User Tag List

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 44 of 44

Thread: Is it important who is responsible for 9/11?

  1. #41


    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    And this relates to there being pools of steel how?
    Actually, if it were true, thermite would directly relate to the presence of pools of steel. Thermite is a mixture of ferric oxide and powdered metallic aluminum. Its reaction requires a very high-temperature ignition source (it's commonly started in the lab with a piece of magnesium ribbon, which in turn has to be lit by a gas torch), but the results of the reaction are A) lots of heat, and B) liquid metallic iron. Liquid metallic iron in the presence of lots of structural steel would result in puddles of a low-grade steel mixture.

    However, I still believe that the kinetic energy of the collapsing towers would have been more than enough to also produce molten steel.

  2. #42
    Senior Member Array ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007


    Quote Originally Posted by oberon View Post
    However, I still believe that the kinetic energy of the collapsing towers would have been more than enough to also produce molten steel.
    It wouldn't, unfortunately. The amount of kinetic energy that would nee to be transferred to a vertical support beam wouldn't be sufficient to melt it (and by a pretty large margin). In particular, as the collapse progressed, the weight and duration of friction would increase (assuming stationary supports), which means it should be the lower parts that show heat fatigue - however, nothing like that happened (and wouldn't be expected to, from what I understand.)

    Good point about the thermite, however. Anyway, it ignores the two major points - first, thermite is not used on vertical supports, which would be necessary, and two, there was no steel pools. The 'pools' were unidentified metal. Most of the theory comes from pictures before the collapse, along with a whole lot of speculation, and a lot of ignoring of things like aluminum/building matertial, and even similar pools found on crashed planes in the open.

    The use of thermite would be redundant, not to mention would require huge amounts, directly applied, with large force, using technology that hasn't been developped, against internal building supports, done in a way that has been proven ineffective.

    It'd be more effective to use napalm or any other longer-burning, high temperature "blast furnace" material over a larger surface area. Or jet fuel. The problem is sagging, not cutting - cutting is highly ineffective on vertical support beams.

  3. #43
    Senior Member Array
    Join Date
    Aug 2007


    Quote Originally Posted by ajblaise View Post
    I never bought this argument, whether it was on South Park or not. We can go into space and land on the moon... we can stage an attack.
    As an apologists for conspiracy theories in general, thats an unusual statement to make. You know the rumors....and after all, its technically possible that everyone could have been fooled by some elaborate and insanely complicated hoax in order to raise American morale during a low-point of the Cold War.

    Besides, its a faulty comparison; no one is arguing that the American government lacks the technical expertise to destroy a building, even through such unnecessarily bizarre means. Rational people are simply suggesting that conspiracies involve multiple actors, and any slight fuck-up or moral impulse by one of them would screw over all of them. Even assuming there were that many sociopaths in government who knew without a doubt that other conspirators were equally sociopathic enough not to tell everyone what "really happened," there are simply too many opportunities for things to go wrong to make such an conspiracy an acceptable risk. This is why conspiracy theories are almost always bogus paranoid fantasies (with real-life consequences, unfortunately), and why actual conspiracies almost never work.

  4. #44
    Senior Member Array Into It's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008


    Quote Originally Posted by millerm277 View Post

    That's true. Do you really think the only thing burning in the Twin Towers was the jet fuel? Did it occur to you that there are lots of flammable things that CAN burn that hot inside an office building, and once the fire has been started by the jet fuel....

    Also. In order for the towers to fall...the steel doesn't have to melt. It is weakened at a far lower temperature than it melts at, and if you recall, once they did fall, it burned in that pile of rubble for weeks, which is the most likely explanation for why there would be pools of melted steel. (assuming they exist).

    I just wrote a response to this. It was pretty good, and it took over an hour. I had to log in again, so it got deleted. So, instead of retyping all the new 9/11 evidence, I'm just going to summarize and then move on. Nobody can truly define all of the culprits, and I don't believe we will ever be able to. I only recommend that everyone take a look at WTC building 7, a 42 story building that collapsed by "fire" on 9/11. Steel structured buildings do not collapse by fire. None have. There were fires on 4 floors of this large building, and they weren't even large fires. This was a textbook demolition, and you only need to watch it fall to see that. Controlled demolitions always destroy the center support first so the building will collapse in on itself and keep from damaging nearby structures. Nature is chaotic; it would not produce this exact same effect. Especially not with just a small amount of fire. I can't provide an explanation for this collapse, and the Federal Government has swept it under the rug so to speak.

    I appreciate that you have not been slinging mud. This shows an openness to accept the possibility that things may not be how you have been percieving them. I personally believe this is a mark of intelligence.

    There is a more broad and complex web of issues concerning money and power that I do not have time to explain at the moment. This is where it gets weird and almost unbelievable. There are still people who do not know that our President and other big-wigs travel to the depths of the Redwood Forest to don black and red robes and perform mock human sacrifices by burning to a large stone owl. There are people who do not know that this has been going on for a very long time, with many of our presidents involved. Unfortunately, most people have just not had access to this information. At this point, that information is not very useful to you. I am only letting you taste this so that you know that what is coming is bizarre and requires an open mind to understand fully.

    Now is where you may begin slinging mud. But I have a feeling most of you will not. I'm going to save this new information for a new thread.

    1. the act of conspiring.
    2. an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
    3. a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose

    I can prove that two or more people are meeting in secret illegally and throwing around ideas. So call me a "Conspiracy Researcher" instead, because that is a little more accurate.

Similar Threads

  1. Responsible Women
    By Mole in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 04-06-2010, 05:45 PM
  2. Is there a function or a mix of functions that is responsible for this...
    By JustHer in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-17-2009, 10:40 AM
  3. If I know nothing can I be responsible for anything?
    By coberst in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 08-12-2009, 07:09 PM
  4. Someone is responsible! I want heads!
    By Kasper in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-30-2008, 10:34 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts