• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Science says there were no hijackers on 911

C

camlok

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 17, 2017
Messages
6,268
Reaction score
614
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It is completely impossible that the alleged 911 hijackers caused the collapse of WTC towers 1, 2 and 7.

The existence of molten metals; steel, molybdenum, iron at WTC the existence of vaporized steel at WTC, the existence of nanothermite at WTC all attest to the fact that the alleged hijackers did not cause the collapse of WTC towers 1, 2 and 7.

Pictures of the vaporized steel

https://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf

The only fuel that the hijackers are said to have brought to the WTC, according to the official government story, is jet fuel. Add office furnishings and you have fuels that can reach a maximum of about 1,800F. Steel melts at about 2,800F. Molybdenum melts at about 4,700F. Vaporized steel needs higher temperatures.


Point TT-6: The Claim that There Was No Molten Steel or Iron in the WTC
Point TT-6: Buildings

Point TT-6: The Claim That There Was No Molten Steel or Iron in the WTC Buildings | Consensus 911
 
I think its possible that the real plane was herded to some secret place while rogue elements used a remote control jumbo jet. But It also could have just been hijack of the autopilot. Or it could have happened by dudes with knives who struck at the perfect moment. We'll never know! :D

Also possible the building was sorta halfway designed to collapse during giant fire. Well never know one way or the other so I wouldnt waste to much mental energy on it.
 
Numerous eyewitnesses saw molten steel after 9-11. These reports start right after the events and continue for months afterwards. The only thing that can explain this volume of molten steel is thermite.

In the weeks and months after 9/11, numerous individuals report seeing molten metal in the remains of the World Trade Center:

- Ken Holden, who is involved with the organizing of demolition, excavation, and debris removal operations at Ground Zero, will later tell the 9/11 Commission, “Underground, it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from [WTC] Building 6.” [9/11 COMMISSION, 4/1/2003]

- William Langewiesche, the only journalist to have unrestricted access to Ground Zero during the cleanup operation, will describe, “n the early days, the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole.” [LANGEWIESCHE, 2002, PP. 32]
Click to expand...
 
Why is this being rehashed again?

Camlok. Why don't you present what you believe happened on 9/11 with your evidence.

Noted. the word "vaporized" does not appear in your link in the OP for the FEMA document.

Sorry your conclusions are not valid. Please read again the FEMA document suggestion/conclusion. What does it say?
 
As I have mentioned, there are myriad eyewitness reports of molten and vaporized steel beams/columns. These would have come from the nanothermite that was found in WTC dust. It is the only explanation for the free fall collapse of WTC7 and the accelerating collapses of the twin towers.

Here are a couple more, don't want to overwhelm anyone, including one of the design engineers on the WTC project.

- Leslie Robertson, one of the structural engineers responsible for the design of the WTC, describes fires still burning and molten steel still running 21 days after the attacks. [SEAU NEWS, 10/2001 pdf file]

- Alison Geyh, who heads a team of scientists studying the potential health effects of 9/11, reports: “Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel.” [JOHNS HOPKINS PUBLIC HEALTH MAGAZINE, 2001]

-------------------

John Gross, the number two scientist at NIST categorically denied the existence of molten steel. Hopefully this link will work, showing the same John Gross touching the end of a previously molten steel girder. With a little humor thrown in.


https://kendoc911.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/nistjohngross.jpg
 
camlok said:
Numerous eyewitnesses saw molten steel after 9-11. These reports start right after the events and continue for months afterwards. The only thing that can explain this volume of molten steel is thermite.
Click to expand...

Please explain how thermite would keep steel in a molten state for 90+days? How much thermite would be required to accomplish that?
 
mike2810 said:
Please explain how thermite would keep steel in a molten state for 90+days? How much thermite would be required to accomplish that?
Click to expand...

Camlok, we are waiting.
 
camlok said:
Numerous eyewitnesses saw molten steel after 9-11. These reports start right after the events and continue for months afterwards. The only thing that can explain this volume of molten steel is thermite.
Click to expand...

