Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(911Blogger)   Panicky 9/11 truth nutjobs debate Oakland gas tanker incident, see their WTC conspiracy theories collapse as quickly as that highway did   ( 911blogger.com) divider line
    More: Followup  
•       •       •

19551 clicks; posted to Main » on 30 Apr 2007 at 3:55 PM (10 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



589 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2007-05-01 06:36:29 AM  
It was an inside job farkers, just stop licking establishment boots.
 
2007-05-01 06:41:08 AM  
Torok

The fuel loads are well known. Facts are facts. They don't load planes full of fuel that are only going to use a third of that fuel on a trip. The weight factor would be too costly to carry fuel you weren't going to use.

http://guardian.150m.com/wtc/how-hot.htm

The psychological background of the people who did this aren't a factor in the facts. Right now we are talking about facts.

How much fuel do you think were in the planes when they hit, and where are your links. Where are your facts?
 
2007-05-01 06:50:58 AM  
I just realized one way that 5 people could pull off 911.

I think that if all 5 people were Jack Bauer, it might actually be possible.
 
2007-05-01 06:51:19 AM  
Wow, this thread is still hot? It must be the thermite.

enki40

it seems your only answer is derision.

On behalf of rational people everywhere, I apologize. It's very hard to repeatedly battle with people in opposition to common sense. It's not that we unanimously consider the govt. to be a shining beacon of virtue, it is just the implausibility of your faction's viewpoint.

Life is not a movie pal, and the plots behind evil shiat are rarely so complicated. You think I'm closing my eyes to the truth? Perhaps I am. In the same way I close my eyes to the truth of a flat earth or the faked lunar landing.

I mean...I've never been to space
 
2007-05-01 06:53:52 AM  
enki40

You need to answer my question about how you get those involved to go along with it.

Tell us
 
2007-05-01 07:00:49 AM  
enki40

http://guardian.150m.com/wtc/how-hot.htm

By the way, this link you posted doesn't mean anything. You could have made that site, it is not a credible or well known source.
 
2007-05-01 07:01:54 AM  
Torok

Nobody was talking about they whys and wherefores of the people behind this--I would say this much---Bush wasn't part of the planning or execution of the plan.


Now before your attempted deflection---why was there molten steel at the WTC and none at the bridge?
 
2007-05-01 07:02:55 AM  
Torok---where is YOUR link if you don't like mine.
 
2007-05-01 07:08:37 AM  
enki40

I'm not the one making up "facts".

You still have not answered my question, you seem to be trying very very hard to avoid even mentioning it.
 
2007-05-01 07:11:43 AM  
Here are the stats on the 767. Unless you don't consider Boeing to be a reliable source.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/767family/pf/pf_200prod.html

Seems they had the fuel capacity right. What specifically on the site I posted do you find in error?
 
2007-05-01 07:15:38 AM  
Ok, this is my last post. Answer my question about how you get Americans to kill other Americans in these attacks.

Like I predicted in my fBoobies, I know that you will not, and can not, answer me. I have known that this is what you would do all along. My repeated requests were simply to demonstrate how impotent you truly are when asked the tough questions.
 
2007-05-01 07:16:11 AM  
Torok

How should I know how they got so many people to be involved? Because i don't know how they got so many people involved that must mean that there was no melted steel at the WTC? Is that what you are saying? Because I don't know how they got so many people involved, that must mean that there was melted steel at the bridge? WTF is your point? Let me just say---I don't know how they got so many people involved.

Now why was there melted steel at the WTC and none at the bridge?
 
2007-05-01 07:19:09 AM  
I must have missed which of the "facts" I have posted you have disproved. Care to point one out?
 
2007-05-01 07:24:07 AM  
enki40

It would be impossible to get that many people involved. I think thats the point. It is not possible to convince enough Americans to do it.

Your second link doesn't contain any information about how much fuel was on the planes that hit the WTC. It means nothing.

You guys should have just invented a story about Bush paying the terrorists to do it. That is not so insane of an idea people might actually believe you. It's too late now I guess.

/or is it?
 
2007-05-01 07:28:27 AM  
enki40

Scientific American

Popular Mechanics

There are quite a few other professional and amateur rebuttals with far more thought and research in them than I can spout personally. But as you will...horrible events tend to spawn weird theories to cope with it.

You probably aren't a bad fellow in person, but I'm always amazed at the need to spice up a horrible event.
 
2007-05-01 07:31:15 AM  
rickets007

Impossible is an overused word, and if the facts show otherwise, impossible is entirely possible. Facts are there was melted steel at the WTC and none at the bridge.

The second link shows that the first link was accurate as far as the fuel capacity and range of the 767 goes. Is it your contention that they load 767s to capacity when they are only going to use a third that much in flight? The first site quotes FEMA.

Where are your links?
 
2007-05-01 07:34:02 AM  
borland502

ho hum---can't stand on your own and have to site things you haven't even read.

But this is where we are. There was melted steel at the WTC and none at the Bridge.

Pull a quote from the Popular mecahnins or Scientific American sites and explain why. Read something for once. Start with your own links.
 
2007-05-01 07:53:52 AM  
The explosion and fire on the wtc was insane. It was probably the biggest and most horrific structural fire that has ever hit a building of that size. The thing I object to the most about people like enki40 is that they seem to have no regard for the people who died in the most horrible ways. When I hear it described as a small kerosene fire contained to just a few floors it makes me sick. Sometimes I wonder what these people would say about it if they were on the upper floors of the building when it was hit. The inferno was so hellish that many decided to take their own lives and jump. This inferno was more than enough to collapse the buildings. There wasn't any significant amount of liquefied metal at the wtc site but a lot of the steel would have been bent and twisted beyond recognition.

I honesty don't think that rnki40 is a bad person but his ignorance sickens me so much that I will not engage him in a debate.
 
2007-05-01 08:00:28 AM  
You insult the dead of 911 by not investigating who and what killed them.If the government conspiracy theory were correct, there should be no problems in investigation. But these are the facts.

Bush was against any investigation---against forming the 911 commission. Bush would not testify before the commission under oath. Bush would not tesify without Cheney being there. Bush would not testify unless his testimony was withheld from the public.

There is no credible evidence connecting arabs with boxcutters to 911

There was melted steel at the WTC.

There was no melted steel at the bridge.
 
2007-05-01 08:10:16 AM  
What about all the cellphone calls from passengers on the hijacked airplanes that said "Arabs with box cutters just hijacked our flight"? Many of these were calls to 911 and were recorded at the dispatcher. Also, the flight data recorder and an air traffic control heard a broadcast from the hijackers.

I'm done with you now.
 
2007-05-01 08:14:18 AM  
None of the calls you posted mentioned arabs with boxcutters---haven't you read anything? Post your link. Post one link where one of those calls went to an operator and mentioned arabs with boxcutters.


just one.
 
2007-05-01 08:16:44 AM  
What calls? What passengers? I thought that the planes were remote controlled and a missile?
 
2007-05-01 08:21:21 AM  
You've never thought anything. You just parrot what those around you say.
 
2007-05-01 08:31:19 AM  
enki40

ho hum---can't stand on your own and have to site things you haven't even read.

The word is cite and I have read both, though I paid more attention to the PM article. I "cited" both since you were touching on old 9/11 saws that aren't true.

Read something for once.

Sure, I even read things that I don't necessarily like...Richard Dawkin's The God Delusion being the most recent completion. I'm working on Seizing the Enigma by David Kahn right now. Hell, I majored in English and read the text of more dead white males than you can shake a stick at. So you can say I've read things a time or two.

There is no credible evidence connecting arabs with boxcutters to 911

Then the US govt. did an extraordinary job setting up their interactions with at least one flight school in my memory. Plus, you think the govt. would have manufactured Iraqi nationals, or perhaps Iranian, rather than the more embarrassing Saudi story.

There was no melted steel at the bridge.

Well, you have me there. That just makes everything clear now. It couldn't possibly be that the confined space of a building intensified the heat. Nonetheless, the fire did weaken the steel: "The driver escaped just before the overhead ramp collapsed -- the fire had melted its steel undergirders." (From the SF Chronicle)

Hmm, now what happens before steel melts? Ah, it weakens. Not to mention that jet fuel has a higher of energy per volume while gasoline has a lower energy rating per volume.

The fact that steel weakened rather than pooling into a puddle is really no proof at all that you're right. Hmm, and a few of the articles I've read have used the word "melt"...could be that it did in parts. Shall we read more?
 
