[W:57: 1585]Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.

Thoreau72 · Dec 21, 2018

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

SanderO said:
No steel was melted... Who made this claim?
high temperatures weaken steel - FACT
The towers' structures had 47 core columns and several hundred perimeter columns. So a plane could not destroy even 1/4 of the columns. But it could destroy SOME of the columns and destroy some it did FACT. THAT destruction ALONE was not sufficient to cause the towers' top to collapse destroying the floors slabs below... leaving the columns un braced and vulnerable to Euler buckling. FACT

No problem consider intelligent comments. You are out of your league... essentially a parrot.

Steel WAS melted. Mr. Cahill's qualitative analysis of the air showed that. Numerous news stories covered the story that molten iron remained in the basement areas for 90 days. That was melted iron SanderO. That is factual, whether you and others deny it, it is a fact. Many talked about it and many pictures were taken.

Yes, high temperatures can weaken steel, for sure. Indeed, when they are hot enough they can melt steel, as Mr. Cahill measured.

The problem for your interpretation is that jetfuel CANNOT weaken steel, cannot melt steel. Further, steel is a very poor conductor of heat. To claim that office fires on the upper floors could generate enough heat to be transmitted throughout the structure to result in such a universal collapse at free fall speeds is preposterous, and we both know it.

Quag · Dec 21, 2018

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Thoreau72 said:
Steel WAS melted.

So you claim but no one has ever been able to show any melted steel

Mr. Cahill's qualitative analysis of the air showed that.

No it didnt another situation where you didn't think or investigate anything you just accepted BS from a known lying CT site as true because it fit your anti govt mindset

Numerous news stories covered the story that molten iron remained in the basement areas for 90 days.

Steel is not iron but no one has ever shown any of that iron (or is it steel?) that you claimed was molten. That was melted iron SanderO. That is factual, whether you and others deny it, it is a fact. Many talked about it and many pictures were taken.[/quote]
No pic of molten iron exists, there is molten material but there is no way to claim it is iron (which isn't steel) aside from lying like you always do.

Yes, high temperatures can weaken steel, for sure. Indeed, when they are hot enough they can melt steel, as Mr. Cahill measured.

More unproven BS from a lying CT site but still doenst mean squat in any case.

The problem for your interpretation is that jetfuel CANNOT weaken steel, cannot melt steel. Further, steel is a very poor conductor of heat. To claim that office fires on the upper floors could generate enough heat to be transmitted throughout the structure to result in such a universal collapse at free fall speeds is preposterous, and we both know it.

Of course it can your lack of knowledge about physics is almost a great as your lack of knowledge about aviation.

Congrats on showing how ill informed you are and how willing you are to believe any BS as long as you can blame the ebil US govt.

SanderO · Dec 21, 2018

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Thoreau72 said:
Steel WAS melted. Mr. Cahill's qualitative analysis of the air showed that. Numerous news stories covered the story that molten iron remained in the basement areas for 90 days. That was melted iron SanderO. That is factual, whether you and others deny it, it is a fact. Many talked about it and many pictures were taken.

Yes, high temperatures can weaken steel, for sure. Indeed, when they are hot enough they can melt steel, as Mr. Cahill measured.

The problem for your interpretation is that jetfuel CANNOT weaken steel, cannot melt steel. Further, steel is a very poor conductor of heat. To claim that office fires on the upper floors could generate enough heat to be transmitted throughout the structure to result in such a universal collapse at free fall speeds is preposterous, and we both know it.

Don't confuse what was uncovered weeks after the collapse when the search for bodies was undertaken. There WERE fires burning below and in the debris pile for months after the collapse. If there was melted steel or iron there would have had to be cooled solidified steel or iron. There was none. You m akeit seem as if all sorts of steel columns were melted to cause the collapse. Not a single column discovered post collapse shows melting. YES there was corrosion... not melting.

No molten steel was part of the period leading up to the collapse. There is no evidence of this.

Thoreau72 · Dec 23, 2018

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

SanderO said:
Don't confuse what was uncovered weeks after the collapse when the search for bodies was undertaken. There WERE fires burning below and in the debris pile for months after the collapse. If there was melted steel or iron there would have had to be cooled solidified steel or iron. There was none. You m akeit seem as if all sorts of steel columns were melted to cause the collapse. Not a single column discovered post collapse shows melting. YES there was corrosion... not melting.

