9/11 Inside Job?

[SoulMonster]

1: I've posted it 3 different times but I'll do it once again.

2: For one, to "pull" is a demolition term. Second, buildings that fall on their own do not fall at free fall speed. Third, there is no other incident of a skyscraper as sophisticated as the WTC building falling due to fire. There were very small fires in WTC7. Lastly, the owner has to give the ok for them to "pull" it. Why would you think they would ask for his ok to let the building fall on it's own?

1. But those pictures and movies are no conclusive evidence that steel was melting.

2. Perhaps he meant they should "pull out the fire men"? WTC7 was, I read, hit by debris from the large towers and suffered large structural damage as well as burned for 7 hours before collapsing. I don't find this implausible at all.

But I am no expert on these matters. I just find the whole conspiracy theory lacking in good evidence and completely bonkers.

[Chinaski]

Since when does jet fuel, paper and rugs weld together concrete and steel?

I think the problem with asking people who don't know all the science rhetorical questions like this (not this one per se, but things like since when does xxxxx burn at xxxxx and cause xxxxxx) is that the average person quite obviously doesn't know the answer. I have no idea when that has happened. For all I know that happens every day or has never happened before ever. Just being told 'THIS HAS NEVER HAPPENED' or 'LOOK THIS IS IDENTICAL TO THIS' doesn't really mean much. I think the best way to persuade people of the validity of an argument is to offer any potential counters and explain why they are unsatisfactory.

As an uninformed observer, the onus is not on me to answer rhetorical questions.

I think clinging onto the guy using the word 'pull' for example is quite a flimsy thing to build a strong argument on. From what I recall there is one clip of it and it could be interpreted, as said above, as pulling everyone out the building, or it could even just be a poorly phrased sentence. The evidence of 'pulling is a term people use in controlled destructions' doesn't really mean anything. I'm not questioning what you're saying as you clearly know lots more about the theories than me, I just think that having doubts is different to having the answers.

Edited April 25, 2013 by Chinaski

[Dazey]

During the rescue operations shortly after they fell.

How do you know? I only ask because there's no way in hell that the column you showed was cut using thermite. Simply isn't possible if you have an understanding of the way the stuff works. Clean straight cuts like that ain't the result of a thermite reaction. Ask any chemist. I don't know a lot about the goings on at ground zero but why are people assuming that the beams weren't cut using cutting torches during the clean-up operation? That makes a lot more sense.

[arnold layne]

I almost want 9/11 to be an inside job because I find it so fascinating. Most people don't even know there was a building 7 in the World Trade Center complex.

[Dazey]

Fused concrete and steel from the rubble

That's not fused by the heat at all fella and if it is then what makes you think that's structural steel you can see? Looks like rebar used in reinforced concrete which is not the same thing and the reason it's in a block of concrete is because it was cast in there in the same way that you'll find in any concrete construction.

[Chinaski]

I almost want 9/11 to be an inside job because I find it so fascinating. Most people don't even know there was a building 7 in the World Trade Center complex.

Yeah I do always find that a bit mad. Any other day of the year that building falling to the ground would have been insane news.

[SoulMonster]

During the rescue operations shortly after they fell.

How do you know? I only ask because there's no way in hell that the column you showed was cut using thermite. Simply isn't possible if you have an understanding of the way the stuff works. Clean straight cuts like that ain't the result of a thermite reaction. Ask any chemist. I don't know a lot about the goings on at ground zero but why are people assuming that the beams weren't cut using cutting torches during the clean-up operation? That makes a lot more sense.

It also seems like that beam is in its original position, thermite would then not be able to cut it diagonally, as seen on the picture. Thermite would cut the beam vertically since it works by gravitation .

Edited April 25, 2013 by SoulMonster

[Rustycage]

1: I've posted it 3 different times but I'll do it once again.

2: For one, to "pull" is a demolition term. Second, buildings that fall on their own do not fall at free fall speed. Third, there is no other incident of a skyscraper as sophisticated as the WTC building falling due to fire. There were very small fires in WTC7. Lastly, the owner has to give the ok for them to "pull" it. Why would you think they would ask for his ok to let the building fall on it's own?

