9/11 Inside Job?

[Forsaken]

12 pages in, i'll go ahead and say.... I fully believe 9/11 was an inside job of some sort. Too much irrefutable factual evidence proving SOMETHING was going on there.

If it wasn't an inside job, it sure as hell was close. Definitely something fishy went on that day.

[Rustycage]

Why was NORAD told to stand down by Cheney?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZBN-aqmvYo

Edited April 25, 2013 by Rustycage

[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.

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.

Huh? The fact that the scientist is discredited has nothing to do with the snapshot. I quite clearly pointed out that one snapshot is no proof as to how intense the fire was during those 7-8 hours.

I have no way of knowing whether it is molten steel. You are the one claiming it is molten steel, so the burden of proof lies with you. If all you have are some photographs, then your position is rather weak.

[SoulMonster]

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.

How exactly do you know that molten steel poured out of the windows and that molten steel was found at the site?

[Guest NGOG]

Even if it was staged they still killed a police officer, through explosives out of a car and one of them hid away for 24 hours. Not the actions of innocent men.

I'm not trying to insinuate Boston was a false flag however, official reports don't necessarily confirm the official events. Of course the authorities will attempt to report events favourably.

Would you not hide if you were the subject of a manhunt?

[Rustycage]

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.

How exactly do you know that molten steel poured out of the windows and that molten steel was found at the site?

This is beyond elementary at this point. I showed you the reports of independent scientists providing testimony and photos of what they found.

Are you trying to suggest that any of them had something to gain from this to where they would lie?

"Yeah guys, let's feed a conspiracy theory so people can question my credibility. I wish I were getting paid for this!"

Your questions are in the shallow end of this discussion.

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.

Huh? The fact that the scientist is discredited has nothing to do with the snapshot. I quite clearly pointed out that one snapshot is no proof as to how intense the fire was during those 7-8 hours.

I have no way of knowing whether it is molten steel. You are the one claiming it is molten steel, so the burden of proof lies with you. If all you have are some photographs, then your position is rather weak.

And you KEEP overlooking what I provided you. The nano-thermite found at the scene had evidences of molten steel along with it. THAT is evidence of molten steel being present at the site.

Now, if you want to argue over whether the earlier evidence I provided is Steel or Aluminum, that's another issue but unless you are trying to claim these scientists are lying for no financial profit, I don't understand why you are still stuck 5 pages back.

[ManetsBR]

What's going on here:

"I see no evidence"

"Here is the evidence, as proved by many experts and professionals."

"I see no evidence"

[Rustycage]

What's going on here:

"I see no evidence"

"Here is the evidence, as proved by many experts and professionals."

"I see no evidence"

I think he's trying to cupcake.

[SoulMonster]

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?

But you have still to prove that molten steel WAS found at the site and that it didn't happen after the collapse. And as for the nano-thermite, that is ALSO not proven .

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

You have yet to prove that molten STEEL poured out of the building, it is just something you eagerly believe.

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

Because that is how tall buildings tend to collapse.

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

Because he meant they should pull out the firemen?

Why did witnesses report to hearing multiple secondary explosions?

There were probably some witnesses who thought they saw superman, too. Never trust a few out of many witnesses.

Why is there also video with audio recorded explosions?

Never heard of. But I do know that no explosions were registered with seismic equipment. Some noises can be interpreted as explosions, but really be something else, but if no signals are seen on seismic equipment then it couldn't be explosions.

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

Because they are confused, stupid or crazy?

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

Eh, no, it is natural that such an attack on American soil would lead to the measures we experienced.

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

No, he probably got the job because he knew someone or were qualified.

I had to focus on some of your points since otherwise I'd get too many quotes.

But again, as laymen we don't have to worry about evidence for or against, we have experts who do that and the consensus agreement is that the fall of WTC is easily explained as a consequence of fires and impact. I don't often quote Al Qaeda, but they got it right when they commented on the conspiracy theory as "a ridiculous belief that stands in the face of all logic and evidence" .

The thing that I find interesting about conspiracy theories is that there are so many of them that some must, no doubt, be true or at least partially so.

Heh, no.

[Rustycage]

/facepalm

"falling" buildings do not fall at free fall because every single floor below them create resistance. Free fall speed suggests no resistance which suggests all support structures failing at the exact same time which obviously suggests the building being "pulled." You might remember the word pulled again. The word used by the WTC buildings owner regarding WTC7.

As for the rest, LOL.

Dick Cheney got the job because he knew someone or was qualified? LOL that's not the point.

PNAC laid out years before 9/11 that a new pearl harbor was needed to restructure defense to be more effective. 9/11 happens under SOOOOOOO many suspicious circumstances and enter the Patriot Act and DHS. Just another coincidence stacked on top of hundreds of other coincidences, huh?

I've already shown you the proof of molten steel beside the photos of which you say is assumption.

Ignoring whats presented and quoting a terrorist organization that the BBC reports doesn't exist. That's cute.

Edited April 25, 2013 by Rustycage

[SoulMonster]

Than what would validate it? In the other thread you pointed out CNN doing a half assed job. If not them than who? Fox, lol. Who do we trust, when everyone is debunking everyone. I'm gonna go debunk myself.

I guess we are supposed to ignore independent scientists and only trust those who are sponsored. Since credibility here is referenced by who they work for, apparently.

Huh? ALL scientists are "sponsored", e.g. funded. Are you saying that ALL scientists in the world who agree that there is nothing mysterious about WTC falling because of the impacts and the fires, are somehow funded by the same organization? Hehe.

[SoulMonster]

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.

How exactly do you know that molten steel poured out of the windows and that molten steel was found at the site?

This is beyond elementary at this point. I showed you the reports of independent scientists providing testimony and photos of what they found.

Sorry I must have missed those "reports from independent scientists" proving that steel melted while in the towers. Please post those references again.

And you KEEP overlooking what I provided you. The nano-thermite found at the scene had evidences of molten steel along with it. THAT is evidence of molten steel being present at the site.

Are you thinking about that discredited article in that non-cited paper? . Can you provide me with an actual quote from that article that proves steel melted in the towers?

Edited April 25, 2013 by SoulMonster

[Rustycage]

Than what would validate it? In the other thread you pointed out CNN doing a half assed job. If not them than who? Fox, lol. Who do we trust, when everyone is debunking everyone. I'm gonna go debunk myself.

I guess we are supposed to ignore independent scientists and only trust those who are sponsored. Since credibility here is referenced by who they work for, apparently.

Huh? ALL scientists are "sponsored", e.g. funded. Are you saying that ALL scientists in the world who agree that there is nothing mysterious about WTC falling because of the impacts and the fires, are somehow funded by the same organization? Hehe.

Did I suggest they were funded by the same organization? No, I didn't. What I was saying is that when someone has something personal invested into the research such as possible job status or destruction of credibility, there's a conflict. Working independently has done nothing positive for those involved so what would you assume is their motive to lie?

But seriously, fuck off. This is a conversation to have 5 pages back and there's been many more points raised.

Edited April 25, 2013 by Rustycage

[SoulMonster]

What's going on here:

"I see no evidence"

"Here is the evidence, as proved by many experts and professionals."

"I see no evidence"

I am afraid you don't know what scientific evidence is.

[Rustycage]

What article? WTF are you talking about?

Spitting random things with a winky smileyt isn't a rebuttal. You've been consistently overlooking answers to your questions and try to ask them again later as if they dont exist. How are you a supposed chemist when you overlook so much?

[SoulMonster]

/facepalm

"falling" buildings do not fall at free fall because every single floor below them create resistance. Free fall speed suggests no resistance which suggests all support structures failing at the exact same time which obviously suggests the building being "pulled." You might remember the word pulled again. The word used by the WTC buildings owner regarding WTC7.

I've already shown you the proof of molten steel beside the photos of which you say is assumption.

But you haven't proven that the building fell faster than if it collapsed from structural damage caused by fires and impact, rather than structural damage from explosions . You know, things doesn't become "evidence" just because you manage to think it.

You haven't shown any proof that steel melted in the towers. You have shown pictures that may or may not originate from the site and that may or may not be of steel, which may or may not have been melted, perhaps before the collapse. That just isn't evidence .

Did I suggest they were funded by the same organization? No, I didn't. What I was saying is that when someone has something personal invested into the research such as possible job status or destruction of credibility, there's a conflict. Working independently has done nothing positive for those involved so what would you assume is their motive to lie?

I haven't said they are lying, just that they are bad scientists doing flawed science causing their results to end up in a disputed, un-cited paper and never to be taken seriously by the scientific community en large.

[Rustycage]

Then go look it up. I'm passed that part of the discussion. I have come across charts that have measured the speed of the towers falling and now you're just asking like a little baby holding his mouth open asking for the airplane spoon to feed you. If you want the fucking answer, go look it up.

[SoulMonster]

Spitting random things with a winky smileyt isn't a rebuttal. You've been consistently overlooking answers to your questions and try to ask them again later as if they dont exist. How are you a supposed chemist when you overlook so much?

