9/11 Inside Job?

[SoulMonster]

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.

No, now you are just lying : "As generally accepted by the community of specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering (though not by a few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives), the failure scenario was as follows [...]" (Source: Bažant, Zdeněk P.; Mathieu Verdure (March 2007). "Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions". J Engrg Mech 133 (3): 308–319. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2007)133:3(308)). There are also numerous scientific organizations of relevant scientists that have publicly stated there is no reason to not believe the official conclusions. Just a few nutcases who -- like always -- gets lots of attention among kids and the crazies on the Internet.

WTC7 didn't have a ravaging fire.

How do you know?

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?

I don't really consider myself a chemist, but sure, there could be numerous explanations as to why common components of thermite would be found on such a site, and saying that it conclusively means thermite was used, seems far-fetched to me.

Edited April 25, 2013 by SoulMonster

[Rustycage]

1: Correction. It wasn't simply thermite. It was military grade nano-thermite.

2: Now you're an expert on building collapses and experienced demolition engineers and scientists that measure the rate of fall as compared to other controlled and non controlled demolitions are not credible?

Steven Jones, PhD physicist discovers previously molten iron spheres in the WTC dust which blanketed lower Manhattan. Sizes are up to 1/16" diameter. The findings are corroborated by EPA but not explained. Molten iron is the byproduct of Thermite. It contains the chemical signature of thermate.

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.

No, now you are just lying : "As generally accepted by the community of specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering (though not by a few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives), the failure scenario was as follows [...]" (Source: Bažant, Zdeněk P.; Mathieu Verdure (March 2007). "Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions". J Engrg Mech 133 (3): 308–319. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2007)133:3(308)). There are also numerous scientific organizations of relevant scientists that have publicly stated there is no reason to not believe the official conclusions. Just a few nutcases who -- like always -- gets lots of attention among kids and the crazies on the Internet.

>WTC7 didn't have a ravaging fire.

How do you know?

I am not lying. tHe reason why this is such a huge issue still to this day is because of so many forensic scientists concluding that the official story doesn't add up.

How do I know there wasn't ravaging fires? How old are you? This was a highly televised event from the first plane to the cleanup.

There's your fire.

Another angle of the "ravaging fire"

[SoulMonster]

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.

You don't know what you are talking about. Thermite can easily be made with simple chemicals, many of which would naturally be found on a demolition site we are talking about. It's quite possible that the quantities of these chemicals which were allegedly found suggests the usage of thermite, but this is not conclusive evidence. The only scientific paper on this subject, in an obscure paper, authored by a known oddball and a well-known 9/11 conspiracist, has as far as I know zero citations and is not accepted by the scientific consensus. Hence my reservations as to accepting that it has been demonstrated that thermite was used. It is as best a very weak evidence.

Correction, Nano-thermite is what was found.

Can you show any evidence supporting your theory that nano-thermite can be used to cut a clean, diagonal cut in a standing steel beam of the diameter shown on the picture? I HIGHLY doubt it is possible, to understate it

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.

Err, you would have to dig up sufficient sources to demonstrate that MOST scientists agree that nano-thermite was found on the site. No one here is saying that there aren't some who believe this theory, my point is that as lay men we should believe what most scientists believe, and they simply doesn't agree that the towers fell as a result of explosions, but as a result of structural damage caused by planes and falling debris as well as of firs.

[Rustycage]

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.

You don't know what you are talking about. Thermite can easily be made with simple chemicals, many of which would naturally be found on a demolition site we are talking about. It's quite possible that the quantities of these chemicals which were allegedly found suggests the usage of thermite, but this is not conclusive evidence. The only scientific paper on this subject, in an obscure paper, authored by a known oddball and a well-known 9/11 conspiracist, has as far as I know zero citations and is not accepted by the scientific consensus. Hence my reservations as to accepting that it has been demonstrated that thermite was used. It is as best a very weak evidence.

>Correction, Nano-thermite is what was found.

Can you show any evidence supporting your theory that nano-thermite can be used to cut a clean, diagonal cut in a standing steel beam of the diameter shown on the picture? I HIGHLY doubt it is possible, to understate it

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.

Err, you would have to dig up sufficient sources to demonstrate that MOST scientists agree that nano-thermite was found on the site. No one here is saying that there aren't some who believe this theory, my point is that as lay men we should believe what most scientists believe, and they simply doesn't agree that the towers fell as a result of explosions, but as a result of structural damage caused by planes and falling debris as well as of firs.

