Reply With Quote
Dude there is 10 times more about 9/11 and lies then there is about guys like you debunking the truth. You may as well not want to get into a copy and paste war, its a battle you can't win.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&c...11&btnG=Search
Bush Defector To Demolish
911 Lies
The former top economist in Bush's Department of Labor, Morgan Reynolds, will speak out on the 9/11 inside job at the State Historical Society, University of Wisconsin-Madison on Saturday, May 6th. The film Loose Change will be shown, and refreshments served, starting at 1 p.m, and Reynolds will speak at 3:00 p.m.
Dr. Reynolds, who holds three U.W.-Madison degrees, and who is currently Professor of Economics at Texas A&M University, will present evidence that top Bush Administration officials orchestrated the controlled demolition of the World Trade Center, and the murder of almost 2,500 Americans, as a pretext for initiating their pre-planned "long war" in the Middle East.
"While more Americans doubt the 9/11 story every week, evidence abounds that many have a mental block against rational examination of the evidence about 9/11" writes Dr. Reynolds in a recent article. This mental block, he thinks, amounts to willful ignorance-not just about 9/11, but about history.
"Governments throughout history have provoked or staged attacks on their own people to serve the powers behind the throne ('the money power'), glorify themselves, engage in vast government spending, reward friends, exert domestic control, stimulate the juices of war, annex neighbors and pursue vast geostrategic rearrangements (the 'global domination project)" Reynolds asserts. He notes that every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on the "Operation Northwoods" plan to murder Americans in fake "Cuban terrorist" attacks in 1962. The planned Operation Northwoods murders of ordinary Americans in fake terrorist bombings and a fake "airliner shoot-down" would have involved hundreds of military and intelligence personnel. Yet the existence of Operation Northwoods was successfully kept secret from the American people for forty years until James Bamford revealed it in his book Body of Secrets, published in January 2002.
Though government officials have historically been able to successfully conceal their fake or arranged war-trigger attacks long enough to avoid being hanged for treason, Reynolds thinks the 9/11 cover-up has already unraveled. "Skepticism about conspiracy, small or large, is somewhat beside the point in the case of 9/11 because the official Osama-and-Nineteen-Young-Arabs (ONYA) conspiracy tale is so farcical and impossible. Nearly everyone in America has easy access to the internet and hundreds of websites expose the 9/11 fraud." (Morgan Reynolds, "Conspiracy and Closed Minds on 9/11": http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911 )
Reynolds argues that the Twin Towers and World Trade Center Building 7 were destroyed in a manner that can only be explained by controlled demolition with pre-planted explosives-which should not be surprising, since no steel framed high-rises have ever collapsed in the way the three World Trade Center buildings did for any other reason. In his article "Why Did the World Trade Center Skyscrapers Collapse?" Reynolds writes that among the many features of the WTC demolitions that suggest explosives, rather than jet-fuel fires, are:
1. Fire had never before caused steel-frame buildings to collapse except for the three buildings on 9/11, nor has fire collapsed any steel high rise since 9/11.
2. The fires, especially in the South Tower and WTC-7, were small.
3. WTC-7 was unharmed by an airplane and had only minor fires on the seventh and twelfth floors of this 47-story steel building yet it collapsed in less than 10 seconds.
4. WTC-5 and WTC-6 had raging fires but did not collapse despite much thinner steel beams (pp. 68-9).
5. In a PBS do entary, Larry Silverstein, the WTC lease-holder, recalled talking to the fire department commander on 9/11 about WTC-7 and said, ".maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it," slang for demolish it.
6. FEMA, given the uninviting task of explaining the collapse of Building 7 with mention of demolition verboten admitted that the best it could come up with had "only a low probability of occurrence."
7. It's difficult if not impossible for hydrocarbon fires like those fed by jet fuel (kerosene) to raise the temperature of steel close to melting.
