We the seven billion of Earth want nothing but Peace, Love and Light on Earth always.We want the END of ALL WAR on this planet and the end of the NUCLEAR NIGHTMARE
Official First Contact and the end of the TRUTH EMBARGO will soon be here
Richard Gage speaks for the compassionate HEART of AMERICA NOW
Love and protect Earth and her precious Air, Water and Soil by all means
Help us ban HYDRO FRACKING Worldwide as this poisons Trillions of gallons of fresh water 4 all generations
I apologise for the (significant) gaps in my engineering knowledge. Let's chalk that up to going through government-endorsed school curricula for now.
Perhaps you could elaborate on your position without speaking to me so impolitely: you're much more likely to get a fair hearing if you treat your listener with some rudimentary respect. So, why IS a steel truss fireproofed?
I think it comes down to credibility. Do you want to listen to a guy like Gage pushing an agenda and pushing it now because he has no job and his wife left him BECAUSE of this crap (True!!) Or do you choose to listen to people like Les Robertson (the guy who built the WTC implicitly understands the load calculations.. DESIGNED THEM!! and said..."There is no way one floor is going to hold 14 or more stories falling on it... NO WAY!!"
This man is an esteemed classy professional with ZERO agenda
Is it plausible that a politician would risk execution, and the death of the Republican party, by attacking his own population in the world's biggest, and therefore hardest to conceal, conspiracy?
A leaked Pentagon memo from around 2002 discusses strategies for declassifying info regarding the JFK assassination. A drip feed approach is recommended to to keep people concentrated on things that are of no concern to centres of power. This diverts energy from their actual, known, crimes. Familiar?
@BeveledSpilchOnion Chomsky makes the same points. But his assumption about the probability of leaks is invalid since the leakers would most likely be implicated in the crime themselves for not blowing the whistle in advance. 911 truth movement covers a wide range of positions, so the common caricatures are nonsequiters. The conservative 911 truth positions are the most valid because they make the least inferences about the culprits' identities...focusing only on physical improbabilities like B7
@wfenio I don't think you're paying attention. Biggest conspiracy = hardest to conceal = most risk of failure and discovery = conspirators get lynched by a mob. Or shot by the equivalent of Jack Benny. The chances of pulling this off successfully are so remote that the people who came up with it wouldn't even bother to try.
Also, explosives can't survive a plane impact and hour of fire and still work perfectly.
@EGRJ how do you know the remoteness of succeeding at such an operation? I agree that it is remote for some hijackers... but if it involves high level people, how can we know what resources they would not have at their disposal? also, i'm sorry to say that all one needs to do is watch B-7 come down... if you can convince yourself that a fire would do that then we dont really have a starting point for the discussion. I have no idea who plotted it, i just feel certain about demolition.
@EGRJ I think your assumptions are unwarrated as well.. such a conspiracy might not be as hard to conceal as u think.... especially since those with foreknowledge would most likely have an incentive for not leaking it.. mainly because they would be implicated in the crime and punished for complicity. We don't know near enough about the plotterrs, their numbers, capabilities or relationships to infer such improbabilities... especially when the physical evidence is so blatant.
Wow! That'll teach me to pursue knowledge. May I say that calling a person "shit stain" sort of puts them off checking out anything interesting you might otherwise have mentioned. (I wonder if this were face-to-face, would you let your ego flail around with such abandon?) I apologise profusely for my lack of expertise concerning high-rise steel-structures; consider me firmly put in place by your very large brain.
Gage must say that the government is not ignorant. It is complicit. It is not a condition of ignorance that can be cleared up by imparting information, it is a criminal conspiracy, a cover up. Gage must prefface every encounter with this statement. To believe the official conspiracy story is simply impossible. Those who profess to believe it are either liars or morons.
Gage is a moron. He thinks the govt sincerely believes it wasn't a cd. Total BS. The govt knows it is a murderer. Gage is the most inefffectual advocate of the facts that could have been chosen. His selection was probably the govts biggest success.
it makes perfect sence that the buildings fell. the empire state building fell when a b-25 mitchel crashed in to it. OH WAIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! no it didnt. and neither should have the wtc buildings. these bastards are useing their crimes to justify other larger crimes. the whole thing makes me fucking sick.
@chaosad09 and.. what the hell can we do..WHAT THE HELL CAN ANYONE DO???
We are all just fucked.. the government has already said fuck it to the constitution and you know what I BELIEVE OUR GOVERNmENT AND THE PEOPLE LIVING IN THE NATION ARE mORE OUT OF LINE WITH EACHOTHER THAN HITLER WAS WITH THE GERmAN PEOPLE!!! AT LEAST THEY KNEW!!!!
How come the top floors and roof with no weight crushing them were pulverized into dust?
How come the aluminum wings severed steel core columns at wtc but couldnt even break a window at the pentagon crash and both explanations are officially correct?
Often there are debunkers who claim we can't answer certain questions in the "twoof movement". They'd be right, that's why we want an investigation. I've got 1 question no debunker has ever been able to answer. How do you explain WTC7 collapsing at freefall, through the path of greatest resistance, into dust as a result of office fires? Simple question really. 28 core columns would need to fail within 1/10 of a second of eachother for freefall. From office fires? Really? C'mon, be honest...
you people make me sick, i hope you all fucking die and i mean that, you dont give a shit about the people who lost their lives that day youre trying to prove something that has no factual proof, just THEORIES.
911 the EVENT is a precursor and a revelation.911 and the details of 911 COMPLETELY EXPLAINED; an unpublished book available now.
It is now 9 years later. The culpable untouchable,even in the face of a myriad facts.Understand the subterfuge,and the diversion.Still want to debate? Or is it time long overdue for all the answers?
Mind telling me how 2 airplanes manage to avoid interception in the most heavily controlled and monitored airspace on earth if someone didn't allow it to happen?
@blorgensteen because the alients did it....the jews did it...bush did it.....the media did it....there all in on it...everyone....its all a conspriacy.......the fbi told me...the cia told me.......the smurfs told me.........the umpa lumbas told me........its all one big cover up!! !!
@radiolaugh Nice try, throwing shit in my face for daring to ask a reasonable question. How about giving me a reasonable answer, or are you just another brain dead sheeple?
@blorgensteen ahhhhh be careful! dont u understand bush has powers! dont u understand that u cant report the truth to people cus the media wont report the truth.....most of the thousands of newspapers, the different channels, the different radio stations, the diffferent magazines, they wont tell u the truth!....there all in on it!...and u know why ? ? cus the jews control them...and u know how i know? .....the aliens told me...and u know how they know? .... cus smurfs told them
@blorgensteen The Jews and the Media told me not to answer it. They Control All of America then. And the Aliens and the Government also then don't want me to give with the truth then ..... There all in on it...... There everywhere then here!!!! !!!!! ....... Ahhhhhhhhhh .....Ehhhhhhh....
@blorgensteen and we all know that most of the time when you answer conspriacy theroists with logic and facts they usually come around and change there opinion.....we all know they usually dont say things like "i have experts who disagree" (picking and choosing there experts and not going by what most experts tell then) or they might say "well those answers you gave are from people who worked for the government".......
What convinced me wasn't any expert, it was the fact that two passenger airliners went off course and were not intercepted by USAF fighters, something which was standard operating procedure at the time if an airliner veered from it's flight plan.
That it happened once was bad enough, but within the realm of the possible.
That it happened twice within hours on the same day, in the same airspace was no lapse in vigialnce.
Somebody high up prevented the F-15s from doing their job.
@blorgensteen ok listen to me carefully......there are experts who disbunk 9/11 conspriaracyies.....there are logical answers to some of the questions....the problem is sometimes conspriacy thoeriests pick and choose what experts they want to go by, or they just say things like "well those experts work for the government" or "i dont bleive that evidence".....and then....not only that wood......but then you take certain things that dont have answers and use that to go with your conspiracy
And I understand that, there are a lot of loopers out there with no life.
But for the exact same failure in procedure to happen in the exact same airspace, twice in one day, with indentical results, without someone directing it sounds utterly absurd.
The logical thing to do is close the airspace after the first event.
@blorgensteen ok listen to me carefully......there are experts who disbunk 9/11 conspriaracyies.....there are logical answers to some of the questions....the problem is sometimes conspriacy thoeriests pick and choose what experts they want to go by, or they just say things like "well those experts work for the government" or "i dont bleive that evidence".....and then....not only that wood......but then you take certain things that dont have answers and use that to go with your conspiracy
Look at the overhead pictures of the damage to the other buildings around wtc 1,2 and 7.Some had giant holes from the roof to the ground through them and didnt collapse.With fires too. You can't get a symetrical collapse from asymetrical damage.Where does the rest of the 100 percent stong structure go? There is enough to justify a real investigation at least.
A new fact I heard from RT: According to even the US government, the jet fuel burned off within 15 minutes.
My dad always brings that one up to me, trying to argue that the fuel had something to do with 'structural integrity' and so on.
Also: Steel, being a conductor, would have spread the heat throughout the columns, making it unlikely that the columns would have failed in particular places. No?
@5147848amp Please, take some gasoline and pour it over a simulation of an office building. Set it one fire and wait for it to burn off. Does the fire stop?
@5147848amp So what you are saying is that cutting torches could never work, or flames impinging on steel, in a boiler combustion chamber for example, is impossible, because steel will evenly conduct the heat?
I don't know. Were rogue blow-torches at work on 11/09? I'm saying, why did all the columns fail at the same areas at the same time. It looks neat, it doesn't look chaotic, is what I'm saying. Demolition, is what I'm saying. And no planes hit building seven, yet NIST explain 1 and 2 by planestrike. I have never known a government, or its minion spokespeople, to tell the truth, is what I'm saying. Yeah? Yeah.