I have never claimed to be a chemist

I am just pointing out that everything you claim to be evidence for your silly nutty theory isn't proper evidence.

Then go look it up. I'm passed that part of the discussion. I have come across charts that have measured the speed of the towers falling and now you're just asking like a little baby holding his mouth open asking for the airplane spoon to feed you. If you want the fucking answer, go look it up.

You are the one claiming that someone had magically detonated enough explosives in WTC 7 to remove ALL structures hence causing the building to fall at free fall velocity (!), hence the burden of proof lies with you. You are the one who has to show that whatever velocity the building had as it fell, couldn't be a result of the amount of structures remaining after the impact and fires, but must, absurdly, be a consequence of far more devastating explosives that not only affected one section hence causing a collapse, but wiped away ALL structural integrity causing free fall velocity

Edited April 25, 2013 by SoulMonster

[Rustycage]

You've been provided sources. I know what your game is. Give it up. I won't get mad over your game of playing stupid.

[SoulMonster]

You've been provided sources. I know what your game is. Give it up. I won't get mad over your game of playing stupid.

Can someone else provide me with sources that prove that (1) steel melted while in the towers, (2) that thermite must have been present in the towers and that (3) WTC 7 reached free fall velocities? Because Rusty has gone all sour.

[Rustycage]

nano-thermite. A military grade controlled substance* not thermite. Maybe pm it to him since he overlooks things just to reply.

[SoulMonster]

nano-thermite. A military grade controlled substance* not thermite. Maybe pm it to him since he overlooks things just to reply.

Heh, there isn't much difference between nano-thermite and ordinary thermite, the former is just a variation of the latter, so don't be confused when I for brevity just refer to what the loonies claimed to have found as "thermite".

[ShadowOfTheWave]

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

The "owner" of the WTC was Larry Silverstein, you certainly don't sound as informed as you try to look. Despite the revisionism of tin foil hat wearers, "Pull" is not a demolition term, whatsoever. What he said was, he was on the phone with the fire chief, and there was "Such loss of life, and I said maybe we should just pull it, and we made that decision to pull, and we watched the building collapse".

He was referring to pulling the firefighters out of the WTC7 area, which is already documented. But let's play games:

1.Why would Silverstein admit to PBS television he had demolished WTC7?

2.Why would they need to decide to demolish it? Seems like a pretty easy decision, why leave a building full of explosives standing, where these explosives will clearly be found.

3.Why would the NYC fire chief be involved in this conspiracy? Even stranger, why would he be involved in the decision making of the timing of the demolition? Seems to fit more in with pulling the firefighters out theory than the whackjob demolition theory.

Edited April 25, 2013 by ShadowOfTheWave

[SoulMonster]

Lack of evidence, lack of logic, lack of knowledge on how the world works....

[Rustycage]

nano-thermite. A military grade controlled substance* not thermite. Maybe pm it to him since he overlooks things just to reply.

Heh, there isn't much difference between nano-thermite and ordinary thermite, the former is just a variation of the latter, so don't be confused when I for brevity just refer to what the loonies claimed to have found as "thermite".

Now you're a nano scientist. There is a big difference because the nano-thermite is constructed and is constructed to create a much stronger reaction. It isn't available to just anyone and has no natural reason for being there. You're uneducated on the issue.

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

The "owner" of the WTC was Larry Silverstein, you certainly don't sound as informed as you try to look. Despite the revisionism of tin foil hat wearers, "Pull" is not a demolition term, whatsoever. What he said was, he was on the phone with the fire chief, and there was "Such loss of life, and I said maybe we should just pull it, and we made that decision to pull, and we watched the building collapse".

He was referring to pulling the firefighters out of the WTC7 area, which is already documented. But let's play games:

1.Why would Silverstein admit to PBS television he had demolished WTC7?

2.Why would they need to decide to demolish it? Seems like a pretty easy decision, why leave a building full of explosives standing, where these explosives will clearly be found.

3.Why would the NYC fire chief be involved in this conspiracy? Even stranger, why would he be involved in the decision making of the timing of the demolition? Seems to fit more in with pulling the firefighters out theory than the whackjob demolition theory.

I don't need you to quote what he said when I already posted in his own words what he said in his own voice several pages back. Would you rather try to be busy trying to discredit me or discredit many of the other inconsistencies?

They said NOTHING about it being the firefighters. Now you're lying.

And many demolition engineers have confirmed pull to be a demolition term. You're lying once again. The term is a literal term for actually pulling it over. That building was not pulled by cranes.

Edited April 25, 2013 by Rustycage