Professional demolition, by contrast, can explain all of these facts and more. Demolition means placing explosives throughout a building, and detonating them in sequence to weaken "the structure so it collapses or folds in upon itself". In conventional demolitions gravity does most of the work, although it probably did a minority on
9/11, so heavily were the towers honeycombed with explosives.
1. Each WTC building collapse occurred at virtually free-fall speed (approximately 10 seconds or less).
2. Each building collapsed, for the most part, into its own footprint.
3. Virtually all the concrete (an estimated 100,000 tons in each tower) on every floor was pulverized into a very fine dust, a phenomenon that requires enormous energy and could not be caused by gravity alone (".workers can't even find concrete. 'It's all dust,' [the official] said").
4. Dust exploded horizontally for a couple hundred feet, as did debris, at the beginning of each tower's collapse.
5. Collapses were total, leaving none of the massive core columns sticking up hundreds of feet into the air.
6. Salvage experts were amazed at how small the debris stacks were.
7. The steel beams and columns came down in sections under 30 feet long and had no signs of "softening"; there was little left but shorn sections of steel and a few bits of concrete.
8. Photos and videos of the collapses all show "demolition waves," meaning "confluent rows of small explosions" along floors (blast sequences).
9. According to many witnesses, explosions occurred within the buildings.
10. Each collapse had detectable seismic vibrations suggestive of underground explosions, similar to the 2.3 earthquake magnitude from a demolition like the Seattle Kingdome (p. 108).
11. Each collapse produced molten steel identical to that generated by explosives, resulting in "hot spots" that persisted for months (the two hottest spots at WTC-2 and WTC-7 were approximately 1,350o F five days after being continuously flooded with water, a temperature high enough to melt aluminum (p. 70). ("Why Did the Trade Center Skyscrapers Collapse?" by Morgan Reynolds: http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911 )
The apparent demolition of the three skyscrapers, and a perhaps inadvertent statement by heavily-insured WTC landlord Larry Silverstein that WTC-7 was "pulled" (slang for "demolished") can be viewed on many 9/11 truth DVDs and web-videos, including Loose Change, 9/11 Eyewitness, 9/11 and the American Empire, (Dr. David Griffin), and 9/11 Revisited (Dr. Steven Jones). Dr. Reynolds' articles on 9/11 and other matters can be found at http://nomoregames.net .
The videos, and further information about Dr. Reynolds' May 6th speech, are available from the event's sponsor, the Madison-based Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth: http://mujca.com
Dude there is 10 times more about 9/11 and lies then there is about guys like you debunking the truth. You may as well not want to get into a copy and paste war, its a battle you can't win.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&c...11&btnG=Search
Multiply that with multiple screen names and your severely ed!
My advise would be to pick up what is left from your wannabe debunking ass and find a nice religious vs evolution topic!
My advise would be to pick up what is left from your wannabe debunking ass and find a nice religious vs evolution topic!
Yawn. YOU'RE
9/11 Debunked: WTC - No Pools of Molten Steel
This is one of my favs. It shows the 9-11 movement actively faking evidence.
Have you watched it mouse?
What do you have to say about the footage?
9/11 Debunked: Thermate Chemical Signatures Disproven
9/11 Truthers: Meet Alex Jones
9/11 Debunked: World Trade Center - No Free-Fall Speed
9/11 Debunked: Columns Cut not by Thermite
9/11 Debunked: Controlled Demolition Not Possible
9/11 Debunked: World Trade Center "Topple-Over" Scenario
First off I apologize Sundays are not good days when your stealing your neighbors wiFi signal. They are at home watching movies and playing online games. I was only able to get 1mb downloads it would have took me days to reply and to upload the pictures I have that will debunk your poor attempt to debunk my evidence.
Another thing since I am here you will notice if i see something that may disprove something I once believed in I will take it under consideration and after doing further research i will give it the credit its due.
Unlike Chump who doesn't care if 12 CIA men come to his trailer and tell him the WTC buildings had explosives and we planted them, here are the photos, Chump would just dismiss the men and say..