Presuming that you acknowledge that molten metal lasted for about 90 days at WTC, as reported by numerous MSM, how much thermite product would have been required to achieve this?
 
mike2810 said:
Please explain how thermite would keep steel in a molten state for 90+days? How much thermite would be required to accomplish that?
Click to expand...

Fantastic, Mike!! We're asking the same questions, first time ever. :mrgreen:

Considering how quickly thermite is consumed in its exothermic reaction, I cannot imagine how much would have to be present to keep that steam up for 90 days.

However, there is a solution to what kept iron boiling for 90 days, and it's not thermite, not C4, and not burning office furnishings. ;)
 
Thoreau72 said:
Fantastic, Mike!! We're asking the same questions, first time ever. :mrgreen:

Considering how quickly thermite is consumed in its exothermic reaction, I cannot imagine how much would have to be present to keep that steam up for 90 days.

However, there is a solution to what kept iron boiling for 90 days, and it's not thermite, not C4, and not burning office furnishings. ;)
Click to expand...

Bring on the imaginary magic nukes!
 
Thoreau72 said:
Presuming that you acknowledge that molten metal lasted for about 90 days at WTC, as reported by numerous MSM, how much thermite product would have been required to achieve this?
Click to expand...

Please provide links of MSM claiming molten metal for 90 days.
Im sure Ill be waiting more than 90 days for you to do so
 
Just curious what does the OP have to do with the thread title?
The OP is about truther false claims of molten steel that no one has ever found yet the thread title was about science disproving hijackers, which it clearly doesn't.
Aside from them both being lies how are they connected?
 
I have often wondered about the whole melting iron idea.
With enough air flow, jet fuel(or anything else that burns) can get hot enough to melt iron.
The Romans did it with wood (charcoal).
There are quite a few people online who describe building home made iron furnaces,
and some of them use kerosene(jet fuel)for the fuel.
 
Thoreau72 said:
Fantastic, Mike!! We're asking the same questions, first time ever. :mrgreen:

Considering how quickly thermite is consumed in its exothermic reaction, I cannot imagine how much would have to be present to keep that steam up for 90 days.

However, there is a solution to what kept iron boiling for 90 days, and it's not thermite, not C4, and not burning office furnishings. ;)
Click to expand...

and that solution is?

If your going to say it was nukes. Please explain how a nuke event would keep the steel in a "molten state" for 90 days. Not hot, not glowing, but molten.
 
mike2810 said:
Please explain how thermite would keep steel in a molten state for 90+days? How much thermite would be required to accomplish that?
Click to expand...

You tell me, mike.

The fact is it was there, That cannot be denied. It was described by firemen, Leslie Robertson, the only journalist allowed full access to the site, the picture of John Gross, NIST 2nd in command "scientist" who categorically denied the molten steel, touching the end of a previously molten, vaporized steel girder.

How many more do you need before that your inpenetrable cloak allows facts in?
 
camlok said:
You tell me, mike.

The fact is it was there, That cannot be denied. It was described by firemen, Leslie Robertson, the only journalist allowed full access to the site, the picture of John Gross, NIST 2nd in command "scientist" who categorically denied the molten steel, touching the end of a previously molten, vaporized steel girder.
Click to expand...

Leslie Robertson was one of the structural engineers for the WTC, not a journalist.

As to what you are referring to:

Leslie Robertson
 
Thoreau72 said:
Presuming that you acknowledge that molten metal lasted for about 90 days at WTC, as reported by numerous MSM, how much thermite product would have been required to achieve this?
Click to expand...

Quite obviously the amount needed to do that would be the amount that was determined by the experts to bring down the towers and WTC7. There wouldn't have been any specific design calculations done for keeping all the molten steel that was found in a molten state for X number of days because that was simply the after effects of the controlled demolitions.

And it wasn't just simple thermite, it was nanothermite, a much much different, more powerful explosive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom