Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
1. Because there must have been some mechanism at play that could melt steel. Most 'experts' ascertain it was "nanothermite", which appeared to be present in 3 different dust samples, analysed by 3 different organisations. They say nanothermite is more reactive than ordinary thermite - you don't need as much of it.
2. It's not possible. With respect to conservation of momentum. David Chandler covers this well in many available sources. I saw him in The Demolition of truth.
3. Politicians and diapers must be changed often..., and for the same reason. Mark Twain. ...perhaps if we are less "full of it", there's the potential for more credibility / possibilities.
So the Nano thermite was on the plane or in the building?
I watched video on that the building would of stopped falling at some point. It might of been one of his.
So the Nano thermite was on the plane or in the building?
I watched video on that the building would of stopped falling at some point. It might of been one of his.
AGREED!
The nanothermite was found in the dust. There was also molten steel / iron spheres in the dust, indicative of extreme heat. [Small amounts of molten liquid naturally form spheres (on solidification) due to the higher surface tension relative to the small mass of material in them]
I don't believe there was any planes that hit the buildings, as I implied in post #48 - all online video that show alleged plane impacts has been tampered with, in my opinion - that's why there aren't really that many videos of the planes hitting the towers. (there certainly aren't any clear and unequivocal images showing a light and thin aluminium structure smashing into the OUTSIDE of a concrete and steel structure).
Controlled demolition requires explosives distributed throughout the structure.
There was many many CIA and FBI handlers on the street, and news people who'd already been briefed, so the narrative about planes was very quickly dispersed and escalated, at street level. Even qualified people (in the videos) say such things as "when I saw the first (or second) plane hit....", - what I believe they mean is that they saw it on TV. But none of the newsreel clips were live.
Last edited by Age-enduring; 04-08-2018 at 11:33 AM..
The nanothermite was found in the dust. There was also molten steel / iron spheres in the dust, indicative of extreme heat. [Small amounts of molten liquid naturally form spheres (on solidification) due to the higher surface tension relative to the small mass of material in them]
I'm not a engineer or anything but I have to ask about some things.
1. If jet fuel isn't hot enough to melt steel beams then why was there talk of molten steel on the ground?
2. How was the mass from 15 stories able to destroy 80 plus stories below? I get it has it falls it gains more mass but it was only falling from one floor above.
3. Last question. Being that no one wants to believe that OUR government would do such a thing,
do we tend to let our political biases get in the way of what might be?
1. Jet fuel didn't melt the steel beams. It weakened the steel, plus, as I've mentioned earlier in the thread, if you worked in the WTC, which I did for 20 years, you knew what the steel sounded like every day. It had a built-in sway factor to keep the building from cracking in the high winds of NYC. The steel literally moved back and forth, and on windy days it was very loud, not only in the staircases. Reminded me of old movies where a ship is creaking back and forth.
I think the "melted steel" meme comes from someone who was later working in the B levels during the cleanups. Remember that the fires underground did not go out until early January. There was melted stuff down there, probably aluminum, but someone said something publicly about what they assumed was melted steel and the CT sites ran with that.
Anyway, on 9/11, one of the things that was very scary was the sound that the steel was making when I was in the stairs. It was making a horrible groaning sound as if it was going one way and not coming back and there were banging and clanging sounds like things were broken.
And lastly, the building was LEANING. When we got hit, the building jerked and shuddered so violently from side to side that people sitting at their desks found themselves on the floor and didn't know why. I was walking, and the floor suddenly was going out from under my feet and the person I was with fell on the ground. I thought it was going over. The building never fully righted itself and you could tell by the way your feet fell on the stairs that it was leaning. It's odd, because when you watch the Gaudet brothers' video, it looks as if AA11 slides right into the building like a knife into butter, but it wasn't that way when you were inside.
Also, the jet fuel shot down the elevator shafts and dropped the cattle car (express) elevators full of burning people. I know people who were on 44 and saw this and I know people who were down on the B-3 level when those elevators hit and burst open with smoking, burning bodies. The jet fuel fireball shot through the lobby and blew out the glass wall at the West Street entrance decapitating and shredding the people who were out there. I know someone who saw that, too. A friend of mine in the lobby was caught in the fireball and died in late October in the Cornell burn unit. I think only six of the people who ended up in the burn unit came out alive, and some are missing facial features and fingers.
So, it wasn't just that it happened "up there". The entire building was affected by the impact of a jet airliner slamming into it as well as fire. Trust me, we all know what jet fuel smells like. Some people still have a reaction when at the airport because they can smell it and it returns the memories.
2. I don't understand what you mean by only falling from one floor above. That was not the case.
3. I am a little suspicious when I hear someone pull out this old saw. Do you actually know anyone who believes what the government tells them? I seriously mean this. It's a constant claim of the CT set, but I am nearly sixty years old, and I've never met a single human being who believes what the government tells them. My mother is 89, a rather conservative Christian, and she sure as hell doesn't believe what the government tells her at face value and never has.