@5147848amp My point is that steel does not conduct heat well enough that it would spread throughout the entire 1100 feet before localized heating caused enough weakening of the steel. And the columns did not all fail at the same time. Watch the collapse. it begins where the planes hit (first proof of natural collapse), and it begins to fall over till the remaining beams are supporting too much, which when the building then begins to pancake due to excessive force from the upper floors.
So why, if the fires in building 7 were localised in the lower part of the building (floor 12, right?), did the Penthouse fall first? Why should the heat have been conducted well enough by the steel to reach the top of the building before it failed in the most heated area? Steel must have been a pretty good conductor there.
Nothing is what it seems - you've noticed that, right? - Nothing political, nothing social, nothing physical or biological or spiritual, is what it seems.
The most bizarre aspect of this debate, (and most telling) was when Craig stated that a gravity collapse could account for 90,000 tons of concrete being turned into the consistency of talcum powder, laced with very high concentrations of iron micro-spheres, but a controlled demolition could not.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
even Steven Jones has stated that the concrete was NOT TURNED to 'talcum powder' !!!!
"As we examined the WTC-debris sample, we found large chunks of concrete (irregular in shape and size, one was approximately 5cm X 3 cm X 3cm) Thus, the pulverization was in fact NOT to fine dust, and it is a false premise to start with. Indeed, much of the mass of the MacKinlay sample was clearly in substantial pieces of concrete rather than in fine-dust form'
LOL, I like how you say "Even Steven Jones has stated".....I agree, Steven Jones has lost all his credibility long ago, along with Proffesor Griffin,,keeps spewing his lies even after he promises to stop, admitting and conceding many points in debate, but yet he continues telling the same lies, LOL,,,what a dud.
In the real world, any collapse of building 7 would have been a partial collapse in the direction of the damaged area.
The worst case scenario for 1 and 2 would have been a partial collapse at the point of impact leaving the rest of the building standing.
There is no way on God's green earth that they could have collapsed at near free-fall speed through the path of greatest resistance without the use of controlled demolition.
A point the Anti truthers keep making is that huge pieces of WTC1 fell and damaged WTC7. They say "they were hit from collapsing sky scrapers that were 110 stories high, each the size of a city block." as if this would provide enough structural damage to make WTC7 eventually collapse. But, the damage was to the south west corner which is NOT where column 79 is located. So, yes, if the damage did anything to the structural integrity, there should've been a partial collapse in that area.
oooh look kevin is back to offering personal opinion over evidence again. you're right though kevin, they can't do that. good thing they didn't. that's why debris was spread for blocks and debris preceded collapse. no free fall, plenty of resistance.
@KevinMerck And do you have a degree in structural engineering to determine this? Because people who have decades of experience in structural engineering, and have masters degrees in structural engineering have determined that they could have and they did, but yet you still think its "strictly impossible". You dumbass.
@strongman325- Only the child said "The King Has No clothes." strongman325 has a come back- Hey Kid! Do you have a degree tailoring? You think you are a clothes designer or something? What do you understand about modern fashion! Now shut up and go back to your room you nut case!
@KevinMerck Good thing no version of the gov't reports claimed any such thing, now, isn't it?
Say, how did the explosives' wiring, and detonators survive a plane impact and hour or more of fire, yet evaporate from the debris? That stuff was sitting there for months, looked over by thousands of people and a ton of cameras. Not one Truther has ever been able to point at something and go "look, that used to be part of a bomb!"
@KevinMerck I enjoyed reading your analysis of reality and facts. You are certainly a scientist , a fact seeker and a patriot, or at least a superhero trying to warn us sheep.
@KevinMerck no, it wouldnt be impossible. saying so doesnt make it true. i love how ppl that no shit about physics seem to always think they're experts. sad really .. .
@jizzmonger part2, ... dropping of the eastern penthouse that we see. The collapse progressed east to west to the 2 remaining support columns, also suffering from a lack of structural support due to the collapsing of floors, and total global collapse initiated. There were 8 floors collapsed inside the building, leaving the outer shell. For a better summary you can refer to The Probable Collapse Sequence on page 21 of the NIST WTC7 Final Report.
Ok, I'll paraphrase it for you since either you can't or won't. But then I want you to try to tell reason/s why it's illogical. NIST is saying, thermal expansion on the floor system on floor 13 lead to it's collapse, causing it to cascade on to lower floors, causing floors down to the 5th floor to also collapse. This lead to structural instability for the 79th column, which failed, leading to the start of collapse initiation all the way to the roof line. This is the dropping ...
"The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse REMAIN UNKNOWN at this time," and that it's (quote) "best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence." Emphasis and quote borrowed from huffdaddy76. So, here we have FEMA concluding that they don't know how the building collapses, and yet somehow all the steel gets shipped away before a thorough, comprehensive conclusion can be reached.
Well, you seem to "know" this. Now you should be able to describe it or show it. Why is my opinion important? Because, my opinion is what the average unbiased person will see, that's why. If you can convince me, I will change my mind and go with the argument that has stronger evidence. But I need to be convinced some how. You don't have to cover everything , but the collapse sequence and failure mechanisms explained would be nice.
Well, from what I've observed nobody can "paint the picture" using the collapse sequence that NIST uses. Anyone that tries to describes it, finds gaping logical gaps in it. Not only can you not explain the collapse sequence that you purport to support, I don't think you understand it. We do know that explosives can duplicate what we saw on 9/11 regarding WTC7. But fire????
If you had evidence to support your claims instead of the opinions of laypeople with proven mental problems, then you might be onto something but since all you have are the speculatory fantasies of people with proven mental problems, you're not onto anything.
The 1,000 (and counting) professional architects and engineers who reject the official story because it doesn't add up are not laypeople.
All you can do is lie and engage in ad hominem apparently. From the very beginning you have been trying to reduce this "discussion" to a name-calling match. That only shows you have no leg to stand in a real and mature debate concerning the evidence.
How utterly preposterous! Obviously, you did not listen to the debate above. Gage does not contend that a mininuke brought anything down.
Your ridiculously false claim is a disinformation tactic that people like you, who don't have a leg to stand on in a real debate, use to try to discredit people you can't equal in argument. You lie about them and invent straw men you can more easily knock down.
But that's not even a nice try. It's one of the oldest tricks in the cointel book.
Another lie. Mark Roberts asserts that the "most outspoken" signatory believes that, and then asks Gage if he does. Gage says NO, he doesn't. Gage has not been arguing that and neither have I. So, again, you're not responding with an argument but only trying to change the subject.
So if Gage allows people to sign on that think that nukes brought the towers down, what does that say about the legitimacy of the rest of the people in the organization?
It is you who constantly states that 1000 engineers etc but never bothers to cite the claims they make and the work behind the claims.
As if being an engineer or architect automatically lends credibility to their false claims (whatever they may be).
Gage's lead engineer does, not Gage himself. Even Gage knows when to suppress the voice of his own supporters.
Gage even acknowledges that his lead engineer believes it was a mini-nuke in a debate with mark roberts posted right here on Youtube.
You accuse others of building strawmen yet all I am doing is repeating the words and claims that come out of the mouth's of those you are citing as credible sources.
The meteorites and cross formed are enough evidence for any reasonable person to conclude that temperatures far exceeded those possible under the supposed conditions.
If you don't understand that this was controlled demolition after seeing this clip then you are either hopelessly ignorant, willfully ignorant, or part of the cover-up.
Molten steel is a fact to be dealt with, not an opinion to be debated.
While it's clear there may be room for debate on exactly what temperatures were reached that day, one thing is for sure, temperatures far exceeded the maximum temperature that a hydrocarbon fire could produce under the alleged conditions.
Even after five days and countless gallons of water being pumped on the debris pile the temperatures were around 1500 deg. as confirmed by NASA.
Al CIADA has proclaimed that Osama Bin Hidden has claimed responsibility for the Christmas Day underwear bomber.
Whoda thunk it?
If that's true; I wonder who the "well dressed Indian man" was who walked the incoherent underwear bomber through the airport and got him on the flight without a passport declaring that "it's okay, we do this all the time".
'Architects and Engineers for 9II Truth recentIy received acknowIedgement from the FBl's counterterrorism division, which concIuded that the organization's core evidence deserves - and wiII get - FBl scrutiny. In a letter, Deputy Director MichaeI Heimbach assessed AE 9II's presentation as "backed by thorough research and anaIysis.'
- SiIicon WeekIy
84% reject the official 9II conspiracy theory according to NYT/CBS News PoII.
Al CIADA said that Osama Bin Hidden is now claiming responsibility for the underwear bomber.
Whoda thunk it?
Go to A&E for 9/11 Truth to get a dose of reality.
WTC 1, 2, & 7 were controlled demolition beyond a reasonable doubt. This was not accomplished by a bogeyman in a cave somewhere. High-tech explosives were found in 4 separate dust samples taken from ground zero.
"As time went by you realized that everything was pulverized, there were no desks, no phones and every now and then you would find a fragment of something"
"The grapplers were pulling stuff out, big sections of iron that would burst into flames when they hit the air, which was pretty spooky to see"
"We had windows in the pile that looked like ovens, just roaring inside"
"The fires in the debris pile were like the fires of hell"
The last fire burned itself out on December 19, 2001
"There were rivers of molten steel running down the channel rails, like you were in a foundry"
"The heat is intense; it melts the guy's boots after just a few hours"
"Its been like this for weeks. The deeper we go, the hotter it gets"
"Its been like this since day one and as we get closer to the center, it gets hotter and hotter. We've had windows into the debris pile that look like ovens, just roaring inside, a bright *reddish-orange* color"
The connection had to have a reason to fail as well. The reason wasn't that it was exposed to a 20 minute fire. The reason Sunder is using, is that there was alot of sag on the beams. Well, in order for those fireproofed beams to sag, they'd have to be exposed to fire more than 20 minutes. The fire proofing is effective for 2 hours and there was nothing wrong with the fireproofing.
No, it makes little sense to reply when you don't have a reasonable answer. I understand. You stated the connection in WTC7 failed and was the reason for the collapse. I am telling you that the reason the connector failed according to NIST is because of the sag of the floor spans. But "sag of the floor spans" can't happen with 20 minute fires on 2 hour coded fireproofing.
Sunder says, "So those spans were in fact sagging and were seeing evidence through our analysis of these very large magnitude of sag."
And the question remains, How can there be any sag , buckling, or pulling of beams with only 20 minute fires when there is 2 hour fire proofing? So, maybe you need to inform Shyam Sunder that fire-induced sagging had nothing to do with it. I think Sunder was a part of NIST but you might want to check into it.
Yes, there was never any fire going longer in any one place more than 20 minutes. If it was, it was merely smoldering . You do realize that the fire follows the available fuel, right?
Oh, Sunder said 500 to 600 degrees, not 1800 for WTC7.
Doesn't it seem strange that the connector in question happened on a different side of the building than the purported damaged corner?
Nope , not making up anything. In fact if you look at the teleconference from December 18th, 2007, you can hear the actual engineers make these statements. I'm just reiterating their original questions that have never been satisfactorily answered or followed up on. Where is your evidence, Mr . antitruth.
The pieces that lodged in adjacent buildings were not "ejected" at high speeds by explosives.
What you will notice is that they are all pieces of exterior columns and that some of the damage to the buildings shows where something hit then gouged down the side of the building.
While the building was collapsing, the floors that provide lateral support for the outer columns were stripped away by debris collapsing through the structure. This then allowed the exterior columns to tip away
from the building in long sections. You can clearly see this happening during the collapse. Some of these sections of columns were 600 feet tall and thus their tips fell 600 feet away from the building just like the top of 100 foot tall tree will fall 100 feet away.
These columns tipping away from the building are what gives the collapse the "bannana peel look.
what "bannna peel look?" the building fell straight down and disintegrated. It was the clearly visible explosions and squibs that gave the colapse its demolition look.
Were these explosions the ones that were melting the steel?
Your borderline schizophrenic word salad cannot be made into a reasonable sequence of events yet you still cling to your ideas in a fashion akin to a religious believer.
Does it bother you that in one breath you claim the building was blown apart with explosives and then in the next breath you claim it was melted with an incendiary?
what is there to prevent the perpetrators from using both incendiary devices and explosives? certainly these are not mutually exclusive alternatives. This possibility is acknowledged discussed in the debate above.
There's the signature of thermite found in the WTC dust, documented in peer reviewed publication.
Global, symmetrical collapses, all from asymmetrical damage. Cover story with no explosives violates laws of physics, says 1,000 (and counting) professional architects and engineers.
Liquified steel found in WTC 7 samples, documented but unexplained by FEMA. (Office fires do not burn hot enough to liquify steel.)
The presence of Iron and Aluminum does not prove the presence of thermite especially when there is not evidence on any of the steel of the use of an incediary or explosives combined with the fact that the core stayed standing for a short period of time after the floors and outer walls had fallen.
the cores of the towers by and large had been disintegrated. there is only a sliver of vertical columns that remains swaying momentarily before it, too, crumbles to the ground.
you forgot the sulfur for which FEMA could not account and which NIST ignored in its building 7 "study." the proportions in which these elemenst are found match the signature of thermite.
--Not to mention the many eye witnesses who saw, heard, and/or felt explosions; the symmetrical collapses from asymmetrical damage (a physical impossibility unless explosive were used); and, of course, the liquified steel noted by FEMA. Again, OFFICE FIRES DO NOT GET HOT ENOUGH TO LIQUIFY STEEL.
I'm sure you'll continue to ignore or deny this evidence that contradicts the official conspiracy theory, while pretending the government would never lie to the people about such a historic crime. You apologists are all alike.
It's worth repeating: OFFICE FORES DO NOT BURN HOT ENOUGH TO LIQUIFY STEEL. You, FEMA, and NIST have not accounted for the liquified steel photographed and described by FEMA.
Moreover, asymmetrical damage cannot cause symmetrical collapses. To say otherwise is to persist in delusion and go against the laws of physics. You are not entitled to your own facts.
FEMA DOES have photographs (see Figures C-1, C-2, C-3 of its Building Performance Study). I guess when you're defending a lie, all you can do is lie.
You want measurements on symmetry? Go here
watch?v=POUSJm--tgw
Unlike NIST, this physicist makes his models available for independent testing.
Since you are so concerned about measurement and data validity, why aren't you calling on NIST to release its models so that independent scientists can check its measurements and conclusions?
In America we don't "disprove" things, we prove them.
Your "explosion noises" are the result of the normal building fire along with your Eutectic corrossion and no liquified steel was found by anybody, especially not FEMA.
Your rants about government have nothing to do and no bearing on a technical discussion about a building collapse.
Only a women would think her emotions and feelings could actually change the evidence.
Thermite cannot be heard and does not explode while going off meaning you are making conflicting claims I.E. explosion noises does not prove that there was thermite in the building and of course FEMA never said any steel liquified except for Eutectic corrosion they found on one small sample which most likely occurred within the pile after collapse.
And of course the obvious fact that explosives that would make explosion noises don't work by melting things.
Again, you deny the possibility of both explosives and thermite being used. There is nothing to prevent the perpetrators from using both, so quit the false either/or dichotomy.
FEMA wrote that it was "a possibility" that the corrosion occurred after collapse, but it also said it was possible that it started before. This was a line of inquiry that NIST was supposed to pick up, but did not. Why not?
Explosion noises constitute evidence for explosives.
"Severe high temperature corrosion attack on steel, including oxidation and sulfidation, with subsequent intergranular MELTING" supports demolition hypothesis. Again, office fires are not hot enough to do this!
Again, you pretend that explosives cannot be used together with thermite. Notice that you don't actually have an argument. I suppose you'll call me a "woman" now, as if that were an epithet. Resorting to this kind ad hominem not only shows you have no argument; it also shows you're a chauvinist.
lets say George Bush hired Osama Bin Laden to convince 19 people crazies to crash the planes into the buildings
What is any less of an inside about that? Are you saying that they official story (planes and fires leading to collapse) could not have been an inside job and that only through the use of thermate/mite nano-thermite and explosives could 911 have been an inside job?
Apparently, all you can do is ignore and deny the mounting evidence that contradicts the official story. You'll have to actually make an argument--a convincing one--if you are going to persuade anyone.
You claim the official story did not happen. You are trying to provide evidence that it didn't happen.
That's not how things work since it is impossible to disprove a negative.
It's your job to prove what happened I.E. replace the official story with another one.
So far all you have done is change your theory to fit what you believe is evidence. Fantasies about thermite and explosives used together. Rivers of molten steel. Etc etc....
I see you have given up trying to come up with any kind of plausible counter-argument and have now simply changed the topic, showing no sign that you have actually absorbed any of the documented information in the FEMA report that contradicts the official conspiracy theory.
My claim is that the official story doesn't add up and that we need a truly independent investigation to find out what really happened.
Why am I required to know how exactly the perpetrators pulled off their crimes before you're willing to consider that the official story just doesn't add up? That's something only the perpetrators themselves could possibly know.
I don't know what happened, and neither do you--unless you're one of the perpetrators. If I did know, I wouldn't be calling for a new investigation, along with many victims' family members and 1,000 (and counting) professional architects and engineers.
We already did an investigation and all the information pointed to planes and fires.
There really isn't anything left to say except that the only people who think otherwise are the ones who make claims like the collapse was symmetric when in fact both buildings tilted signifigantly and building 7 's core fell in stages and the facade got a huge kink in the middle where debris from tower2 had gouged out it's face.
How does the FEMA report contradict the official story? I've told you already. FEMA notes the "VERY UNUSUAL" "severe HIGH TEMPERATURE corrosion attack on steel, including oxidation and SULFIDATION, with subsequent intergranular MELTING."
This evidence supports demolition hypothesis and cannot be explained by the fire-did-it hypothesis. Again, office fires are not hot enough to melt steel. NIST ignores this evdience, and then lies about there being no evidence for demolition.
LOL Hufftard, you don't even know what any of those terms mean. The erosion to that piece occurred at temperatures of 1800 degrees.
Unfortunately for you neither explosives nor thermite/mate would cause that sort of damage to the steel and it would have had to have done it to a lot more pieces than that.
The fact that FEMA was only able to find one piece that showed heat erosion helps to disprove your claims even more.
jizz: "...neither explosives nor thermite/mate would cause that sort of damage to the steel and it would have had to have done it to a lot more pieces than that."
So, thermite could not have possibly done that to steel. Yet office fires could? Explain that.
Also, explain what FEMA admittedly could not--the high temperature corrosion attack and the source of the sulfur.
Your homespun "logic" only puts you in a deeper hole.
They knew how it happened, they just couldn't determine a source of the sulfur.
Thermite/Mate adds material to the steel in the form of molten iron. Yould have had re-deposits and slag elsewhere on the sample and FYI, explosives that go boom don't cause heat erosion.
What FEMA found is characteristic heat erosion where heat from a fire has oxidized and carried the steel away in the air.
You can see the same thing on USFS campfire grates.
NO, FEMA did not know how it happened. FEMA states in its report that (quote) "The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse REMAIN UNKNOWN at this time," and that it's (quote) "best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence."
Caught lying again, I see.
If this event was so easy to explain, even comparable to campfire grates (of the same quality and strength as structural steel?), then why couldn't FEMA explain it?
What sophistry! You invent a straw man and then flasely accuse me. I never argued that they FEMA said this one piece of steel caused the collapse. Show me where I stated it. I merely quoted what FEMA stated in its report, that FEMA could not account for the evidence of a "high temperature corrosion attack on the steel"--in their own words, "a very unusual event." You, ignoring what FEMA actually said, treat this event as if nothing could be more ordinary.