I do know what I am talking about. You just glance over the things I post don't you? It is military grade thermite they found and it is a controlled substance. FFS

I posted a couple of videos detailing with microscopic evidence of the nano-thermite found. You just glance over it dont you?

You originally made the "most scientists" agree claim. Why do I have to prove you wrong? it's the other way around. Why should I waste my time when you overlook everything anyways.

[SoulMonster]

1: Correction. It wasn't simply thermite. It was military grade nano-thermite.

2: Now you're an expert on building collapses and experienced demolition engineers and scientists that measure the rate of fall as compared to other controlled and non controlled demolitions are not credible?

Steven Jones, PhD physicist discovers previously molten iron spheres in the WTC dust which blanketed lower Manhattan. Sizes are up to 1/16" diameter. The findings are corroborated by EPA but not explained. Molten iron is the byproduct of Thermite. It contains the chemical signature of thermate.

What exactly is the "chemical signature of themite"? The size of the particles? Could they not arise from some other process than themite? And Steven Jones is the very oddball I mentioned earlier. He is the laughing stock of the structural material scientific community. Or rather embarrassment.

I am 37. Those pictures doesn't say much about the conditions on the inside and the temperatures reached in the internal fires, neither does snapshots say anything about the fire during the 7 hours (?) before WTC 7 collapsed.

[Rustycage]

Nano-thermite isn't found on a street corner.

[SoulMonster]

I do know what I am talking about. You just glance over the things I post don't you? It is military grade thermite they found and it is a controlled substance. FFS

I posted a couple of videos detailing with microscopic evidence of the nano-thermite found. You just glance over it dont you?

You originally made the "most scientists" agree claim. Why do I have to prove you wrong? it's the other way around. Why should I waste my time when you overlook everything anyways.

Heh, no, they did NOT find "military grade nano-thermite" . They claim to have found some chemicals/particles that might derive from the usage of thermite.

I have already posted evidence for the scientific consensus opinion, with a reference further up.

[Chinaski]

SoulMonster I'm enjoying reading your posts in this thread. It's not often I get to hear the viewpoint of someone remaining level-headed when it comes to things like this. It's usually just a hysterical back and forth.

[Rustycage]

1: Correction. It wasn't simply thermite. It was military grade nano-thermite.

2: Now you're an expert on building collapses and experienced demolition engineers and scientists that measure the rate of fall as compared to other controlled and non controlled demolitions are not credible?

Steven Jones, PhD physicist discovers previously molten iron spheres in the WTC dust which blanketed lower Manhattan. Sizes are up to 1/16" diameter. The findings are corroborated by EPA but not explained. Molten iron is the byproduct of Thermite. It contains the chemical signature of thermate.

What exactly is the "chemical signature of themite"? The size of the particles? Could they not arise from some other process than themite? And Steven Jones is the very oddball I mentioned earlier. He is the laughing stock of the structural material scientific community. Or rather embarrassment.

I am 37. Those pictures doesn't say much about the conditions on the inside and the temperatures reached in the internal fires, neither does snapshots say anything about the fire during the 7 hours (?) before WTC 7 collapsed.

So claiming he is a laughing stock is supposed to debunk the very snapshot posted? Is that all you have? "hahaha?"

Is that not molten steel? Yes or no? Or do you know for yourself?

If you really wanted the answers to your questions, you could look for yourself instead of asking me for something and overlooking it anyways.

I do know what I am talking about. You just glance over the things I post don't you? It is military grade thermite they found and it is a controlled substance. FFS

I posted a couple of videos detailing with microscopic evidence of the nano-thermite found. You just glance over it dont you?

You originally made the "most scientists" agree claim. Why do I have to prove you wrong? it's the other way around. Why should I waste my time when you overlook everything anyways.

Heh, no, they did NOT find "military grade nano-thermite" . They claim to have found some chemicals/particles that might derive from the usage of thermite.

I have already posted evidence for the scientific consensus opinion, with a reference further up.

I swear you just keep overlooking things.