1. But those pictures and movies are no conclusive evidence that steel was melting.

2. Perhaps he meant they should "pull out the fire men"? WTC7 was, I read, hit by debris from the large towers and suffered large structural damage as well as burned for 7 hours before collapsing. I don't find this implausible at all.

But I am no expert on these matters. I just find the whole conspiracy theory lacking in good evidence and completely bonkers.

1: Yes they are. But if you need more.

2: Then explain how a building falling on it's own would do so at free fall speed into it's own footprint. Experts and demolition engineers describe it as being identical to any other controlled demolition.

A building being so damaged at one part of it's structure would fall in that direction. Like a tree when you cut it down. Are we supposed to believe it's not bonkers for a building to totally collapse at free fall from all structural points at the same time?

[Dazey]

It also seems like that beam is in its original position, thermite would then not be able to cut it diagonally, as seen on the picture. Thermite would cut the beam vertically since it works by gravitation .

That sounds remarkably like science there buddy.

[Rustycage]

Fused concrete and steel from the rubble

That's not fused by the heat at all fella and if it is then what makes you think that's structural steel you can see? Looks like rebar used in reinforced concrete which is not the same thing and the reason it's in a block of concrete is because it was cast in there in the same way that you'll find in any concrete construction.

Because an expert that discovered it at the site used those terms, not me.

[SoulMonster]

1: I've posted it 3 different times but I'll do it once again.

2: For one, to "pull" is a demolition term. Second, buildings that fall on their own do not fall at free fall speed. Third, there is no other incident of a skyscraper as sophisticated as the WTC building falling due to fire. There were very small fires in WTC7. Lastly, the owner has to give the ok for them to "pull" it. Why would you think they would ask for his ok to let the building fall on it's own?

1. But those pictures and movies are no conclusive evidence that steel was melting.

2. Perhaps he meant they should "pull out the fire men"? WTC7 was, I read, hit by debris from the large towers and suffered large structural damage as well as burned for 7 hours before collapsing. I don't find this implausible at all.

But I am no expert on these matters. I just find the whole conspiracy theory lacking in good evidence and completely bonkers.

1: Yes they are. But if you need more.

2: Then explain how a building falling on it's own would do so at free fall speed into it's own footprint. Experts and demolition engineers describe it as being identical to any other controlled demolition.

A building being so damaged at one part of it's structure would fall in that direction. Like a tree when you cut it down. Are we supposed to believe it's not bonkers for a building to totally collapse at free fall from all structural points at the same time?

1. No, they really aren't without some chemical analysis .

2. But I don't know it really fell faster than it would have if it collapsed on its own. This is just something you are claiming.

No, a tall building wouldn't necessarily lean over and fall away from its center because the structural integrity would collapse before it went that far, causing it to fall downwards. Just like with the larger towers

[Rustycage]

During the rescue operations shortly after they fell.

How do you know? I only ask because there's no way in hell that the column you showed was cut using thermite. Simply isn't possible if you have an understanding of the way the stuff works. Clean straight cuts like that ain't the result of a thermite reaction. Ask any chemist. I don't know a lot about the goings on at ground zero but why are people assuming that the beams weren't cut using cutting torches during the clean-up operation? That makes a lot more sense.

It also seems like that beam is in its original position, thermite would then not be able to cut it diagonally, as seen on the picture. Thermite would cut the beam vertically since it works by gravitation .

If you use it like gunpowder it would cut as it wishes. It is believed that there were thermite bombs. Can you explain why thermite was found in all three sites?

[SoulMonster]

Because an expert that discovered it at the site used those terms, not me.

If we are to really on experts -- which I think we should! -- then fact is that MOST experts fully agree that the collapse of all towers were the result of structure damage caused by the planes and or debris from other falling buildings in combination with ravaging fires. As a lay person I tend to believe the consensus of scientists.

[Rustycage]

1: I've posted it 3 different times but I'll do it once again.