FEMA thinks it would be unusual if it occured while the building was still standing, not if it occurred while in the pile and I think I agree with FEMA.
They were unable to determine whether the erosion occurred while the building was still standing or not and felt that further investigation was warranted.
Yea right, that sounds made up. "They were unable to determine whether the erosion occurred while the building was still standing or not..." Care to share where you got this? And why don't you explain what the big difference is if FEMA found the corrosion to take place in the pile as opposed to when it's standing.
Ok, so you can't really describe what your trying to defend. No problem, that's what I thought. If you want the masses to believe you though, you'll have to be able to explain it. I can easily tell you it was explosives, because it looks like it. Simple observation shows WTC7 going down much like a building being demolished. Do you have a sample of building on fire that can do that? Or even a model of how that could happen? A room full of neutral observers I think will vote demolition.
"All we are making you provide is evidence to support your claims."
And I have shown you the evidence, but you either ignore it or call it a fantasy, even though FEMA itself documented it and said that their fire hypothesis could not explain it.
And, of course, you continue to believe that name-calling somehow improves your argument--or compensates for your lack of one. That's homespun "logic" for you.
Please post the sentence or paragraph where FEMA says that fire cannot heat erosion of steel.
FEMA says they think it should be checked out to try and determine if it happened while the building was still standing or from long-term exposure to conditions within the debris pile.
See how you must lie and misrepresent in order for your Truther claims to appear to have any validity?
Again, if office fires could generate the heat required to MELT steel, then FEMA would not have described the "high temperature corrosion attack" as a very unusual event in need of explaining beyond their fire-did-it hypothesis (which, according to FEMA, had only a "low probability" of being correct anyway). FEMA did not have to spell out the obvious because it is was clearly implied--obviously.
No, FEMA says the steel melted at 1800 degrees due to the presence of sulfur on the sample.
This EUTECTIC mixing of the steel and sulfur is what allowed it to erode at such low temperatures.
FEMA felt it needed further investigation because they were unable to determine the source of the sulfur and feared other highrises might have the same issues.
The presence of Aluminum and Iron in a steel building does not prove that there was Thermite in here-said building especially when the steel shows no signs of being melted by thermite
If the sulfur found in those steel samples was so commonplace, why was FEMA so utterly perplexed as to how it got there? FEMA stated in its report that the source of the sulfur it found was "unknown" and the "severe high temperature corrosion attack" on the steel was a very unusual event--stated in the FEMA report.
This has been flagged as spam show
This clip is simple but its message is deep and it might make you think. Or not. Either way take care of yourself
/watch?v=s_VSRH5_KJ4&feature=channel_video_title
TruthWithinRange 1 week ago
where can i find the rest of this debate?
ajahni 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
We the seven billion of Earth want nothing but Peace, Love and Light on Earth always.We want the END of ALL WAR on this planet and the end of the NUCLEAR NIGHTMARE
Official First Contact and the end of the TRUTH EMBARGO will soon be here
Richard Gage speaks for the compassionate HEART of AMERICA NOW
Love and protect Earth and her precious Air, Water and Soil by all means
Help us ban HYDRO FRACKING Worldwide as this poisons Trillions of gallons of fresh water 4 all generations
OnenessNow 5 months ago
@blackjerryboymetal way to deal with the arguments... fuck your mother!!
wfenio 7 months ago
@blackjerryboymetal
I apologise for the (significant) gaps in my engineering knowledge. Let's chalk that up to going through government-endorsed school curricula for now.
Perhaps you could elaborate on your position without speaking to me so impolitely: you're much more likely to get a fair hearing if you treat your listener with some rudimentary respect. So, why IS a steel truss fireproofed?
5147848amp 7 months ago
I think it comes down to credibility. Do you want to listen to a guy like Gage pushing an agenda and pushing it now because he has no job and his wife left him BECAUSE of this crap (True!!) Or do you choose to listen to people like Les Robertson (the guy who built the WTC implicitly understands the load calculations.. DESIGNED THEM!! and said..."There is no way one floor is going to hold 14 or more stories falling on it... NO WAY!!"
This man is an esteemed classy professional with ZERO agenda
roquefortfiles 8 months ago
I like how Gage doesn't actually present a single fact for all his bluster.
Also, the "professionals" aren't all active. A lot are retired. Very little are actual civil engineers.
EGRJ 9 months ago
Is it plausible that a politician would risk execution, and the death of the Republican party, by attacking his own population in the world's biggest, and therefore hardest to conceal, conspiracy?
A leaked Pentagon memo from around 2002 discusses strategies for declassifying info regarding the JFK assassination. A drip feed approach is recommended to to keep people concentrated on things that are of no concern to centres of power. This diverts energy from their actual, known, crimes. Familiar?
BeveledSpilchOnion 10 months ago
@BeveledSpilchOnion Chomsky makes the same points. But his assumption about the probability of leaks is invalid since the leakers would most likely be implicated in the crime themselves for not blowing the whistle in advance. 911 truth movement covers a wide range of positions, so the common caricatures are nonsequiters. The conservative 911 truth positions are the most valid because they make the least inferences about the culprits' identities...focusing only on physical improbabilities like B7
wfenio 9 months ago
@wfenio I don't think you're paying attention. Biggest conspiracy = hardest to conceal = most risk of failure and discovery = conspirators get lynched by a mob. Or shot by the equivalent of Jack Benny. The chances of pulling this off successfully are so remote that the people who came up with it wouldn't even bother to try.
Also, explosives can't survive a plane impact and hour of fire and still work perfectly.
EGRJ 9 months ago
@EGRJ how do you know the remoteness of succeeding at such an operation? I agree that it is remote for some hijackers... but if it involves high level people, how can we know what resources they would not have at their disposal? also, i'm sorry to say that all one needs to do is watch B-7 come down... if you can convince yourself that a fire would do that then we dont really have a starting point for the discussion. I have no idea who plotted it, i just feel certain about demolition.
wfenio 9 months ago
@EGRJ I think your assumptions are unwarrated as well.. such a conspiracy might not be as hard to conceal as u think.... especially since those with foreknowledge would most likely have an incentive for not leaking it.. mainly because they would be implicated in the crime and punished for complicity. We don't know near enough about the plotterrs, their numbers, capabilities or relationships to infer such improbabilities... especially when the physical evidence is so blatant.
wfenio 9 months ago
@blackjerryboymetal
Why not attempt an explanation? Hurling abuse doesn't help me in my understanding, nor does it serve any useful purpose for you.
5147848amp 1 year ago
@blackjerryboymetal Were you born an idiot, or should we blame your mother for your ridiculous shortcomings? You fucking tool.
Seigu007 1 year ago
@blackjerryboymetal
Wow! That'll teach me to pursue knowledge. May I say that calling a person "shit stain" sort of puts them off checking out anything interesting you might otherwise have mentioned. (I wonder if this were face-to-face, would you let your ego flail around with such abandon?) I apologise profusely for my lack of expertise concerning high-rise steel-structures; consider me firmly put in place by your very large brain.
5147848amp 1 year ago
@5147848amp well said, sir. You exhibit a lot of qualities of a critical thinker.
supercooled 1 year ago
Gage must say that the government is not ignorant. It is complicit. It is not a condition of ignorance that can be cleared up by imparting information, it is a criminal conspiracy, a cover up. Gage must prefface every encounter with this statement. To believe the official conspiracy story is simply impossible. Those who profess to believe it are either liars or morons.
G0560 1 year ago
Gage is a moron. He thinks the govt sincerely believes it wasn't a cd. Total BS. The govt knows it is a murderer. Gage is the most inefffectual advocate of the facts that could have been chosen. His selection was probably the govts biggest success.
G0560 1 year ago
Govt strategy is deny the facts and blatantly lie. It is time for action. Demonstrations in the streets of every city, especially Washington D.C.
Pretending to debate is merely another government stonewall ploy.
Lieberman's perfect example, he pretends to not know about building 7
G0560 1 year ago
Free fall speed. [Now acknowledged by NIST]
Molten Metal under all three of the collapsed bldgs.
Thermate residue in dust.
Obvious C.D. video of bldg 7.
If one can watch 7 come down and still support the official account of 9/11, one must be either ignorant, an idiot, or in on it.
smujismuj 1 year ago
Silly debate. Evidence overwhelming that the official story is bullshit. OVERWHELMING.
LazlosPlane 1 year ago
it makes perfect sence that the buildings fell. the empire state building fell when a b-25 mitchel crashed in to it. OH WAIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! no it didnt. and neither should have the wtc buildings. these bastards are useing their crimes to justify other larger crimes. the whole thing makes me fucking sick.
chaosad09 1 year ago 3
@chaosad09 and.. what the hell can we do..WHAT THE HELL CAN ANYONE DO???
We are all just fucked.. the government has already said fuck it to the constitution and you know what I BELIEVE OUR GOVERNmENT AND THE PEOPLE LIVING IN THE NATION ARE mORE OUT OF LINE WITH EACHOTHER THAN HITLER WAS WITH THE GERmAN PEOPLE!!! AT LEAST THEY KNEW!!!!
Bojoe777NaBl 1 year ago
@Bojoe777NaBl yep we are completely fucked. :(
chaosad09 1 year ago
How come the top floors and roof with no weight crushing them were pulverized into dust?
How come the aluminum wings severed steel core columns at wtc but couldnt even break a window at the pentagon crash and both explanations are officially correct?
zenoist2 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Often there are debunkers who claim we can't answer certain questions in the "twoof movement". They'd be right, that's why we want an investigation. I've got 1 question no debunker has ever been able to answer. How do you explain WTC7 collapsing at freefall, through the path of greatest resistance, into dust as a result of office fires? Simple question really. 28 core columns would need to fail within 1/10 of a second of eachother for freefall. From office fires? Really? C'mon, be honest...
rkymtntruther 1 year ago
LOGICAL CONCLUSION:
WTC: A PERFECT DEMOLITION WORK WITH THERMITE AND TNT.