As I pointed out upthread also, whether the government says XYZ about the collapses or not is of relatively little value anyway. The government did not perform the cleanup or oversee the recovery operations at the site. The engineering community for several years afterward held conferences on the collapses not to prove or disprove anything but rather to figure out how to build stronger buildings with better life safety features. Except for the tiny fraction that follows Richard Gage and his YouTube demonstration with cardboard boxes, very few of whom are actually engineers anyway, the engineering community dismisses the idea that the collapses happened any other way than has been concluded. I will go with them over a guy with cardboard and an agenda or people trying to sell T-shirts on an Internet website.
The nanothermite was found in the dust. There was also molten steel / iron spheres in the dust, indicative of extreme heat. [Small amounts of molten liquid naturally form spheres (on solidification) due to the higher surface tension relative to the small mass of material in them]
I don't believe there was any planes that hit the buildings, as I implied in post #48 - all online video that show alleged plane impacts has been tampered with, in my opinion - that's why there aren't really that many videos of the planes hitting the towers. (there certainly aren't any clear and unequivocal images showing a light and thin aluminium structure smashing into the OUTSIDE of a concrete and steel structure).
Controlled demolition requires explosives distributed throughout the structure.
There was many many CIA and FBI handlers on the street, and news people who'd already been briefed, so the narrative about planes was very quickly dispersed and escalated, at street level. Even qualified people (in the videos) say such things as "when I saw the first (or second) plane hit....", - what I believe they mean is that they saw it on TV. But none of the newsreel clips were live.
This is getting to be just plain nonsense and is all based on Internet websites and YouTube videos.
I know what happens next. I get accused of being a government plant here to place false information on Internet forums. Never mind that I joined CD nine years ago when I was buying my condo and have posted on almost every subject forum. I MUST be here as a government shill, right?
To those who haven't given up their common sense and wits, let me reiterate that I was in One WTC on 9/11, where I had worked for 20 years with the people who built and maintained the WTC.
I know people who were in the building and saw the first plane coming toward them and lived to tell about it.
I emerged out on the Plaza minutes after Two was hit to see burning plane parts and its contents, including pieces of human beings, strewn everywhere. You might be able to convince low-IQ people in West Butt**** or wherever you live that there were no planes, but you cannot play that game here.
Fifteen thousand of us got out of those buildings alive that day, and while some have since died, most of us are still around. We saw planes, death, fire and destruction. Forty thousand people went back to do the recovery and cleanup and found plane parts and human remains and the contents of what was left of the buildings, but no one ever found a single piece of anything indicating that there was a controlled demolition.
I've witnessed you and your ilk at the anniversary ceremony screaming at an old woman wearing the badge with the picture of her dead son that she is "just a shill for Cheney" (to which she replied, "And you are a bunch of idiots") That's the caliber of people you align yourself with when you clutch onto this crap.
Have fun with your little conspiracy games, but don't come to New York City and start spouting that crap or try to sing those songs in the engineering community. You will quickly be identified as nothing but a fool.
It's a plan that was on the books .. and is NOT taught in HS. IT considers having MOCK victims and MOCK funerals. Yet people who suggest crisis actors are wacko????
THE GOVT CREATED THE IDEA OF CRISIS ACTORS.
There were crisis actors used at Sandy Hook after the shooting there.
The engineering community for several years afterward held conferences on the collapses not to prove or disprove anything but rather to figure out how to build stronger buildings with better life safety features.
We were told the WTC buildings were designed to withstand aircraft strikes, and yet these buildings collapsed due to aircraft strikes.
This is a moonbat theory that's right up there with the one that suggests men didn't land on the moon. In the case of the moon landing hoaxsters, you have dilettantes who don't know much about film and video production becoming self-anointed experts on film and video production.
If the United States government really wanted to launch a lemminglike crusade against global terrorism, don't you think they would have found a way to do it in not such a costly and risky way? I mean, all they would have had to do is detonate a small dirty bomb 100 miles out to sea in a freighter, tell America how it was accidently detonated and how the country came within a whisker of having a major coastal city nuked, and get precisely the same effect.
Sorry, but no, I don't think that would have done it. Your idea lacks one major component. Shock value. Now I'm not saying that yes, the US was involved with 9/11. But what I am saying is in order to really get the attention of the American people the attack would have to be right in their face. Otherwise, you would have a much harder time making us accept that certain actions are required, such as the Patriot Act and going to war against terrorism. And I'm sorry, but I don't think the "dirty bomb" off the coast story would generate the kind of fanatically patriotic response needed to go forward with a war and allow the government to pass horrible pieces of legislation like the Patriot Act. Basically, I believe if our government was going to pull something like this, they would definitely go for the "WOW" factor in order to elicit the type of response they hoped to generate through their subversive actions.
Because people actually believe 9/11 was an inside job
Belief is not evidence so I am not sure what exactly is being debated?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