[Rustycage]

[gunsguy]

Wait, has there ever been a 767 flown into an aging building before? If not how can anyone claim what would or would not happen?

good site for the other side of things:

http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm

everyone has their opinions, it's like religion, if you believe it then no one can tell you otherwise I guess

[downzy]

I could be cruel and copy/paste everything here. But everything you're posting here Rusty has been debunked here:

http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm

[Rustycage]

I could be cruel and copy/paste everything here. But everything you're posting here Rusty has been debunked here:

http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm

The above video is shown how even non-explosive thermite can be used to cut beams. The thermite debate is cloudy because people refuse to acknowledge the difference between regular thermite and nano-thermite(what was found at the scene)

Saying it's possible that they cut it while it's also possible for nano-thermite to cut it is not debunking.

[gunsguy]

I could be cruel and copy/paste everything here. But everything you're posting here Rusty has been debunked here:

http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm

The above video is shown how even non-explosive thermite can be used to cut beams. The thermite debate is cloudy because people refuse to acknowledge the difference between regular thermite and nano-thermite(what was found at the scene)

Saying it's possible that they cut it while it's also possible for nano-thermite to cut it is not debunking.

But you agree it could have been cut right? After the fact, to remove vertical beams?

[Rustycage]

I could be cruel and copy/paste everything here. But everything you're posting here Rusty has been debunked here:

http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm

The above video is shown how even non-explosive thermite can be used to cut beams. The thermite debate is cloudy because people refuse to acknowledge the difference between regular thermite and nano-thermite(what was found at the scene)

Saying it's possible that they cut it while it's also possible for nano-thermite to cut it is not debunking.

But you agree it could have been cut right? After the fact, to remove vertical beams?

I am not an expert on every single piece of debate regarding it. I've said that before. The beams are an if so fine, we can throw that out.

What I do know is molten metal poured out of the windows on the WTC before collapse and the explanations of it are not backed up by science. Molten steel has been found at the sites. Jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel. The reported highest temperatures in WTC were almost 1,000 degrees under the heat needed to melt steel. Nano-thermite has been found at the scene. As declared by scientists, nano-thermite isn't there by some natural reason.

When so much work is needed to "debunk" so many inconsistencies, and there are many, at what point do you consider the source, or not consider the source as is going on here?

[downzy]

I think people who like to wank over conspiracy theories about 9/11 are disrespecting those that died horrible, usually slow and painful deaths on that day. I fucking hate conspiracy theorists.

+1

This is exactly how I feel about these matters. They're so far up their own ass about proving something that didn't happen they forget the people who lost loved ones in these events.

Like I said earlier, if the Internet was around when the Holocaust happened you'd have the same shitheads claiming the same thing. The reason why it's not popular to theorize around the holocaust is because that conspiracy theory was long discredited before the Internet made it so easy for misled individuals to mislead others.

[Rustycage]

Yep, the Reichstag fire didn't happen either.

You can keep calling names like a bitch but it doesn't change that many inconsistencies exist.

[downzy]

When so much work is needed to "debunk" so many inconsistencies, and there are many, at what point do you consider the source, or not consider the source as is going on here?

So much work is needed because shit heads keep coming up with new theories about how it was the government who did it. Yes, the same government who can't do anything right is masterminding one of the greatest coverups of all time.

Again, as Guns Guy pointed out, the molten steal thing you keep on alluding to isn't true. Did you even bother looking at the site Guns Guy provided before: http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm

I keep calling you names because you deserve them. I extend the same level of respect to 9/11 Truthers as I do Holocaust deniers. If you don't like, well, too bad.

Yeah, the Reichstag burned, but is the U.S. government akin to Nazi Germany?

Seriously, for fucks sake, give your head a shake.

Edited April 25, 2013 by downzy

[Rustycage]

It's the same old claim of it being aluminum which I already replied to with a source of my own

Who is the shithead with their head in their ass again?

1600 degrees of direct heat to that aluminum to cause it be orange is grasping but how does that even explain the molten steel found and the nano-thermite actually found there. Lying and saying it's made up isn't debunking when there's tangible evidence of it found there.

Tell me, who the fuck gains something from the theories?

Edited April 25, 2013 by Rustycage

[downzy]

No you're right. I'm sure every legitimate news organization has just missed or are on the dole by the government to keep things quiet. /sarcasm

Sorry, think I'll trust a professor of engineering than some random dude on the Internet:

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

Read more: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories - Debunking the Myths - World Trade Center - Popular Mechanics

Edited April 25, 2013 by downzy

[Rustycage]

Molten steel was found.

1832 degrees isnt hot enough to melt steel.

2700+ is needed.

The information isnt from some random person on the internet. It's documented fact that you need a much higher temperature to melt steel(which was found). You're throwing out science and relying on the "weakening of the steel" argument. You're ignoring other factors.