THE IMPACT OF AIRCRAFT: NOT SHEAR THE STRUCTURE OF STEEL AND NOT PULVERIZE CONCRETE.
QUESTIONS:
- quantity of explosives needed to implode the towers?
- WHO, WHEN AND HOW TO SUCH HUGE AMOUNT OF EXPLOSIVES WERE INSTALLED?
- AS A HUGE AMOUNT OF EXPLOSIVES Wander into the WTC without being detected?
- WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SAFETY OF WTC AND WHO WERE DOING PART OF THE TEAM OF SECURITY?
WawsestilL 1 year ago
WTC: AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT, THE ORGANIZED CRIMINALS
(THE REAL SECRET NORTH-AMERICAN SOCIETY) HAS ABILITY TO DO TO ACHIEVE ITS OBJECTIVES...
- CALL THE SUPERMAN!!!!
WawsestilL 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
you people make me sick, i hope you all fucking die and i mean that, you dont give a shit about the people who lost their lives that day youre trying to prove something that has no factual proof, just THEORIES.
jayisbomb8893 1 year ago
What brought the WTC buildings down?
The name A MERIC A.
911 the EVENT is a precursor and a revelation.911 and the details of 911 COMPLETELY EXPLAINED; an unpublished book available now.
It is now 9 years later. The culpable untouchable,even in the face of a myriad facts.Understand the subterfuge,and the diversion.Still want to debate? Or is it time long overdue for all the answers?
AmericAWordsMatter 1 year ago
u conspiracy thoerist need to do other psoitive tihings in live instaed of wasting your time with stuff like this
radiolaugh 1 year ago
@radiolaugh
Mind telling me how 2 airplanes manage to avoid interception in the most heavily controlled and monitored airspace on earth if someone didn't allow it to happen?
blorgensteen 1 year ago
@blorgensteen because the alients did it....the jews did it...bush did it.....the media did it....there all in on it...everyone....its all a conspriacy.......the fbi told me...the cia told me.......the smurfs told me.........the umpa lumbas told me........its all one big cover up!! !!
radiolaugh 1 year ago
@radiolaugh Nice try, throwing shit in my face for daring to ask a reasonable question. How about giving me a reasonable answer, or are you just another brain dead sheeple?
blorgensteen 1 year ago
@blorgensteen ahhhhh be careful! dont u understand bush has powers! dont u understand that u cant report the truth to people cus the media wont report the truth.....most of the thousands of newspapers, the different channels, the different radio stations, the diffferent magazines, they wont tell u the truth!....there all in on it!...and u know why ? ? cus the jews control them...and u know how i know? .....the aliens told me...and u know how they know? .... cus smurfs told them
radiolaugh 1 year ago
@radiolaugh
Just answer the question, it's a simple enough thing to do.
Or does the thought of actually examining a fact you can't bullshit away scare you?
blorgensteen 1 year ago
@blorgensteen The Jews and the Media told me not to answer it. They Control All of America then. And the Aliens and the Government also then don't want me to give with the truth then ..... There all in on it...... There everywhere then here!!!! !!!!! ....... Ahhhhhhhhhh .....Ehhhhhhh....
radiolaugh 1 year ago
@radiolaugh
There you go boys and girls, radiolaugh is apparently too stupid to do anything beyond parrot the same answer a grand total of three times.
He'd make a perfect neocon.
blorgensteen 1 year ago
@blorgensteen and we all know that most of the time when you answer conspriacy theroists with logic and facts they usually come around and change there opinion.....we all know they usually dont say things like "i have experts who disagree" (picking and choosing there experts and not going by what most experts tell then) or they might say "well those answers you gave are from people who worked for the government".......
radiolaugh 1 year ago
@radiolaugh
What convinced me wasn't any expert, it was the fact that two passenger airliners went off course and were not intercepted by USAF fighters, something which was standard operating procedure at the time if an airliner veered from it's flight plan.
That it happened once was bad enough, but within the realm of the possible.
That it happened twice within hours on the same day, in the same airspace was no lapse in vigialnce.
Somebody high up prevented the F-15s from doing their job.
blorgensteen 1 year ago
@blorgensteen ok listen to me carefully......there are experts who disbunk 9/11 conspriaracyies.....there are logical answers to some of the questions....the problem is sometimes conspriacy thoeriests pick and choose what experts they want to go by, or they just say things like "well those experts work for the government" or "i dont bleive that evidence".....and then....not only that wood......but then you take certain things that dont have answers and use that to go with your conspiracy
radiolaugh 1 year ago
Comment removed
blorgensteen 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@radiolaugh
And I understand that, there are a lot of loopers out there with no life.
But for the exact same failure in procedure to happen in the exact same airspace, twice in one day, with indentical results, without someone directing it sounds utterly absurd.
The logical thing to do is close the airspace after the first event.
blorgensteen 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@blorgensteen ok listen to me carefully......there are experts who disbunk 9/11 conspriaracyies.....there are logical answers to some of the questions....the problem is sometimes conspriacy thoeriests pick and choose what experts they want to go by, or they just say things like "well those experts work for the government" or "i dont bleive that evidence".....and then....not only that wood......but then you take certain things that dont have answers and use that to go with your conspiracy
radiolaugh 1 year ago
Debate is a great thing. It's one of the ways of locating the truth.
Unfortunately it can fail easily if one side simply denies the evidence... Like Craig ignoring micro-spheres in this case.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
9/11 was an inside dumbass job
Beezy2127 1 year ago
Look at the overhead pictures of the damage to the other buildings around wtc 1,2 and 7.Some had giant holes from the roof to the ground through them and didnt collapse.With fires too. You can't get a symetrical collapse from asymetrical damage.Where does the rest of the 100 percent stong structure go? There is enough to justify a real investigation at least.
mvanherd 1 year ago
same questions still ignoring the answers
Obelisk2290 1 year ago
A new fact I heard from RT: According to even the US government, the jet fuel burned off within 15 minutes.
My dad always brings that one up to me, trying to argue that the fuel had something to do with 'structural integrity' and so on.
Also: Steel, being a conductor, would have spread the heat throughout the columns, making it unlikely that the columns would have failed in particular places. No?
5147848amp 2 years ago 15
no.
kingjoelofmoles 2 years ago
@5147848amp
Correct.
TheJamezMan 1 year ago
@5147848amp Please, take some gasoline and pour it over a simulation of an office building. Set it one fire and wait for it to burn off. Does the fire stop?
EGRJ 9 months ago
@5147848amp titanic was impossible to sink....what? frozen ice did it? THAT IMPOSSIBLE!! CONTROLLED DEMOLITION!!!! itdiot,,,,,,,
kushsmokkeralt 8 months ago
@5147848amp I dunno bud, you are the scientist with the facts.. you tell me!
helicopterraids 7 months ago
@5147848amp So what you are saying is that cutting torches could never work, or flames impinging on steel, in a boiler combustion chamber for example, is impossible, because steel will evenly conduct the heat?
quedorf 5 months ago
@quedorf
I don't know. Were rogue blow-torches at work on 11/09? I'm saying, why did all the columns fail at the same areas at the same time. It looks neat, it doesn't look chaotic, is what I'm saying. Demolition, is what I'm saying. And no planes hit building seven, yet NIST explain 1 and 2 by planestrike. I have never known a government, or its minion spokespeople, to tell the truth, is what I'm saying. Yeah? Yeah.
5147848amp 5 months ago
@5147848amp My point is that steel does not conduct heat well enough that it would spread throughout the entire 1100 feet before localized heating caused enough weakening of the steel. And the columns did not all fail at the same time. Watch the collapse. it begins where the planes hit (first proof of natural collapse), and it begins to fall over till the remaining beams are supporting too much, which when the building then begins to pancake due to excessive force from the upper floors.
quedorf 5 months ago
@quedorf
So why, if the fires in building 7 were localised in the lower part of the building (floor 12, right?), did the Penthouse fall first? Why should the heat have been conducted well enough by the steel to reach the top of the building before it failed in the most heated area? Steel must have been a pretty good conductor there.
Nothing is what it seems - you've noticed that, right? - Nothing political, nothing social, nothing physical or biological or spiritual, is what it seems.
5147848amp 5 months ago
@quedorf even nist says there was NO EVIDENCE of pancaking .
occision 3 months ago
The most bizarre aspect of this debate, (and most telling) was when Craig stated that a gravity collapse could account for 90,000 tons of concrete being turned into the consistency of talcum powder, laced with very high concentrations of iron micro-spheres, but a controlled demolition could not.
HELLO !
KevinMerck 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
even Steven Jones has stated that the concrete was NOT TURNED to 'talcum powder' !!!!
"As we examined the WTC-debris sample, we found large chunks of concrete (irregular in shape and size, one was approximately 5cm X 3 cm X 3cm) Thus, the pulverization was in fact NOT to fine dust, and it is a false premise to start with. Indeed, much of the mass of the MacKinlay sample was clearly in substantial pieces of concrete rather than in fine-dust form'
YOU ARE A MORON merck !!!!!
LOLCATS3111 2 years ago
LOL, I like how you say "Even Steven Jones has stated".....I agree, Steven Jones has lost all his credibility long ago, along with Proffesor Griffin,,keeps spewing his lies even after he promises to stop, admitting and conceding many points in debate, but yet he continues telling the same lies, LOL,,,what a dud.
JPPolachek 1 year ago
In the real world, any collapse of building 7 would have been a partial collapse in the direction of the damaged area.
The worst case scenario for 1 and 2 would have been a partial collapse at the point of impact leaving the rest of the building standing.
There is no way on God's green earth that they could have collapsed at near free-fall speed through the path of greatest resistance without the use of controlled demolition.