No molten steel was part of the period leading up to the collapse. There is no evidence of this.

I'm not confusing anything sir, though you may be deliberately pretending there was no molten iron for 90 days, photographed and commented upon by many, and to which Pyrocool was applied by the authorities. And for the first time in its relatively short history, Pyrocool failed to extinguish.

I am merely expanding upon the rational observations and truthful statements of Kevin Ryan, at that time in the employ of Underwriters Laboratory. You may recall that for speaking the truth regarding the heat conducting properties of structural steel, Mr. Ryan was fired. Yes, in a time of universal deception, speaking the truth is a radical act and will often get you fired.

We both know that.

SanderO · Dec 23, 2018

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Thoreau72 said:
I'm not confusing anything sir, though you may be deliberately pretending there was no molten iron for 90 days, photographed and commented upon by many, and to which Pyrocool was applied by the authorities. And for the first time in its relatively short history, Pyrocool failed to extinguish.

I am merely expanding upon the rational observations and truthful statements of Kevin Ryan, at that time in the employ of Underwriters Laboratory. You may recall that for speaking the truth regarding the heat conducting properties of structural steel, Mr. Ryan was fired. Yes, in a time of universal deception, speaking the truth is a radical act and will often get you fired.

We both know that.

No evidence of cooled recently molted steel. No photographs or video. Of course truthers will claim this evidence was suppressed. But this is completely illogical implying that every single person with a camera... failed to notice the solidified melted steel and if they did and took a picture... the images were taken from them.... or every person rummaging through the debris was told to not talk about or document any "anomalies" such as liquid steel or solidified liquid steel... and that the perps knew what the incriminating evidence would be that had to be suppressed. Note that the solidied mass called a meteorite or something was not suppressed and there is a perfectly logical explanation for its formation.

Your assertion of melted steel is has no basis in fact.

Quag · Dec 23, 2018

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

None of his asserions have any basis in fact.

Thoreau72 · Dec 24, 2018

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

SanderO said:
No evidence of cooled recently molted steel. No photographs or video. Of course truthers will claim this evidence was suppressed. But this is completely illogical implying that every single person with a camera... failed to notice the solidified melted steel and if they did and took a picture... the images were taken from them.... or every person rummaging through the debris was told to not talk about or document any "anomalies" such as liquid steel or solidified liquid steel... and that the perps knew what the incriminating evidence would be that had to be suppressed. Note that the solidied mass called a meteorite or something was not suppressed and there is a perfectly logical explanation for its formation.

Your assertion of melted steel is has no basis in fact.

Your cognitive dissonance is typical, and I should have known better than to engage with you.

eace

mike2810 · Dec 24, 2018

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Thoreau72 said:
Your cognitive dissonance is typical, and I should have known better than to engage with you. eace

A response that does nothing to disprove what was presented shows you really have nothing. Why not present or tell us what post supports your position?

Quag · Dec 24, 2018

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Thoreau72 said:
Your cognitive dissonance is typical, and I should have known better than to engage with you. eace

:lamo

Thoreau72 · Dec 24, 2018

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

mike2810 said:
A response that does nothing to disprove what was presented shows you really have nothing. Why not present or tell us what post supports your position?

You always let other people do your thinking for you Mike. I'm not that way. Merry Christmas. :mrgreen:

mike2810 · Dec 24, 2018

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Thoreau72 said:
You always let other people do your thinking for you Mike. I'm not that way. Merry Christmas. :mrgreen:

Merry Christmas to you also.

You keep stating things about me and yourself. Too bad for you that just posting does not make it true. :lamo

zyzygy · Dec 24, 2018

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

mike2810 said:
Merry Christmas to you also.

You keep stating things about me and yourself. Too bad for you that just posting does not make it true. :lamo

Maybe Santa will bring him some evidence. The season's greetings!

Quag · Dec 24, 2018

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

zyzygy said:
Maybe Santa will bring him some evidence. The season's greetings!

Even for a guy who can visit every child around the globe in one night delivering presents that is just too farfetched.

SanderO · Dec 25, 2018

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Thoreau72 said:
Your cognitive dissonance is typical, and I should have known better than to engage with you. eace

If you have evidence of melted steel, I presume it is either video, stills or eye witness statements... or a combination of these. I am more that prepared to examine and comment on what you consider evidence of melted iron or steel. I believe there was melted and solidified aluminum.

My understanding of what happened at the WTC on 9/11 is informed by visual evidence, engineering and science... and to a minor degree statements of witnesses. Virtually all of the witnesses had no background in engineering or physics. Of course we can all be a witness to something. However we can't all understand what we are seeing.

I use the example of clouds. We all see them, children see them. How many people understand them in more than the most superficial way? Very very few because one has to study meteorology and fluid dynamics to understand what clouds are, how they are formed and what they tell us about the present and future weather.

99.99% of people have never seen first hand a building collapse. Many have seen videos of building CDs. So their default is to state that a collapsing building looks like a CD. And it does! But looking like is not IS. Collapses resemble one another because they are driven by gravity. For something to topple over there needs to be a large lateral force. Eye and ear witnesses at the trade center who are not trained engineers or physicists are largely unreliable and clueless. And that include people like Dan Rather.

You have evidence... present it.

Thoreau72 · Dec 25, 2018

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

SanderO said:
If you have evidence of melted steel, I presume it is either video, stills or eye witness statements... or a combination of these. I am more that prepared to examine and comment on what you consider evidence of melted iron or steel. I believe there was melted and solidified aluminum.

My understanding of what happened at the WTC on 9/11 is informed by visual evidence, engineering and science... and to a minor degree statements of witnesses. Virtually all of the witnesses had no background in engineering or physics. Of course we can all be a witness to something. However we can't all understand what we are seeing.

I use the example of clouds. We all see them, children see them. How many people understand them in more than the most superficial way? Very very few because one has to study meteorology and fluid dynamics to understand what clouds are, how they are formed and what they tell us about the present and future weather.

99.99% of people have never seen first hand a building collapse. Many have seen videos of building CDs. So their default is to state that a collapsing building looks like a CD. And it does! But looking like is not IS. Collapses resemble one another because they are driven by gravity. For something to topple over there needs to be a large lateral force. Eye and ear witnesses at the trade center who are not trained engineers or physicists are largely unreliable and clueless. And that include people like Dan Rather.

You have evidence... present it.

It's been presented, by way more than just me. You deny evidence SanderO, as you have always done.

The evidence gathered and presented by the Lawyer's Committee for 911 Truth was apparently enough to persuade USA Berman to present it to a Grand Jury, but it's not enough to persuade a person in denial of facts.

marke · Dec 25, 2018

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Thoreau72 said:
It's been presented, by way more than just me. You deny evidence SanderO, as you have always done.

The evidence gathered and presented by the Lawyer's Committee for 911 Truth was apparently enough to persuade USA Berman to present it to a Grand Jury, but it's not enough to persuade a person in denial of facts.

The 'inside job' theory is propped up by an assortment of select facts which can be arranged to look like they support the inside theory. However, it is the inability of the conspiracy theory to accommodate all the facts that makes it extremely unlikely to be true, almost to the point of ridiculousness.

SanderO · Dec 25, 2018

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Thoreau72 said:
It's been presented, by way more than just me. You deny evidence SanderO, as you have always done.

The evidence gathered and presented by the Lawyer's Committee for 911 Truth was apparently enough to persuade USA Berman to present it to a Grand Jury, but it's not enough to persuade a person in denial of facts.

No problem... simply cite the evidence of melted steel... don't tell me who did it. They presumably have photos or videos or testimony or reports you can link to.

You refer to a group with an agenda.

The explanation of what happened to those buildings resides in the engineering, physics and evidence or what forces were involved to dismantle / weaken the structure to the point it could not self support. This evidence has no motive... it's mechanics and physics.

Cite the evidence please.

SanderO · Dec 25, 2018

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Thoreau72 said:
It's been presented, by way more than just me. You deny evidence SanderO, as you have always done.

The evidence gathered and presented by the Lawyer's Committee for 911 Truth was apparently enough to persuade USA Berman to present it to a Grand Jury, but it's not enough to persuade a person in denial of facts.

A grand jury is not competent to understand engineering and physics. The investigation of the Shuttle Challenger disaster was not done by a grand jury nor would they produce a technical report. Grand Juries are impaneled to investigate matters of violations of civil and criminal law.

Before you go to intent as a legal matter.... you need to establish WHAT ACTUALLY happened? Asserting that there was melted steel is factually untrue. '

I suppose you believe this because it suggests the placement of devices which generate enormous heat which could melt steel. I get that.

Where is the evidence of melted steel.

Thoreau72 · Dec 26, 2018

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

marke said:
The 'inside job' theory is propped up by an assortment of select facts which can be arranged to look like they support the inside theory. However, it is the inability of the conspiracy theory to accommodate all the facts that makes it extremely unlikely to be true, almost to the point of ridiculousness.

Are you talking about the Official Conspiracy Theory as treated by the 911 Commission, or some other theory?

The facts which support the "inside job" angle are numerous. Far too numerous for mainstream media to discuss.

SanderO · Dec 27, 2018

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Thoreau72 said:
Are you talking about the Official Conspiracy Theory as treated by the 911 Commission, or some other theory?

The facts which support the "inside job" angle are numerous. Far too numerous for mainstream media to discuss.

911 attacks were a conspiracy. Among the conspirators were the men who hijacked the 4 planes that morning. Like likely had support... financial and tactical. How crazy is it that many 911 truthers believe there were no hijackers... some believe the passengers and crews were fake, that the planes that struck the towers were not the commercial flights we were told they were... and some even claim the planes were holograms, or decoys to cover up the actual CD which ranges from mini nukes, to all sorts of "thermites" which cut the steel in locations not specified. Whatever happened was clearly the work of multiple people conspiring.

Some of the claims are very hard to swallow such as the military was told to stand down and do nothing. There is no evidence of such commands. And further it should be noted that there was no policy to intercept and shoot down commercial flights. Hijackings were usually dealt with by negotiations of demands etc. We still have no policy of intercept and shoot down. Post 911 the policy has been beefed up airport security and no weapons on board and sky marshals.

And if 7wtc was a target... why did't they hit that one with another plane?

The reality is that the hijackers had no idea of the outcome of their hijackings... whether they would hit their chosen targets and that if they did those buildings would collapse.

What is more interesting is why so many seemingly intelligent people fall for the nonsense of the 911 truth movement which denies engineering and physics and the reality of what actually happened? Why when there are perfectly rational technical explanations do truthers bury their heads in the sand or act willfully ignorant? I suspect their beliefs are rooted in a deep-seated distrust and hatred for the US gov and the media both of which ALWAYS lie about everything and are covering up an agenda of world domination, constant militarism and so forth. They can't conceive or simply deny that there would naturally be consequences to US policy which has been termed "blow back". Why wouldn't oppressed people fight back against their perceived oppressors... something that has gone on all throughout history? Islamic terrorism makes no sense to 911 truthers. This thinking is very hard to understand and accept as rational. There is a total absence of critical thinking and lots of willful ignorance in play.

mike2810 · Dec 27, 2018

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

SanderO said:
911 attacks were a conspiracy. Among the conspirators were the men who hijacked the 4 planes that morning. Like likely had support... financial and tactical. How crazy is it that many 911 truthers believe there were no hijackers... some believe the passengers and crews were fake, that the planes that struck the towers were not the commercial flights we were told they were... and some even claim the planes were holograms, or decoys to cover up the actual CD which ranges from mini nukes, to all sorts of "thermites" which cut the steel in locations not specified. Whatever happened was clearly the work of multiple people conspiring.

Some of the claims are very hard to swallow such as the military was told to stand down and do nothing. There is no evidence of such commands. And further it should be noted that there was no policy to intercept and shoot down commercial flights. Hijackings were usually dealt with by negotiations of demands etc. We still have no policy of intercept and shoot down. Post 911 the policy has been beefed up airport security and no weapons on board and sky marshals.

And if 7wtc was a target... why did't they hit that one with another plane?

The reality is that the hijackers had no idea of the outcome of their hijackings... whether they would hit their chosen targets and that if they did those buildings would collapse.

What is more interesting is why so many seemingly intelligent people fall for the nonsense of the 911 truth movement which denies engineering and physics and the reality of what actually happened? Why when there are perfectly rational technical explanations do truthers bury their heads in the sand or act willfully ignorant? I suspect their beliefs are rooted in a deep-seated distrust and hatred for the US gov and the media both of which ALWAYS lie about everything and are covering up an agenda of world domination, constant militarism and so forth. They can't conceive or simply deny that there would naturally be consequences to US policy which has been termed "blow back". Why wouldn't oppressed people fight back against their perceived oppressors... something that has gone on all throughout history? Islamic terrorism makes no sense to 911 truthers. This thinking is very hard to understand and accept as rational. There is a total absence of critical thinking and lots of willful ignorance in play.

All of what you have posted has been covered before. People are not going to change their views after so many years. The typical response today is "You deny evidence". T72 should look in the mirror when he posts that. Most will never provide links because they know it will not stand up to review and analysis. Let them post their whatever they want to believe. The facts will not change their minds.

Thoreau72 · Dec 27, 2018

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

SanderO said:
911 attacks were a conspiracy. Among the conspirators were the men who hijacked the 4 planes that morning. Like likely had support... financial and tactical. How crazy is it that many 911 truthers believe there were no hijackers... some believe the passengers and crews were fake, that the planes that struck the towers were not the commercial flights we were told they were... and some even claim the planes were holograms, or decoys to cover up the actual CD which ranges from mini nukes, to all sorts of "thermites" which cut the steel in locations not specified. Whatever happened was clearly the work of multiple people conspiring.

Some of the claims are very hard to swallow such as the military was told to stand down and do nothing. There is no evidence of such commands. And further it should be noted that there was no policy to intercept and shoot down commercial flights. Hijackings were usually dealt with by negotiations of demands etc. We still have no policy of intercept and shoot down. Post 911 the policy has been beefed up airport security and no weapons on board and sky marshals.

And if 7wtc was a target... why did't they hit that one with another plane?

The reality is that the hijackers had no idea of the outcome of their hijackings... whether they would hit their chosen targets and that if they did those buildings would collapse.

What is more interesting is why so many seemingly intelligent people fall for the nonsense of the 911 truth movement which denies engineering and physics and the reality of what actually happened? Why when there are perfectly rational technical explanations do truthers bury their heads in the sand or act willfully ignorant? I suspect their beliefs are rooted in a deep-seated distrust and hatred for the US gov and the media both of which ALWAYS lie about everything and are covering up an agenda of world domination, constant militarism and so forth. They can't conceive or simply deny that there would naturally be consequences to US policy which has been termed "blow back". Why wouldn't oppressed people fight back against their perceived oppressors... something that has gone on all throughout history? Islamic terrorism makes no sense to 911 truthers. This thinking is very hard to understand and accept as rational. There is a total absence of critical thinking and lots of willful ignorance in play.

You can't prove that 4 airplanes were hijacked Geoffrey. How can the rest of your post even be considered? Indeed, you are one of those people you criticize--a person still believing an absurd and impossible story 17 years after it was told.

Happy Holidays.

mike2810 · Dec 27, 2018

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Thoreau72 said:
You can't prove that 4 airplanes were hijacked Geoffrey. How can the rest of your post even be considered? Indeed, you are one of those people you criticize--a person still believing an absurd and impossible story 17 years after it was told.

Happy Holidays.

You can't prove it was an inside job using mini neutron bombs and nanothermite either.
Heck, you can't disprove they were not hijacked. You can't prove it was some other type of aircraft.

I know you believe the radar was faked, etc, etc, etc.

Happy New Year.

ps. Still waiting for the one concise controlled demolition explanation.

Thoreau72 · Dec 27, 2018

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

mike2810 said:
You can't prove it was an inside job using mini neutron bombs and nanothermite either.
Heck, you can't disprove they were not hijacked. You can't prove it was some other type of aircraft.

I know you believe the radar was faked, etc, etc, etc.

Happy New Year.

ps. Still waiting for the one concise controlled demolition explanation.

The term sir is "spoofed". The radar was spoofed that day, and the result is that erroneous information is displayed. Fake targets, if you will. That's how the FAA trains radar controllers.

If yours and Geoffrey's story says 4 airplanes were hijacked, it is incumbent on you to prove your claim. In a rational world....

zyzygy · Dec 27, 2018

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

mike2810 said:
You can't prove it was an inside job using mini neutron bombs and nanothermite either.
Heck, you can't disprove they were not hijacked. You can't prove it was some other type of aircraft.

I know you believe the radar was faked, etc, etc, etc.

Happy New Year.

ps. Still waiting for the one concise controlled demolition explanation.

Join the club. I've been waiting for years for a truther to present that.