Was 9/11 a conspiracy??

Created by djhixx on Oct 13, 2007

54,310 votes

Click on an option to vote

yes

no

well, im not sure

“Truth is unthinkable.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#258116 Aug 8, 2013
who wrote:
<quoted text>Oh I see, I thought you were saying that no temps were taken at ground zero....that's what happen when you swing by and just read the last page I suppose.
As for molten steel, I seem to remember a muppet from NIST saying that he knew of no reports of such a thing, would you now accept that he was wrong/lying?
I mean we know better don't we.
Good posts, who.

Now Dudley is claiming that firefighters didn't personally use thermal measurements to determine if they saw molten steel as they claimed, but instead were just mistaken when they actually just saw molten aluminum running down the channel rails - like in a foundry.

He seems to think steel wouldn't be melted at 2800 degrees and NIST is supposed to deny the testimony that steel was melted.

And if anyone disagrees with him, well

Insults Are Easier
who

Basingstoke, UK

#258118 Aug 8, 2013
Insults Are Easier wrote:
<quoted text>
Good posts, who.
Now Dudley is claiming that firefighters didn't personally use thermal measurements to determine if they saw molten steel as they claimed, but instead were just mistaken when they actually just saw molten aluminum running down the channel rails - like in a foundry.
He seems to think steel wouldn't be melted at 2800 degrees and NIST is supposed to deny the testimony that steel was melted.
And if anyone disagrees with him, well
Insults Are Easier
Dudley...LOL!!

No it was definitely steel.
I remember reading an account from one of the clean up crew some years ago who said that he took temp readings on site using some gizmo or other...I'll see if I can find it.
In any case, with the presence of pulverized concrete, secondary explosions and molten steel one would think that a test for explosives would have been a matter of course.

“Truth is unthinkable.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#258119 Aug 8, 2013
who wrote:
<quoted text>Dudley...LOL!!

No it was definitely steel.
I remember reading an account from one of the clean up crew some years ago who said that he took temp readings on site using some gizmo or other...I'll see if I can find it.
In any case, with the presence of pulverized concrete, secondary explosions and molten steel one would think that a test for explosives would have been a matter of course.
Study the interesting history of IR thermometers.

http://www.zytemp.com/infrared/history.asp

Logic and documentation shows firefighters have been using this tech long before 9/11.

So did the multiple firefighters just make a mistake and misidentify that molten aluminum for steel? Doubtful, since aluminum melting is common in structural fires.

Now theres a reason NIST claimed that molten metal seen dripping from the WTC corner was aluminum mixed with other burning elements to give it its yellow glow, because aluminum glows yellow at 2500 F, and thats beyond what an office fire can achieve.

This is why NIST did not do physical testing on the steel to verify the highest temperature that the steel was subjected to. Its also why NIST did no chemical tests for explosives.

But Dudley just puts his head in the sand to deny, insult, and claim others are illiterate in science as he believes in scientific investigations that do not even follow the scientific method.

Thats why for him,

Insults Are Easier
who

Basingstoke, UK

#258120 Aug 8, 2013
Insults Are Easier wrote:
<quoted text>
Study the interesting history of IR thermometers.
http://www.zytemp.com/infrared/history.asp
Logic and documentation shows firefighters have been using this tech long before 9/11.
So did the multiple firefighters just make a mistake and misidentify that molten aluminum for steel? Doubtful, since aluminum melting is common in structural fires.
Now theres a reason NIST claimed that molten metal seen dripping from the WTC corner was aluminum mixed with other burning elements to give it its yellow glow, because aluminum glows yellow at 2500 F, and thats beyond what an office fire can achieve.
This is why NIST did not do physical testing on the steel to verify the highest temperature that the steel was subjected to. Its also why NIST did no chemical tests for explosives.
But Dudley just puts his head in the sand to deny, insult, and claim others are illiterate in science as he believes in scientific investigations that do not even follow the scientific method.
Thats why for him,
Insults Are Easier
It is highly unlikely that the fire fighters would not have used IR thermometers, but even if they didn't we know that the temperature was hot enough to melt Iron and steel.
The extremely high temperatures contradict the official story. Office and hydrocarbon fires burn in open air at around 500 to 1,500 F and cannot reach temperatures in the range that iron or structural steel melts at around 2,700 F, and they also need oxygen in order to maintain themselves.
That's why the guy at NIST said in reference to molten steel...and I quote.
I know of absolutely nobody, no eyewitnesses that said so, nobody thats produced it.
Well I don't know about him, but I could show you multiple reports....maybe I should work for NIST, I appear to be more thorough than that muppet.