That would be *strictly impossible*.
KevinMerck 2 years ago 34
A point the Anti truthers keep making is that huge pieces of WTC1 fell and damaged WTC7. They say "they were hit from collapsing sky scrapers that were 110 stories high, each the size of a city block." as if this would provide enough structural damage to make WTC7 eventually collapse. But, the damage was to the south west corner which is NOT where column 79 is located. So, yes, if the damage did anything to the structural integrity, there should've been a partial collapse in that area.
charlesfloyb 2 years ago 2
@KevinMerck
oooh look kevin is back to offering personal opinion over evidence again. you're right though kevin, they can't do that. good thing they didn't. that's why debris was spread for blocks and debris preceded collapse. no free fall, plenty of resistance.
grandmastershek 1 year ago
@KevinMerck then why did more smaller injured biuldins not collapse. totall bullshit.
Beezy2127 1 year ago
@KevinMerck THAT'S THE WAY I SEE IT! I DON'T GET WHAT OTHERS STRUGGLE WITH SO MUCH. IT'S REALLY SIMPLE WHEN YOU BOIL IT DOWN TO 9TH GRADE PHYSICS!
rkymtntruther 1 year ago
@KevinMerck And do you have a degree in structural engineering to determine this? Because people who have decades of experience in structural engineering, and have masters degrees in structural engineering have determined that they could have and they did, but yet you still think its "strictly impossible". You dumbass.
strongman325 1 year ago
@strongman325- Only the child said "The King Has No clothes." strongman325 has a come back- Hey Kid! Do you have a degree tailoring? You think you are a clothes designer or something? What do you understand about modern fashion! Now shut up and go back to your room you nut case!
2ndSamuel710 1 year ago
@KevinMerck Good thing no version of the gov't reports claimed any such thing, now, isn't it?
Say, how did the explosives' wiring, and detonators survive a plane impact and hour or more of fire, yet evaporate from the debris? That stuff was sitting there for months, looked over by thousands of people and a ton of cameras. Not one Truther has ever been able to point at something and go "look, that used to be part of a bomb!"
EGRJ 9 months ago
@KevinMerck your a faggot
kushsmokkeralt 8 months ago
@KevinMerck You are a fucking idiot.
12weasel100 8 months ago
@KevinMerck I enjoyed reading your analysis of reality and facts. You are certainly a scientist , a fact seeker and a patriot, or at least a superhero trying to warn us sheep.
helicopterraids 7 months ago
@KevinMerck no, it wouldnt be impossible. saying so doesnt make it true. i love how ppl that no shit about physics seem to always think they're experts. sad really .. .
keggerous 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jizzmonger part2, ... dropping of the eastern penthouse that we see. The collapse progressed east to west to the 2 remaining support columns, also suffering from a lack of structural support due to the collapsing of floors, and total global collapse initiated. There were 8 floors collapsed inside the building, leaving the outer shell. For a better summary you can refer to The Probable Collapse Sequence on page 21 of the NIST WTC7 Final Report.
charlesfloyb 2 years ago
@jizzmonger,
Ok, I'll paraphrase it for you since either you can't or won't. But then I want you to try to tell reason/s why it's illogical. NIST is saying, thermal expansion on the floor system on floor 13 lead to it's collapse, causing it to cascade on to lower floors, causing floors down to the 5th floor to also collapse. This lead to structural instability for the 79th column, which failed, leading to the start of collapse initiation all the way to the roof line. This is the dropping ...
charlesfloyb 2 years ago
The "Six Pillars" (Dwain Deets NASA) that prove CD beyond a reasonable doubt are
Horizontal ejections of multi-ton steel sections up to 600 ft at 60 mph
Asymmetrical damage resulting in symmetrical "collapse"
"Collapse" at near free-fall acceleration
Positive identification of Nano-Thermite
Tons of molten iron under all three structures
Temperatures well above those possible in a hydrocarbon fire under the alleged conditions
Go to A&E for 9/11 Truth to get the facts.
KevinMerck 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse REMAIN UNKNOWN at this time," and that it's (quote) "best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence." Emphasis and quote borrowed from huffdaddy76. So, here we have FEMA concluding that they don't know how the building collapses, and yet somehow all the steel gets shipped away before a thorough, comprehensive conclusion can be reached.
charlesfloyb 2 years ago
@charlesfloyb
We already know fire did it. For some reason you assume that if you don't understand or don't believe the reasons that it somehow makes it not true.
Why do you think your opinion is so important?
jizzmonger 2 years ago
Well, you seem to "know" this. Now you should be able to describe it or show it. Why is my opinion important? Because, my opinion is what the average unbiased person will see, that's why. If you can convince me, I will change my mind and go with the argument that has stronger evidence. But I need to be convinced some how. You don't have to cover everything , but the collapse sequence and failure mechanisms explained would be nice.
charlesfloyb 2 years ago
@charlesfloyb
I don't have time to paint a picture for someone who is blind.
jizzmonger 2 years ago
Well, from what I've observed nobody can "paint the picture" using the collapse sequence that NIST uses. Anyone that tries to describes it, finds gaping logical gaps in it. Not only can you not explain the collapse sequence that you purport to support, I don't think you understand it. We do know that explosives can duplicate what we saw on 9/11 regarding WTC7. But fire????
charlesfloyb 2 years ago
@charlesfloyb
NIST doesn't explain the collapses for 1 and 2 after initiatiation so I assume you mean building 7.
Why don't you tell us what NIST says happened to building 7.
jizzmonger 2 years ago 2
If you had evidence to support your claims instead of the opinions of laypeople with proven mental problems, then you might be onto something but since all you have are the speculatory fantasies of people with proven mental problems, you're not onto anything.
All you do is make yourselves look like idiots.
Most likely because you are.
jizzmonger 2 years ago
The 1,000 (and counting) professional architects and engineers who reject the official story because it doesn't add up are not laypeople.
All you can do is lie and engage in ad hominem apparently. From the very beginning you have been trying to reduce this "discussion" to a name-calling match. That only shows you have no leg to stand in a real and mature debate concerning the evidence.
huffdaddy76 2 years ago
@huffdaddy76
And those 1000 people are utterly incapable of producing paper and experiments to prove their claims, whatever they may be.
Kind of pathetic. Especially when the "lead" engineer at AEtruth thinks a mini-nuke in the basement brought the towers down.
ROTFLMAO!
jizzmonger 2 years ago
How utterly preposterous! Obviously, you did not listen to the debate above. Gage does not contend that a mininuke brought anything down.
Your ridiculously false claim is a disinformation tactic that people like you, who don't have a leg to stand on in a real debate, use to try to discredit people you can't equal in argument. You lie about them and invent straw men you can more easily knock down.
But that's not even a nice try. It's one of the oldest tricks in the cointel book.
huffdaddy76 2 years ago
Show me where Gage says what you accuse him of saying.
huffdaddy76 2 years ago
@huffdaddy76
Show you where Gage acknowledges that his lead engineer thinks a Mini-Nuke brought the towers down?
No problem!
It's right here my good chap!
watch?v=A1W2sRQebtE
jizzmonger 2 years ago
Another lie. Mark Roberts asserts that the "most outspoken" signatory believes that, and then asks Gage if he does. Gage says NO, he doesn't. Gage has not been arguing that and neither have I. So, again, you're not responding with an argument but only trying to change the subject.
huffdaddy76 2 years ago
@huffdaddy76
So if Gage allows people to sign on that think that nukes brought the towers down, what does that say about the legitimacy of the rest of the people in the organization?
It is you who constantly states that 1000 engineers etc but never bothers to cite the claims they make and the work behind the claims.
As if being an engineer or architect automatically lends credibility to their false claims (whatever they may be).
jizzmonger 2 years ago
@huffdaddy76
Gage's lead engineer does, not Gage himself. Even Gage knows when to suppress the voice of his own supporters.
Gage even acknowledges that his lead engineer believes it was a mini-nuke in a debate with mark roberts posted right here on Youtube.
You accuse others of building strawmen yet all I am doing is repeating the words and claims that come out of the mouth's of those you are citing as credible sources.
jizzmonger 2 years ago
It's important to watch the whole clip.
watch?v=8YaFGSPErKU
The meteorites and cross formed are enough evidence for any reasonable person to conclude that temperatures far exceeded those possible under the supposed conditions.
If you don't understand that this was controlled demolition after seeing this clip then you are either hopelessly ignorant, willfully ignorant, or part of the cover-up.
Molten steel is a fact to be dealt with, not an opinion to be debated.
KevinMerck 2 years ago
@KevinMerck
So the jets of material shooting out down below the collapse zone were the steel being melted?
jizzmonger 2 years ago
While it's clear there may be room for debate on exactly what temperatures were reached that day, one thing is for sure, temperatures far exceeded the maximum temperature that a hydrocarbon fire could produce under the alleged conditions.
Even after five days and countless gallons of water being pumped on the debris pile the temperatures were around 1500 deg. as confirmed by NASA.
Five days and countless gallons of water.
The last fire burned itself out on Dec. 19, 2001.
KevinMerck 2 years ago
@KevinMerck
Fires were still buring 3 months later.
FYI, fires generate heat theirfore spraying water on the pile when it was continuously being heated wouldn't have resulted in much cooling.
I am surprised you didn't know that fires generated heat.
Well actually, no I'm not, afterall you're 911 truther. ROFL!
jizzmonger 2 years ago
The bogeyman speaks again!
Al CIADA has proclaimed that Osama Bin Hidden has claimed responsibility for the Christmas Day underwear bomber.
Whoda thunk it?
If that's true; I wonder who the "well dressed Indian man" was who walked the incoherent underwear bomber through the airport and got him on the flight without a passport declaring that "it's okay, we do this all the time".
watch?v=mAtK7FFDukQ
Anyone heard any more on this?
