now if the aluminum remained surrounded by fire (like the substance on the floor and the pools at the site) then it would've stayed orange. [/QUOTE] Not just on the floor, everywhere, and it took literally a second to turn silver, as soon as it came in contact with air. Look at all the remnants they spilled on the table, they are silver in the blink of an eye. And i guess i suits the circumstances, the metal dripping on the tower(s) wasn't near any fire, was on the outside of the building, and pouring from 80 stories high, so plenty of cold air to make it silver in case it was alluminium. The vast majority of the molten metal at the bottom wasn't reported as aluminum either. I have also seen a video called "9/11 Debunked: "Molten Metal" Explained" where the user commits a series of mistakes while trying to explain that it wasn't actually molten steel, but alumminium. Some wrongs. 1. he claims fires were burning at 1800F, False, 1800F is the maximum temperature Jet A fuel type reaches under perfect conditions, and those were never met on 9/11. Everyone agrees to this, not even 800F were. 2. he says that at those temperatures the alluminium starts to look "orangy". True but false. The alluminium was never exposed to 1800F nor would it be anywhere near 1800F when pouring on the outside and at such altitude. There is in fact a video of planes aluminum dripping of one of the towers, i would have to look for it again in order to link. But it has nothing to do with molten steel. All this said, why didn't NIST themselves investigate all this? all these events should be studied in order to asure it never happens again, at least. One too many evidence blatantly ignored.
[QUOTE=Brymir;34798596]If you were to inform yourself first instead of coming at me with that, you'd know that: 1. i have nothing to do with Alex Jones, all the info i used so far is in no way linked to him or associates. If they speak similar or even the same, thats not my problem is it. 2. i never said anyones loved ones were on this, or did not die, or whatever the heck you are implying. You can stop with your Falsehoods, here and now. 3. You are talking about flight 11, where did i ever mention flights or that jets were fake? again, inform yourself and cut the falsehoods. Using the deceased as a shield from questions is as cheap and immoral as it comes. And you wouldn't be able to teach me about the deceased, or losing someone dear, as i already know all about it, sadly. 4. If people are doing this is to KNOW WHO did it, and[B] its becoming quite clear that it wasn't no man in a cave[/B]. I can tell you there are plenty of family members that lost a loved one involved with these "truthers" at the moment. So again, cut the BS talks of how your aunt lost someone, because its not me who doesn't care, but if it ever gets proven, its the people that were behind it that could care less.[/QUOTE] It wasn't a man in a cave, it was a man in a cave with millions of dollars, a terrorist organization, and being able to brainwash smart people in order to fulfill his needs. Also, the hijacked planes aren't fake, and the people on board it were really terrorists, but the government still managed to put bombs in a building? :downs: How in the fuck did they manage to place all those bombs in the first place without causing suspicion? Don't say covered up, because that's just a shitty argument to say you don't know. They would need literally thousands of charges to blow up a building that size, not to mention so much construction and maintenance that they might as well of rebuilt the building with explosives in it. Also, to re butte your claim that I am immoral and cheap, how about the douche bags from loose change who collect "donations" from people in order to insult and tell people their family was in on a conspiracy. [editline]21st February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Brymir;34798596]If you were to inform yourself first instead of coming at me with that, you'd know that: 1. i have nothing to do with Alex Jones, all the info i used so far is in no way linked to him or associates. If they speak similar or even the same, thats not my problem is it. 2. i never said anyones loved ones were on this, or did not die, or whatever the heck you are implying. You can stop with your Falsehoods, here and now. 3. You are talking about flight 11, where did i ever mention flights or that jets were fake? again, inform yourself and cut the falsehoods. Using the deceased as a shield from questions is as cheap and immoral as it comes. And you wouldn't be able to teach me about the deceased, or losing someone dear, as i already know all about it, sadly. 4. If people are doing this is to KNOW WHO did it, and its becoming quite clear that it wasn't no man in a cave. I can tell you there are plenty of family members that lost a loved one involved with these "truthers" at the moment. So again, cut the BS talks of how your aunt lost someone, because its not me who doesn't care, but if it ever gets proven, its the people that were behind it that could care less.[/QUOTE] How would you feel if I say your family member's death was fake or covered up, and that she was in on a conspiracy theory. I don't think you would be too happy. My condolences to your family member/loved one though.
9/11 RAR RAR RAR. molten steel, RAR RAR RAR.
[QUOTE=Brymir;34797221]I haven't seen anyone saying thermite was the main cause of it all, not so far. I seen and heard that it was found, and from there, people are trying to put the pieces together since NIST did nothing. And the bigger portion of thermite would have been used at the bottom not the top, so what kind of explosions are you looking at to set comparison terms. But if you wanna talk youtube, and call others idiots, feel free to look for controlled demolitions, and see how they resemble. [/QUOTE] I'm just saying: a thermite explosion/fire is a very distinct combustion, very visible to the naked eye, and it causes a massive glare on camera, believe me if thermite had been used, then the videos would prove it beyond any doubt, but they don't. And don't say the smoke could've hidden it because that just proves that you've never seen thermite. Also I HAVE seen controlled demolitions, and I encourage you to do the same because they don't resemble WTC 7.
[QUOTE=Combin0wnage;34798749]How in the fuck did they manage to place all those bombs in the first place without causing suspicion? Don't say covered up, because that's just a shitty argument to say you don't know. They would need literally thousands of charges to blow up a building that size, not to mention so much construction and maintenance that they might as well of rebuilt the building with explosives in it.[/QUOTE] The core was the strongest part of the towers, built to carry 10 times more weight than they were actually carrying, and they had access to the core columns through the elevator shafts.
[QUOTE=Techno-Man;34798887]The core was the strongest part of the towers, built to carry 10 times more weight than they were actually carrying, and they had access to the core columns through the elevator shafts.[/QUOTE] And that's why the planes didn't blow the tower to shit as soon as it impacted?
[QUOTE=Combin0wnage;34798902]And that's why the planes didn't blow the tower to shit as soon as it impacted?[/QUOTE]You mean the planes didn't ignite the Nano-Thermite? Nano-Thermite needs a very high temperature to ignite, and it can be designed to react in different ways. It can be designed to explode or to simply melt the columns.
[QUOTE=Brymir;34797788] Well on video 1, you can see what happens to the alluminium as soon as it gets in contact with the air outside no? it turns silver. You were trying to prove me wrong or agree? [/QUOTE] I'm fairly certain that the substance on the floor was aluminum and it remained orange for at least thirty seconds. Also the aluminum turned silver and solidified because it was no longer close enough to a heat source, now if the aluminum remained surrounded by fire (like the substance on the floor and the pools at the site) then it would've stayed orange.
[QUOTE=Techno-Man;34798960]You mean the planes didn't ignite the Nano-Thermite? Nano-Thermite needs a very high temperature to ignite, and it can be designed to react in different ways. It can be designed to explode or to simply melt the columns.[/QUOTE] You got a good point.. If, there was nano-termite in the buildings, which none were ever found. It turned out that the alleged nano-termite remains were just sulfur from the dry wall. You know, the stuff that was made to line the walls?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.