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Edmonton, Canada

#258121 Aug 8, 2013
who wrote:
<quoted text>Oh I see, I thought you were saying that no temps were taken at ground zero....that's what happen when you swing by and just read the last page I suppose.
As for molten steel, I seem to remember a muppet from NIST saying that he knew of no reports of such a thing, would you now accept that he was wrong/lying?
I mean we know better don't we.
No worries.

For one thing, I can't say for sure John Gross saw the video of firefighters referring to molten steel or not.

I can accept either,he was wrong or lying without reservation since the presence of molten steel is completely irrelevant.

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

#258122 Aug 8, 2013
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-mysterious-c...

At 5:21 in the afternoon of 9/11, almost seven hours after the Twin Towers had come down, Building 7 of the World Trade Center also came down. The collapse of this building was from the beginning considered a mystery.[1]

The same should have been true, to be sure, of the collapse of the Twin Towers. But they had been hit by planes, which had ignited big fires in them, and many people assumed this combination of causes to be sufficient to explain why they came down.

But WTC 7 had not been hit by a plane, so it was apparently the first steel-framed high-rise building in the known universe to have collapsed because of fire alone. New York Times writer James Glanz quoted a structural engineer as saying:[W]ithin the structural engineering community,[WTC 7] is considered to be much more important to understand [than the Twin Towers], because engineers had no answer to the question,why did 7 come down?

http://rethink911.org/

http://rethink911.org/

http://rethink911.org/

“Truth is unthinkable.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#258123 Aug 8, 2013
who wrote:
<quoted text>It is highly unlikely that the fire fighters would not have used IR thermometers, but even if they didn't we know that the temperature was hot enough to melt Iron and steel.
The extremely high temperatures contradict the official story. Office and hydrocarbon fires burn in open air at around 500° to 1,500° F and cannot reach temperatures in the range that iron or structural steel melts at around 2,700° F, and they also need oxygen in order to maintain themselves.
That's why the guy at NIST said in reference to molten steel...and I quote.
“I know of absolutely nobody, no eyewitnesses that said so, nobody that’s produced it.”
Well I don't know about him, but I could show you multiple reports....maybe I should work for NIST, I appear to be more thorough than that muppet.
Check out the FLIR footage of the WTC fires, not near the temps to melt steel, or make aluminum glow orange-yellow as it drips pre-collapse.

http://youtu.be/xQEd8PgY8vo

Insults Are Easier

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Edmonton, Canada

#258124 Aug 8, 2013
who wrote:
<quoted text>And oxygen by some accounts.
I for one still find it remarkable that molten steel was found under the rubble pile for many weeks after the event.
The pile isn't hermetically sealed so oxygen that oxygen found its way into the pile isn't surprising either.

I still haven't seen any proof that molten steel was found weeks later so until that point is clarified with some kind of credible evidence, it's moot.

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Edmonton, Canada

#258125 Aug 8, 2013
who wrote:
Oh and what fuel are you referring to.
The fuel was the contents of the buildings.

Desks, chairs, filing cabinets, carpet, computers, human beings, etc.

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Edmonton, Canada

#258126 Aug 8, 2013
Insults Are Easier wrote:
<quoted text>Good posts, who.

Now Dudley is claiming that firefighters didn't personally use thermal measurements to determine if they saw molten steel as they claimed, but instead were just mistaken when they actually just saw molten aluminum running down the channel rails - like in a foundry.

He seems to think steel wouldn't be melted at 2800 degrees and NIST is supposed to deny the testimony that steel was melted.

And if anyone disagrees with him, well

Insults Are Easier
So still no proof firefighters measured the temp of the molten materials eh Ignorance?

Not surprising since your entire schtick is based on lies and requires more lies to support it.

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Edmonton, Canada

#258127 Aug 8, 2013
who wrote:
<quoted text>Dudley...LOL!!