[T.wa.T]

The steel didn't have to be melted only weakened.

Theres cases to be made for both sides and its to hard to lay out both sides out on a forum.

One thing about the conspiracy is there are so many!! We have no jets but missles, we have holograms, people on airplanes being assassinated in a warehouse owned by NASA in Ohio. Crazy man, crazy.

Edited April 25, 2013 by T.wa.T

[Rustycage]

The steel didn't have to be melted only weakened.

Theres cases to be made for both sides and its to hard to lay out both sides out on a forum.

I agree that it would only have to be weakened but some of my questions are:

Why was molten steel found along with nano-thermite?

Why was molten metal pouring out of the building that we are supposed to believe is aluminum while ignoring the molten steel found?

Why did all 3 buildings fall at freefall speed into it's own footprint looking identical to any other controlled demolition?

Why did the WTC owner say he gave the OK to pull WTC7?

Why did this owner change his insurance policy on the towers shortly before to have the policy include terrorist attacks?

Why did witnesses report to hearing multiple secondary explosions?

Why is there also video with audio recorded explosions?

What was all of the additional shit on the fuselage?

Why do witnesses say it looked like a military plane with no windows like you see on commercial airliners?

Is it just a coincidence that this attack resulted in defensive measures that impede on citizens' liberties?

Is it also a coincidence that PNAC had received exactly what was detailed as a necessity for a revamp of the defense structure?

Is it just coincidence that one of the heads of PNAC is Dick Cheney?

Never mind all of the other circumstantial evidence. I want to know why there is so much weird shit that the 9/11 commission didn't investigate and why supposed people that care about those that died don't want every question answered by those elected to represent and answer to us?

It's disrespcteful not only to those asking the questions but to those that died to just turn your head, call names and act like a little bitch because not everyone falls for the ridiculously flimsy story.

Edit: I also wanna know what was up with the white van on the George Washington bridge that was supposedly occupied by Israelis that celebrated the attacks according to witnesses. That report just faded away into oblivion.

Edited April 25, 2013 by Rustycage

[T.wa.T]

The steel didn't have to be melted only weakened.

Theres cases to be made for both sides and its to hard to lay out both sides out on a forum.

I agree that it would only have to be weakened but some of my questions are:

Why was molten steel found along with nano-thermite?

Why was molten metal pouring out of the building that we are supposed to believe is aluminum while ignoring the molten steel found?

Why did all 3 buildings fall at freefall speed into it's own footprint looking identical to any other controlled demolition?

Why did the WTC owner say he gave the OK to pull WTC7?

Why did this owner change his insurance policy on the towers shortly before to have the policy include terrorist attacks?

Why did witnesses report to hearing multiple secondary explosions?

Why is there also video with audio recorded explosions?

What was all of the additional shit on the fuselage?

Why do witnesses say it looked like a military plane with no windows like you see on commercial airliners?

Is it just a coincidence that this attack resulted in defensive measures that impede on citizens' liberties?

Is it also a coincidence that PNAC had received exactly what was detailed as a necessity for a revamp of the defense structure?

Is it just coincidence that one of the heads of PNAC is Dick Cheney?

Never mind all of the other circumstantial evidence. I want to know why there is so much weird shit that the 9/11 commission didn't investigate and why supposed people that care about those that died don't want every question answered by those elected to represent and answer to us?

It's disrespcteful not only to those asking the questions but to those that died to just turn your head, call names and act like a little bitch because not everyone falls for the ridiculously flimsy story.

I know, I know. My landlord is totally into this stuff and bombards me with it all the time. Not just 9/11. Hell, sitting next to me is a pamphlet saying some of the amputees in Boston are actors. I have so much conspiracy stuff from him, if a cop came in my apt. hed think I was up to something, lol.

I honestly am not qualified to answer these questions.

I could probably make a better case saying it was an inside job, because of my landlord.

I'm going with IDK on this one. Although I do have a copy of the 9/11 commission report and should give it a go.

I'm not arguing with you Rusty, I want to know as much as you do.

[ManetsBR]

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.

Oh, you thought you had a smoking gun here, right? You couldn't be more wrong, though.

Watch this, from 14:14:

At 16:21 he talks exactly - I can't be more emphatic on this exactly - about the Thermite cut angles.

I'd recommend you to watch everything, though.

Edited April 25, 2013 by ManetsBR