"so...what do you really think happened on 9/11?"
After all I never said I support all theories. I just question them and don't like being labeled a tin foil hat wearing Big Foot groupie.
with that said, lets begin.................
first off did you actually look at the youtube video before you posted it? They contradict themselves after every statement.
They say there is no molten steel but there could be pools of molten metal? are we going to split hairs on every issue?
Another thing you and Chump hate when we bring up eye witnesses, and someone heard a bomb, someone saw something, etc....
you guys don't like here say info but then you try and use it? why do you get a pass?
I am not sure who benefits from this statement, It looks like they are trying to cover their tracks.
And this one? come on brah! hollow beams and tunnels have oxygen to keep large fires burning? This one makes your you tube friends look like conspiracy theorist. are you sure you agree with this one? Its borderline speculation and extreme exaggeration at best.
Everyone knows the largest piece of office furniture rescue workers found was no bigger than a phone key pad and yet now all of a sudden there is this huge pile of office supplies?
The one about lying about the photo of bright light and maybe doctoring it up if that is true, then it was wrong.
Is all molten metal necessarily molten steel?They say there is no molten steel but there could be pools of molten metal? are we going to split hairs on every issue?
No.
Is there a significant difference in temperature between molten aluminum and molten steel?
Yes.
Can an average eyewitness tell the difference between molten steel and molten aluminum in debris piles just by looking at it?
No.
Do truthers try to distort eyewitness accounts in an attempt to force a conclusion that all molten metal must be molten steel?
Yes.
Have we gone over every point mouse tries to bring up in every 9/11 thread several times before only to have him change the subject to another YouTube video or bloatGIF?
Yes.
You all know that Chump and I usually disagree, but he is right.
Why is this evidence so hard to understand?
Metal DOES NOT mean steel!
That one photo is absolutely a clear fake!
When any of you truthers come up with some reliable evidence, I'll start believing you. I have never seen any evidence from truthers that wasn't easily explained as something else.
Those youtube videos anyone can make them. I can make one saying it was the ghost of Elvis that brought down the twin towers. How is it when we post you tube videos we are brain washed sheep, but when you guys post you tube videos your very smart in finding such evidence.
You guys can debate on if something was steel, iron, aluminum or copper.. etc...till the cows come home ,that doesn't explain how fast the towers came down with parts flying 500 feet away and pulverizing the concrete.
Not to mention the firemen having to change out their boots every 8 hours due to very high heat, a heat you don't get from airplane fuel that was 70 stories above but from some sort of explosive materials in the basement.
Keep posting the bogus debunking videos they are very entertaining.
It's the content therein.
Changing the subject is a good idea at this point -- but next time try something we haven't already gone over multiple times.You guys can debate on if something was steel, iron, aluminum or copper.. etc...till the cows come home ,that doesn't explain how fast the towers came down with parts flying 500 feet away and pulverizing the concrete.
Explosive materials explode. They don't burn for weeks. The jet fuel burned off fairly quickly; it was the other materials in the building that burned longer.Not to mention the firemen having to change out their boots every 8 hours due to very high heat, a heat you don't get from airplane fuel that was 70 stories above but from some sort of explosive materials in the basement.
They get the job done. You have done nothing to refute their content.Keep posting the bogus debunking videos they are very entertaining.
Acutally they don't.
They don't say there is no molten steel. They say that there is no real way to conclusively say exactly what the metal is.They say there is no molten steel but there could be pools of molten metal? are we going to split hairs on every issue?
They do provide a plausible explanation, i.e. it is very probable that the metal was aluminum.
This is far from "splitting hairs". If thermite was used, one would expect to see molten steel. One would also have expected the rubble pile to have been too hot to get near for days. Rescuers were combing through the rubble within hours.
This is a rather huge point that completely eliminates the possibility of massive amounts of thermite having been used.
IF that much thermite was used to melt/explode the building, THEN the resulting rubble pile would have been MASSIVELY hot, and could not have been entered without the shiny-ass thermal suits. That much thermite would have made the rubble so hot that it would have outright melted any glass within a block radius.