No it was definitely steel.
I remember reading an account from one of the clean up crew some years ago who said that he took temp readings on site using some gizmo or other...I'll see if I can find it.
In any case, with the presence of pulverized concrete, secondary explosions and molten steel one would think that a test for explosives would have been a matter of course.
So lets pretend it was steel.

Now what?

Molten steel is commonly reported in fires.

There's still not one report of molten steel from a building that was brought down by cd.

You've been fed a totally bogus argument that has no basis for being scientifically valid.

Sorry.
who

Basingstoke, UK

#258128 Aug 8, 2013
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>
No worries.
For one thing, I can't say for sure John Gross saw the video of firefighters referring to molten steel or not.
I can accept either,he was wrong or lying without reservation since the presence of molten steel is completely irrelevant.
When it's found with pulverized concrete and reports of secondary explosions it's not irrelevant at all as you well know.
Both the NIST report and the 911 commission were white wash bollocks.
I believe that more money was spent on investigating Billy's blowjob than what was spent investigating 911.
And the investigation into Clinton's blowjob wasn't "set up to fail" either.
Still you seem happy with the official account, personally I think it's a lie from start to finish.

Anyway I can't be arsed to get back into this again...life is just too short, in any case most people are aware of it.
Maybe I'll swing by another time.
who

Basingstoke, UK

#258129 Aug 8, 2013
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>
The fuel was the contents of the buildings.
Desks, chairs, filing cabinets, carpet, computers, human beings, etc.
Yeah they were pulverized into tiny bits as well...odd that.
Anywho...laters.
who

Basingstoke, UK

#258130 Aug 8, 2013
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>
The pile isn't hermetically sealed so oxygen that oxygen found its way into the pile isn't surprising either.
I still haven't seen any proof that molten steel was found weeks later so until that point is clarified with some kind of credible evidence, it's moot.
From the eyewitness accounts that NIST ignored.
who

Basingstoke, UK

#258131 Aug 8, 2013
seriously...laters.

LOL!!

“Truth is unthinkable.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#258132 Aug 8, 2013
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>So lets pretend it was steel.

Now what?

Molten steel is commonly reported in fires.

There's still not one report of molten steel from a building that was brought down by cd.

You've been fed a totally bogus argument that has no basis for being scientifically valid.

Sorry.
Thats because normal controlled demolitions do not use thermitic reactions to initiate collapse.

I'm just trying to help you, my poor lost Canadian, Benedict Arnold brother.

Try thinking every now and again, it gets easier, but of course,

Insults Are Easier
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#258133 Aug 8, 2013
who wrote:
<quoted text>
Well I don't know about him, but I could show you multiple reports....maybe I should work for NIST, I appear to be more thorough than that muppet.
Show us one report where the substance was tested and was steel and not aluminum or another substance, when you can't find that tell us what molten steel indicates and why it is even relevant to the debate.
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#258134 Aug 8, 2013
who wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah they were pulverized into tiny bits as well...odd that.
Anywho...laters.
You find it is odd that desk and chairs were pulverized by 110 stories of falling concrete floors.

You should meet moobs and onemale and see if the three of you can get together and form a single full functioning brain.
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#258135 Aug 8, 2013
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
But WTC 7 had not been hit by a plane, so it was apparently the first steel-framed high-rise building in the known universe to have collapsed because of fire alone.
Well, It was hit by huge chunk of the North Tower and the FDNY did report that it was likely to fall for three hours because it was creaking and leaning.

IT'S THE WORLDS ODDEST AND SLOWEST CONTROLLED DEMOLITION!

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

#258137 Aug 8, 2013
So says the self-important all knowing expert on scientific validity.

And who said Canadians were very smart? They live in Canada for Christ's sake!

So What? Huh Eh !

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 7 min lightbeamrider 176,433
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 7 min ChristineM 826,531
sex (May '13) 8 min rajivas 146
Poll If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 13 min truthandcommonsense 3,024
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 19 min Robert F 583,193
ye olde village pub (Jun '07) 23 min Ricky F 53,341
Why Im no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 29 min gundee123 442,616
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 3 hr robertxiong 98,926
More from around the web