2: For one, to "pull" is a demolition term. Second, buildings that fall on their own do not fall at free fall speed. Third, there is no other incident of a skyscraper as sophisticated as the WTC building falling due to fire. There were very small fires in WTC7. Lastly, the owner has to give the ok for them to "pull" it. Why would you think they would ask for his ok to let the building fall on it's own?

1. But those pictures and movies are no conclusive evidence that steel was melting.

2. Perhaps he meant they should "pull out the fire men"? WTC7 was, I read, hit by debris from the large towers and suffered large structural damage as well as burned for 7 hours before collapsing. I don't find this implausible at all.

But I am no expert on these matters. I just find the whole conspiracy theory lacking in good evidence and completely bonkers.

1: Yes they are. But if you need more.

2: Then explain how a building falling on it's own would do so at free fall speed into it's own footprint. Experts and demolition engineers describe it as being identical to any other controlled demolition.

A building being so damaged at one part of it's structure would fall in that direction. Like a tree when you cut it down. Are we supposed to believe it's not bonkers for a building to totally collapse at free fall from all structural points at the same time?

1. No, they really aren't without some chemical analysis .

2. But I don't know it really fell faster than it would have if it collapsed on its own. This is just something you are claiming.

No, a tall building wouldn't necessarily lean over and fall away from its center because the structural integrity would collapse before it went that far, causing it to fall downwards. Just like with the larger towers

1: You gotta be fucking kidding me. There has been chemical anlysis. It's what resulted in them finding evidence of thermite on the site.

2: You can say you don't know that so you must be completely oblivious to gravity and the fact that a structure isn't held by ONE column. There was no resistance in it's collapse. NONE. That would suggest that all components failed at exactly the same time.

[Dazey]

Fused concrete and steel from the rubble

That's not fused by the heat at all fella and if it is then what makes you think that's structural steel you can see? Looks like rebar used in reinforced concrete which is not the same thing and the reason it's in a block of concrete is because it was cast in there in the same way that you'll find in any concrete construction.

Because an expert that discovered it at the site used those terms, not me.

But just look at it. I mean it's not melted or fused at all. It's bent bashed and battered to buggery but not melted.

[Rustycage]

Because an expert that discovered it at the site used those terms, not me.

If we are to really on experts -- which I think we should! -- then fact is that MOST experts fully agree that the collapse of all towers were the result of structure damage caused by the planes and or debris from other falling buildings in combination with ravaging fires. As a lay person I tend to believe the consensus of scientists.

Most? That's bullshit. Most actually support that there is something funny going on.

WTC7 didn't have a ravaging fire.

This is a ravaging fire.

It didn't collapse.

Also, you say you trust scientists. LOL science is what everyone is using to prove something isn't right about the story. The official story disputes science. The "debunkers" have been twisting everything so people can only say, "it's possible" but there are more than one or two or three things that are illogical in the official story.

[Dazey]

If you use it like gunpowder it would cut as it wishes. It is believed that there were thermite bombs. Can you explain why thermite was found in all three sites?

No it would not! It simply wouldn't because it would burn vertically straight downwards. As for the presence of thermite on site I would imagine that there could be a number of explanations. Was it used by the clean up crews as a demolition aid? Also Thermite is a mix of aluminium and rust that reacts together when heated above a certain temperature. Maybe Soul Monster can varify the viability of this but is it possible that lots of these materials were in the debris and were ignited by the fire itself?

Edited April 25, 2013 by Dazey

[Rustycage]

Fused concrete and steel from the rubble

That's not fused by the heat at all fella and if it is then what makes you think that's structural steel you can see? Looks like rebar used in reinforced concrete which is not the same thing and the reason it's in a block of concrete is because it was cast in there in the same way that you'll find in any concrete construction.

Because an expert that discovered it at the site used those terms, not me.

But just look at it. I mean it's not melted or fused at all. It's bent bashed and battered to buggery but not melted.

According to those have seen it with their own eyes and have access to it say it is fused.