KevinMerck 2 years ago
'Architects and Engineers for 9II Truth recentIy received acknowIedgement from the FBl's counterterrorism division, which concIuded that the organization's core evidence deserves - and wiII get - FBl scrutiny. In a letter, Deputy Director MichaeI Heimbach assessed AE 9II's presentation as "backed by thorough research and anaIysis.'
- SiIicon WeekIy
84% reject the official 9II conspiracy theory according to NYT/CBS News PoII.
Don't let a misguided minority obstruct justice.
KevinMerck 2 years ago
Al CIADA said that Osama Bin Hidden is now claiming responsibility for the underwear bomber.
Whoda thunk it?
Go to A&E for 9/11 Truth to get a dose of reality.
WTC 1, 2, & 7 were controlled demolition beyond a reasonable doubt. This was not accomplished by a bogeyman in a cave somewhere. High-tech explosives were found in 4 separate dust samples taken from ground zero.
KevinMerck 2 years ago
"As time went by you realized that everything was pulverized, there were no desks, no phones and every now and then you would find a fragment of something"
"The grapplers were pulling stuff out, big sections of iron that would burst into flames when they hit the air, which was pretty spooky to see"
"We had windows in the pile that looked like ovens, just roaring inside"
"The fires in the debris pile were like the fires of hell"
The last fire burned itself out on December 19, 2001
KevinMerck 2 years ago
"There were rivers of molten steel running down the channel rails, like you were in a foundry"
"The heat is intense; it melts the guy's boots after just a few hours"
"Its been like this for weeks. The deeper we go, the hotter it gets"
"Its been like this since day one and as we get closer to the center, it gets hotter and hotter. We've had windows into the debris pile that look like ovens, just roaring inside, a bright *reddish-orange* color"
How did tons of steel melt?
KevinMerck 2 years ago
The connection had to have a reason to fail as well. The reason wasn't that it was exposed to a 20 minute fire. The reason Sunder is using, is that there was alot of sag on the beams. Well, in order for those fireproofed beams to sag, they'd have to be exposed to fire more than 20 minutes. The fire proofing is effective for 2 hours and there was nothing wrong with the fireproofing.
charlesfloyb 2 years ago
It makes little sense to reply to you when you can't even focus on one topic.
jizzmonger 2 years ago
No, it makes little sense to reply when you don't have a reasonable answer. I understand. You stated the connection in WTC7 failed and was the reason for the collapse. I am telling you that the reason the connector failed according to NIST is because of the sag of the floor spans. But "sag of the floor spans" can't happen with 20 minute fires on 2 hour coded fireproofing.
charlesfloyb 2 years ago
@charlesfloyb
NIST never said the floors in WTC 7 failed because of fire-induced sagging.
NIST said the floors in towers 1 and 2 sagged causing inward pull on the exterior columns until they were too distorted to carry the load.
jizzmonger 2 years ago
Sunder says, "So those spans were in fact sagging and were seeing evidence through our analysis of these very large magnitude of sag."
And the question remains, How can there be any sag , buckling, or pulling of beams with only 20 minute fires when there is 2 hour fire proofing? So, maybe you need to inform Shyam Sunder that fire-induced sagging had nothing to do with it. I think Sunder was a part of NIST but you might want to check into it.
charlesfloyb 2 years ago
@charlesfloyb
20 minutes worth of fire? How long was WTC 7 and WTC's 1 and 2 on fire?
And, how long do you think 1800 degree heat takes to heat up a piece of 1/4 steel bar or flat stock?
jizzmonger 2 years ago
Yes, there was never any fire going longer in any one place more than 20 minutes. If it was, it was merely smoldering . You do realize that the fire follows the available fuel, right?
Oh, Sunder said 500 to 600 degrees, not 1800 for WTC7.
Doesn't it seem strange that the connector in question happened on a different side of the building than the purported damaged corner?
charlesfloyb 2 years ago
@charlesfloyb
Now you're just making stuff up and making claims disguised as questions.
Another reason you're a 911 Truther.
jizzmonger 2 years ago
Nope , not making up anything. In fact if you look at the teleconference from December 18th, 2007, you can hear the actual engineers make these statements. I'm just reiterating their original questions that have never been satisfactorily answered or followed up on. Where is your evidence, Mr . antitruth.
charlesfloyb 2 years ago
@charlesfloyb
And another Charles, your jumbled mess of thoughts skips around too fast for a sane person like myself to follow.
Who knows if you are talking about WTC 1, 2 or 7?
I give you a reply as it concerns to towers 1 and 2 but in the next breath you are talking about 7 and think my answer pertains to 7.
Inability to focus is just another reason you're a 911 Truther.
jizzmonger 2 years ago
The pieces that lodged in adjacent buildings were not "ejected" at high speeds by explosives.
What you will notice is that they are all pieces of exterior columns and that some of the damage to the buildings shows where something hit then gouged down the side of the building.
While the building was collapsing, the floors that provide lateral support for the outer columns were stripped away by debris collapsing through the structure. This then allowed the exterior columns to tip away
jizzmonger 2 years ago
@jizzmonger
from the building in long sections. You can clearly see this happening during the collapse. Some of these sections of columns were 600 feet tall and thus their tips fell 600 feet away from the building just like the top of 100 foot tall tree will fall 100 feet away.
These columns tipping away from the building are what gives the collapse the "bannana peel look.
jizzmonger 2 years ago
what "bannna peel look?" the building fell straight down and disintegrated. It was the clearly visible explosions and squibs that gave the colapse its demolition look.
huffdaddy76 2 years ago
@huffdaddy76
"Visible explosions and squibs"
Were these explosions the ones that were melting the steel?
Your borderline schizophrenic word salad cannot be made into a reasonable sequence of events yet you still cling to your ideas in a fashion akin to a religious believer.
Does it bother you that in one breath you claim the building was blown apart with explosives and then in the next breath you claim it was melted with an incendiary?
jizzmonger 2 years ago
what is there to prevent the perpetrators from using both incendiary devices and explosives? certainly these are not mutually exclusive alternatives. This possibility is acknowledged discussed in the debate above.
huffdaddy76 2 years ago
@huffdaddy76
There is no evidence for explosives or incendiaries.
jizzmonger 2 years ago
There's eye witness testimony.
There's the signature of thermite found in the WTC dust, documented in peer reviewed publication.
Global, symmetrical collapses, all from asymmetrical damage. Cover story with no explosives violates laws of physics, says 1,000 (and counting) professional architects and engineers.
Liquified steel found in WTC 7 samples, documented but unexplained by FEMA. (Office fires do not burn hot enough to liquify steel.)
huffdaddy76 2 years ago
@huffdaddy76
The presence of Iron and Aluminum does not prove the presence of thermite especially when there is not evidence on any of the steel of the use of an incediary or explosives combined with the fact that the core stayed standing for a short period of time after the floors and outer walls had fallen.
Your claims are pure fantasy.
jizzmonger 2 years ago
the cores of the towers by and large had been disintegrated. there is only a sliver of vertical columns that remains swaying momentarily before it, too, crumbles to the ground.
you forgot the sulfur for which FEMA could not account and which NIST ignored in its building 7 "study." the proportions in which these elemenst are found match the signature of thermite.
huffdaddy76 2 years ago
--Not to mention the many eye witnesses who saw, heard, and/or felt explosions; the symmetrical collapses from asymmetrical damage (a physical impossibility unless explosive were used); and, of course, the liquified steel noted by FEMA. Again, OFFICE FIRES DO NOT GET HOT ENOUGH TO LIQUIFY STEEL.
huffdaddy76 2 years ago
I'm sure you'll continue to ignore or deny this evidence that contradicts the official conspiracy theory, while pretending the government would never lie to the people about such a historic crime. You apologists are all alike.
huffdaddy76 2 years ago
It's worth repeating: OFFICE FORES DO NOT BURN HOT ENOUGH TO LIQUIFY STEEL. You, FEMA, and NIST have not accounted for the liquified steel photographed and described by FEMA.
Moreover, asymmetrical damage cannot cause symmetrical collapses. To say otherwise is to persist in delusion and go against the laws of physics. You are not entitled to your own facts.
huffdaddy76 2 years ago
@huffdaddy76
NIST and FEMA have no photographs of liquified steel.
Your "assymetrical damage symetrical collapse" claim is utterly frivolous because you aren't defining what "symmetry" means.
When in your eyes, would the collapse have been "assymetrical"? What measurements and datum points are using for the cut-offs?
The tops of both towers tilted, one a lot more than the other.
Is this tilting what you call symmetry in Trutherland?
jizzmonger 2 years ago
FEMA DOES have photographs (see Figures C-1, C-2, C-3 of its Building Performance Study). I guess when you're defending a lie, all you can do is lie.
You want measurements on symmetry? Go here
watch?v=POUSJm--tgw
Unlike NIST, this physicist makes his models available for independent testing.
Since you are so concerned about measurement and data validity, why aren't you calling on NIST to release its models so that independent scientists can check its measurements and conclusions?
huffdaddy76 2 years ago
@huffdaddy76
In America we don't "disprove" things, we prove them.
Your "explosion noises" are the result of the normal building fire along with your Eutectic corrossion and no liquified steel was found by anybody, especially not FEMA.
Your rants about government have nothing to do and no bearing on a technical discussion about a building collapse.
Only a women would think her emotions and feelings could actually change the evidence.
Are you a women Huffdaddy?
jizzmonger 2 years ago
@huffdaddy76
Thermite cannot be heard and does not explode while going off meaning you are making conflicting claims I.E. explosion noises does not prove that there was thermite in the building and of course FEMA never said any steel liquified except for Eutectic corrosion they found on one small sample which most likely occurred within the pile after collapse.