The video, and it premise relies in no instance on heresay. This is where you are factually incorrect. It points out exactly the opposite in fact.Another thing you and Chump hate when we bring up eye witnesses, and someone heard a bomb, someone saw something, etc....
you guys don't like here say info but then you try and use it? why do you get a pass?
How would *you* describe underground pipe access tunnels, the subway track leading into and out of the crushed subway station, and numerous other "tubes" leading into the former skyscapers?And this one? come on brah! hollow beams and tunnels have oxygen to keep large fires burning? This one makes your you tube friends look like conspiracy theorist. are you sure you agree with this one? Its borderline speculation and extreme exaggeration at best.
hmm?
If I take a desk, and a chair, and a cabinet full of paper, run it through an industrial grade shredder, have I modified it's chemical composition?Everyone knows the largest piece of office furniture rescue workers found was no bigger than a phone key pad and yet now all of a sudden there is this huge pile of office supplies?
Yes, it was wrong.
The one about lying about the photo of bright light and maybe doctoring it up if that is true, then it was wrong.
That picture, of firefighters around "molten steel" was forwarded and displayed very prominently on many conspiracy websites.
"Look at the firefighters around the melted steel, see how brightly it is glowing, that PROVES thermite was used because what else could cause steel to melt?"
The faulty assumption, i.e. there was molten steel, causes the whole argument to collapse.
If you cannot conclusively prove molten steel, you cannot conclusively prove anything based on that assumption.
I would love anybody who says that it was thermite, even non-existant explosive nano-thermite to show me, even roughly, how much force/chemical energy was released and explain the contradictions *I* have brought up.
Namely:
If it was outright explosives, where are the reports of glass flying for miles?
If it was non-explosive thermite, why was the rubble pile so cool?
Then you never heard of Depleted uranium missiles the heat can burn for days. The Military uses it.
How would a jet fire 70 stories above make a huge fire in the basement that burned for weeks? If anything the fire would have been on the surface. These fires where buried deep covered by rubble that was not on fire above it.The jet fuel burned off fairly quickly; it was the other materials in the building that burned longer.
.
If you live in a three story house you can't blame your couch that is on the first floor being on fire due to a fire that was on the third floor and have the second floor untouched. How could a fire skip through all that 80 story rubble just to start up in the basement? You have to keep it real and say maybe there was some sort of fire already in the basement if not then your not following you own rules of common sense,
You can't tell me that this picture of very hot debris is from a pile of rubble that just happened to burn day after day with extreme high temperatures.
without some sort of thermite. look at the dripping metal you all claim was not there.
Actually I have only heard of their use in anti-armor bullets and artillery. Please tell us all about their use in missiles as a long-burning incendiary.
How do people get from the ground floors to the upper floors of a building?How would a jet fire 70 stories above make a huge fire in the basement that burned for weeks? If anything the fire would have been on the surface. These fires where buried deep covered by rubble that was not on fire above it.
If a plane flew into the third floor of a house and fuel and burning debris fell down the stairs -- or indeed the elevator shaft (my mom had a three floor condo with an elevator) -- it could very possibly ignite my couch.If you live in a three story house you can't blame your couch that is on the first floor being on fire due to a fire that was on the third floor and have the second floor untouched. How could a fire skip through all that 80 story rubble just to start up in the basement? You have to keep it real and say maybe there was some sort of fire already in the basement if not then your not following you own rules of common sense,
I can tell you with great certainty that it is not molten.You can't tell me that this picture of very hot debris is from a pile of rubble that just happened to burn day after day with extreme high temperatures.
Ok if I agree that photo was doctored or miss used to prove another point then you have to do the same when I show you photos of something that looks fake also. And speaking of photos why would your boys from the cia/fbi not show any photos or videos of the pentagon?