If you use it like gunpowder it would cut as it wishes. It is believed that there were thermite bombs. Can you explain why thermite was found in all three sites?

No it would not! It simply wouldn't because it would burn vertically straight downwards. As for the presence of thermite on site I would imagine that there could be a number of explanations. Was it used by the clean up crews as a demolision aid? Also Thermite is a mix of aluminium and rust that reacts together when heated above a certain temperature. Maybe Soul Monster can varify the viability of this but is it possible that lots of these materials were in the debris and were ignited by the fire itself?

The chemical makeup of the thermite they found is a controlled substance. They don't use it for cleanup. LOL

Scientists are who discovered the particles and the foreign elements that are only present from the explosive being used. And you want to ask Soul Monster to verify something? LOL you two are just pulling my leg.

Edited April 25, 2013 by Rustycage

[Dazey]

The chemical makeup of the thermite they found is a controlled substance. They don't use it for cleanup. LOL

Scientists are who discovered the particles and the foreign elements that are only present from the explosive being used. And you want to ask Soul Monster to verify something? LOL you two are just pulling my leg.

SM is a chemist which is why I mentioned him. But like I said the columns you show were cut very neatly and that simply isn't possible using thermite.

[SoulMonster]

If you use it like gunpowder it would cut as it wishes. It is believed that there were thermite bombs. Can you explain why thermite was found in all three sites?

Can you show me ANY proof that thermite can be used to cut a diagonal cut in a large steel beam?

As for thermite found on the site, I believe the jury is still out on that one .

[izzygirl]

Ok, I haven't read the whole thread but I'm with Rusty on this.

[Rustycage]

Correction, Nano-thermite is what was found.

[ShadowOfTheWave]

Because an expert that discovered it at the site used those terms, not me.

If we are to really on experts -- which I think we should! -- then fact is that MOST experts fully agree that the collapse of all towers were the result of structure damage caused by the planes and or debris from other falling buildings in combination with ravaging fires. As a lay person I tend to believe the consensus of scientists.

Most? That's bullshit. Most actually support that there is something funny going on.

WTC7 didn't have a ravaging fire.

This is a ravaging fire.

It didn't collapse.

Also, you say you trust scientists. LOL science is what everyone is using to prove something isn't right about the story. The official story disputes science. The "debunkers" have been twisting everything so people can only say, "it's possible" but there are more than one or two or three things that are illogical in the official story.

Did a 110 story building fall on top of the building in your picture, destroying part of it? I think not. WTC 7 fell due to structural failure, not fire. Part of the building had already collapsed before the penthouse collapse shown in nutcase conspiracy videos.

[Rustycage]

If you use it like gunpowder it would cut as it wishes. It is believed that there were thermite bombs. Can you explain why thermite was found in all three sites?

Can you show me ANY proof that thermite can be used to cut a diagonal cut in a large steel beam?

As for thermite found on the site, I believe the jury is still out on that one .

I could probably dig up dozens of other sources but do I really need to? You seem to want to refuse to look at earlier posts anyways.

[SoulMonster]

1. No, they really aren't without some chemical analysis .

2. But I don't know it really fell faster than it would have if it collapsed on its own. This is just something you are claiming.

No, a tall building wouldn't necessarily lean over and fall away from its center because the structural integrity would collapse before it went that far, causing it to fall downwards. Just like with the larger towers

1: You gotta be fucking kidding me. There has been chemical anlysis. It's what resulted in them finding evidence of thermite on the site.

2: You can say you don't know that so you must be completely oblivious to gravity and the fact that a structure isn't held by ONE column. There was no resistance in it's collapse. NONE. That would suggest that all components failed at exactly the same time.

1. Now you are confused. I asked for chemical evidence that the pictures your claim to be of molten steel really is of molten steel. Evidence for thermite is something else.

2. As soon as the tower starts to lean a little bit over, the remaining structural pillars would collapse, causing the tower to fall almost directly at its feet. Just as we see from footage of all three towers. There is nothing controversial about this, as far as I understand.