And of course the obvious fact that explosives that would make explosion noises don't work by melting things.
jizzmonger 2 years ago
Again, you deny the possibility of both explosives and thermite being used. There is nothing to prevent the perpetrators from using both, so quit the false either/or dichotomy.
FEMA wrote that it was "a possibility" that the corrosion occurred after collapse, but it also said it was possible that it started before. This was a line of inquiry that NIST was supposed to pick up, but did not. Why not?
huffdaddy76 2 years ago
Explosion noises constitute evidence for explosives.
"Severe high temperature corrosion attack on steel, including oxidation and sulfidation, with subsequent intergranular MELTING" supports demolition hypothesis. Again, office fires are not hot enough to do this!
huffdaddy76 2 years ago
@huffdaddy76
Ah yes, I can recall the days at the foundry and when I welded railroad tracks, the distinct loud booms that melting steel and nano-thermite make.
jizzmonger 2 years ago
Again, you pretend that explosives cannot be used together with thermite. Notice that you don't actually have an argument. I suppose you'll call me a "woman" now, as if that were an epithet. Resorting to this kind ad hominem not only shows you have no argument; it also shows you're a chauvinist.
huffdaddy76 2 years ago
@huffdaddy76
I agree that I am a chauvinist.
lets say George Bush hired Osama Bin Laden to convince 19 people crazies to crash the planes into the buildings
What is any less of an inside about that? Are you saying that they official story (planes and fires leading to collapse) could not have been an inside job and that only through the use of thermate/mite nano-thermite and explosives could 911 have been an inside job?
jizzmonger 2 years ago
@huffdaddy76
Sure, it's also a possibility that Aliens with Death Rays shot it down.
Anything is a possibility if you ignore the evidence.
There is just as much evidence those little aliens did it as there is that it was brought down with explosives or nano-thermite.
jizzmonger 2 years ago
Apparently, all you can do is ignore and deny the mounting evidence that contradicts the official story. You'll have to actually make an argument--a convincing one--if you are going to persuade anyone.
huffdaddy76 2 years ago
@huffdaddy76
You claim the official story did not happen. You are trying to provide evidence that it didn't happen.
That's not how things work since it is impossible to disprove a negative.
It's your job to prove what happened I.E. replace the official story with another one.
So far all you have done is change your theory to fit what you believe is evidence. Fantasies about thermite and explosives used together. Rivers of molten steel. Etc etc....
jizzmonger 2 years ago
I see you have given up trying to come up with any kind of plausible counter-argument and have now simply changed the topic, showing no sign that you have actually absorbed any of the documented information in the FEMA report that contradicts the official conspiracy theory.
My claim is that the official story doesn't add up and that we need a truly independent investigation to find out what really happened.
huffdaddy76 2 years ago
Why am I required to know how exactly the perpetrators pulled off their crimes before you're willing to consider that the official story just doesn't add up? That's something only the perpetrators themselves could possibly know.
I don't know what happened, and neither do you--unless you're one of the perpetrators. If I did know, I wouldn't be calling for a new investigation, along with many victims' family members and 1,000 (and counting) professional architects and engineers.
huffdaddy76 2 years ago
@huffdaddy76
We already did an investigation and all the information pointed to planes and fires.
There really isn't anything left to say except that the only people who think otherwise are the ones who make claims like the collapse was symmetric when in fact both buildings tilted signifigantly and building 7 's core fell in stages and the facade got a huge kink in the middle where debris from tower2 had gouged out it's face.
jizzmonger 2 years ago
@huffdaddy76
How does the FEMA report contradict the official story?
jizzmonger 2 years ago
How does the FEMA report contradict the official story? I've told you already. FEMA notes the "VERY UNUSUAL" "severe HIGH TEMPERATURE corrosion attack on steel, including oxidation and SULFIDATION, with subsequent intergranular MELTING."
This evidence supports demolition hypothesis and cannot be explained by the fire-did-it hypothesis. Again, office fires are not hot enough to melt steel. NIST ignores this evdience, and then lies about there being no evidence for demolition.
huffdaddy76 2 years ago
@huffdaddy76
LOL Hufftard, you don't even know what any of those terms mean. The erosion to that piece occurred at temperatures of 1800 degrees.
Unfortunately for you neither explosives nor thermite/mate would cause that sort of damage to the steel and it would have had to have done it to a lot more pieces than that.
The fact that FEMA was only able to find one piece that showed heat erosion helps to disprove your claims even more.
jizzmonger 2 years ago
jizz: "...neither explosives nor thermite/mate would cause that sort of damage to the steel and it would have had to have done it to a lot more pieces than that."
So, thermite could not have possibly done that to steel. Yet office fires could? Explain that.
Also, explain what FEMA admittedly could not--the high temperature corrosion attack and the source of the sulfur.
Your homespun "logic" only puts you in a deeper hole.
huffdaddy76 2 years ago
@huffdaddy76
They knew how it happened, they just couldn't determine a source of the sulfur.
Thermite/Mate adds material to the steel in the form of molten iron. Yould have had re-deposits and slag elsewhere on the sample and FYI, explosives that go boom don't cause heat erosion.
What FEMA found is characteristic heat erosion where heat from a fire has oxidized and carried the steel away in the air.
You can see the same thing on USFS campfire grates.
jizzmonger 2 years ago
NO, FEMA did not know how it happened. FEMA states in its report that (quote) "The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse REMAIN UNKNOWN at this time," and that it's (quote) "best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence."
Caught lying again, I see.
If this event was so easy to explain, even comparable to campfire grates (of the same quality and strength as structural steel?), then why couldn't FEMA explain it?
huffdaddy76 2 years ago
@huffdaddy76
FEMA never claimed their little piece of eroded steel is what lead to the collapse of building 7.
Another strawman on your part. FEMA also did not conduct an investigation into the collapses because FEMA is not qualified to do so.
jizzmonger 2 years ago
What sophistry! You invent a straw man and then flasely accuse me. I never argued that they FEMA said this one piece of steel caused the collapse. Show me where I stated it. I merely quoted what FEMA stated in its report, that FEMA could not account for the evidence of a "high temperature corrosion attack on the steel"--in their own words, "a very unusual event." You, ignoring what FEMA actually said, treat this event as if nothing could be more ordinary.
huffdaddy76 2 years ago
@huffdaddy76
FEMA thinks it would be unusual if it occured while the building was still standing, not if it occurred while in the pile and I think I agree with FEMA.
They were unable to determine whether the erosion occurred while the building was still standing or not and felt that further investigation was warranted.
jizzmonger 2 years ago
Yea right, that sounds made up. "They were unable to determine whether the erosion occurred while the building was still standing or not..." Care to share where you got this? And why don't you explain what the big difference is if FEMA found the corrosion to take place in the pile as opposed to when it's standing.
charlesfloyb 2 years ago
@charlesfloyb
Better yet, why don't you tell us how this heat erosion that occurred at 1800 degrees proves the use of explosives.
jizzmonger 2 years ago
Ok, so you can't really describe what your trying to defend. No problem, that's what I thought. If you want the masses to believe you though, you'll have to be able to explain it. I can easily tell you it was explosives, because it looks like it. Simple observation shows WTC7 going down much like a building being demolished. Do you have a sample of building on fire that can do that? Or even a model of how that could happen? A room full of neutral observers I think will vote demolition.
charlesfloyb 2 years ago
@charlesfloyb
How do you know the steel sample FEMA is citing was damaged by explosives?
jizzmonger 2 years ago
@huffdaddy76
All we are making you provide is evidence to support your claims.
That's all.
If your claims have no evidence, why do you continue to make them? Is it because you're a bonkers nutcase?
I think it so.
jizzmonger 2 years ago
"All we are making you provide is evidence to support your claims."
And I have shown you the evidence, but you either ignore it or call it a fantasy, even though FEMA itself documented it and said that their fire hypothesis could not explain it.
And, of course, you continue to believe that name-calling somehow improves your argument--or compensates for your lack of one. That's homespun "logic" for you.
huffdaddy76 2 years ago
@huffdaddy76
Please post the sentence or paragraph where FEMA says that fire cannot heat erosion of steel.
FEMA says they think it should be checked out to try and determine if it happened while the building was still standing or from long-term exposure to conditions within the debris pile.
See how you must lie and misrepresent in order for your Truther claims to appear to have any validity?
jizzmonger 2 years ago
Again, if office fires could generate the heat required to MELT steel, then FEMA would not have described the "high temperature corrosion attack" as a very unusual event in need of explaining beyond their fire-did-it hypothesis (which, according to FEMA, had only a "low probability" of being correct anyway). FEMA did not have to spell out the obvious because it is was clearly implied--obviously.
huffdaddy76 2 years ago
@huffdaddy76
No, FEMA says the steel melted at 1800 degrees due to the presence of sulfur on the sample.
This EUTECTIC mixing of the steel and sulfur is what allowed it to erode at such low temperatures.
FEMA felt it needed further investigation because they were unable to determine the source of the sulfur and feared other highrises might have the same issues.
jizzmonger 2 years ago
@huffdaddy76
The presence of Aluminum and Iron in a steel building does not prove that there was Thermite in here-said building especially when the steel shows no signs of being melted by thermite
jizzmonger 2 years ago
again, you selectively ignore evidence. you fail to account for the presence of sulfur.
huffdaddy76 2 years ago
@huffdaddy76
Sulfur was present in the jet fuel, the drywall, the paint used on the steel, the carpet and any other number of things in the building.
The presence of sulfur does not prove the presence of Nano-Thermite especially when NT does not contain sulfur.
jizzmonger 2 years ago
Thermate does.
Alieaz 2 years ago
If the sulfur found in those steel samples was so commonplace, why was FEMA so utterly perplexed as to how it got there? FEMA stated in its report that the source of the sulfur it found was "unknown" and the "severe high temperature corrosion attack" on the steel was a very unusual event--stated in the FEMA report.
huffdaddy76 2 years ago