Why don't I see you or your pal Chump call them out for keeping info from the public? If it was the other way around and Alex Jones had 80 different camera angles of the pentagon and it showed a plane not a drone or missile hit the pentagon and did not want to share them you would be calling him out, wouldn't you?
The explosives in the basement would not shoot glass miles out in the public.If it was outright explosives, where are the reports of glass flying for miles?
And besides this type of charge cuts through the metal its not like dynamite and just blows everything up like in a coal mine.
If it was non-explosive thermite, why was the rubble pile so cool?
According to the rescue workers they had to change out their boots every few days cause they would melt.
And what would you say made these sparks?
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Molten Steel
Molten STEEL Flowed Under Ground Zero for Months After 9/11
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
In response to the numerous reports of molten metal under ground zero, defenders of the official version of 9/11 have tried to argue that it was not steel, but some other kind of metal with a lower melting point.Well, here are what top experts who eyewitnessed the molten metal say:
The structural engineer responsible for the design of the WTC purportedly described fires still burning and molten steel still running 21 days after the attacks (page 3)
A retired professor of physics and atmospheric science said "in mid-October when they would pull out a steel beam, the lower part would be glowing dull red, which indicates a temperature on the order of 500 to 600 °C. And we know that people were turning over pieces of concrete in December that would flash into fire--which requires about 300 °C. So the surface of the pile cooled rather rapidly, but the bulk of the pile stayed hot all the way to December"
The head of a team of scientists studying the potential health effects of 9/11, reported, "Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel"
Hazardous materials experts also stated that, six weeks after 9/11, "There are pieces of steel being pulled out [from as far as six stories underground] that are still cherry red" and "the blaze is so 'far beyond a normal fire' that it is nearly impossible to draw conclusions about it based on other fires" (pay-per-view)
An expert stated about World Trade Center building 7, "A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been PARTLY EVAPORATED in extraordinarily high temperatures" (pay-per-view). Note that evaporation means conversion from a liquid to a gas; so the steel beams in building 7 were subjected to temperatures high enough to melt and evaporate them
According to reporter Christopher Bollyn, Mark Loizeaux, president the world's top demolition company, and Peter Tully, head of a large construction firm, said the following:
Tully told AFP that he had seen pools of “literally molten steel” in the rubble.Loizeaux confirmed this: “Yes, hot spots of molten steel in the basements,” he said, “at the bottom of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven levels.”The molten steel was found “three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed,” he said. He confirmed that molten steel was also found at WTC 7, which mysteriously collapsed in the late afternoon.Here's what eyewitness firefighters say:
New York firefighters recalled in a do entary film, "heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel"
A NY firefighter described molten steel flowing at ground zero, and said it was like a "foundry" or like "lava"
According to a member of New York Air National Guard's 109th Air Wing, who was at Ground Zero from September 22 to October 6, "One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers' remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots"
As late as five months after the attacks, in February 2002, firefighter Joe O'Toole saw a steel beam being lifted from deep underground at Ground Zero, which, he says, "was dripping from the molten steel" Here's what other eyewitnesses say:
A public health advisor who arrived at Ground Zero on September 12, said that "feeling the heat" and "seeing the molten steel" there reminded him of a volcano
An employee of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue witnessed "Fires burn[ing and molten steel flow[ing] in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet"
A reporter with rare access to the debris at ground zero "descended deep below street level to areas where underground fires still burned and steel flowed in molten streams"
An Occupational Safety and Health Administration Officer at the Trade Center reported a fire truck 10 feet below the ground that was still burning two weeks after the Tower collapsed, "its metal so hot that it looked like a vat of molten steel"
A witness said “In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel”
A NY Department of Sanitation spokeswoman said "for about two and a half months after the attacks, in addition to its regular duties, NYDS played a major role in debris removal - everything from molten steel beams to human remains..." The fact that there was molten steel under ground zero for months after 9/11 is very odd, especially since firefighters sprayed millions of gallons of water on the fires and applied high-tech fire re ants.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