2007-05-01 08:47:14 AM  
This thread is amazing.
 
2007-05-01 09:51:42 AM  
enki40


If the Goverment and Media are in on the 9/11 attacks would they not want to cover it up all the way?

Why would they let you and your Truthers uncover such a huge secret?

Why do they let you and the LC boys tell the World the "truth" about 9/11?

Why are you still alive, if the goverment is comfortable killing 3000+?

/BTW Happy masterbation month.. FAP...FAP....FAP!
 
2007-05-01 11:02:51 AM  
enki40: Facts are there was melted steel

Your.a.idiot.

Show me where melted steel was seen and documented at the WTC.

No really.

I want to see it.

If it was so prevalent then there should be dozens (if not hundreds) of images showing it. Or are you going to say that out of the hundreds (thousands even) of people working the site that not one... one person couldn't take a cell phone picture? That out of all of the millions of people that surrounded the site over the months of cleanup that not one could take a picture out of it?

Let me make this clear.

If you're going to make accusations you had better have you're ducks in a row. Who. What. When. Where. Why and how are good places to start. And attribute your sources, try not to pull it out of your ass because all that will do is make me call it shiat.

/in a bad mood this morning
 
2007-05-01 11:18:34 AM  
There is a direct positive correlation between number of conspiracy theories believed and number of daily inhaled bong hits.
I wonder what percentage of "Truth" people actually like Phish.
 
2007-05-01 11:25:56 AM  
Melted?
Weakened.
Melted?
Weakened.
Melted?
Weakened.

Just have to keep repeating it until the next time a Democrat wins the Presidency. I don't think these people will be interested in reality before then.

The sad thing was, I'm pretty sure most of them LIVED THROUGH 9/11. There should be an age and nationality identifier on every comment on the Interweb; it's difficult to believe this many adult Americans are this stupid.
 
2007-05-01 11:37:39 AM  
Engineering is the tool the devil uses to pull the cloth over the eyes of atheists.

//Or something like that
 
2007-05-01 11:40:12 AM  
My sister is a Truther, the girlfriend of Jack Blood (jackblood.com). Please pray for me because she is moving to the town where I live and I don't think she'll like seeing how often I roll my eyes at her rants (she can't see it over the phone).
 
2007-05-01 11:48:25 AM  
enki40

I think the people of 9/11 were killed by Muslim Terrorists. That has been well documented by almost all of the worlds goverments. I am also including some governments that would love nothing better than to make the US look bad (Russia, and other Arab States).

That type of arguement is the stupidest one around. It is the same type that idiots that think we faked the moon landing believe and spout.

All you are doing is showing that you want to run with a group of nonconformists so bad that you left your brain behind you.

This is the only arguement that I will give you. You don't argue with a slug or a cockroach....you squish or pour salt on it. They just don't have the mental capabilities to see reason on why they shouldn't exist.
 
2007-05-01 12:09:13 PM  
let me be a truther for a day:

a number of buildings were completely obliterated by tornadoes in fort worth, tx. the tornado was classified as a class 2 tornado, meaning its maximum sustained winds would have been 157 mph. yet wood and glass debris was found embedded in concrete and and brick. for this to have occurred, the debris would have to have been driven into these surfaces at well over 200 mph. it's all just a government conspiracy to keep the insurance companies in business. they can claim the damage could not have been caused by such a weak tornado. by not investigating that the tornado may have been caused by cheney's weather machine, they are complicit in the event. we all know that debris like this cannot be driven into hard materials and that our tornado classification system is perfect and we never misclassify a tornado. there is no possibility that we don't completely understand the dynamics of the situation. it had to be an inside job.

/next on the list: government conspiracy to explain the lack of hot girls knocking at my door since i am classified as a severe stud
 
2007-05-01 12:11:07 PM  
Radioactive Ass wrote:
> sadly there is no 429truth.org yet

There is, however, www.429truth.com
 
2007-05-01 12:41:08 PM  
herbaljohnson

It was an F2 tornado that caused damage like an F3 tornado.

I live about 10-20 miles from there. You also have to include the wind tunnel effect by the buildings. That would have made it much more intense because the wind wouldn't have had a wide open space to weaken. That and most of the glass fell from a 37 and a 40 story buildings. That could have greatly trengthened the impact of said debris. Not only would they have had the force of the tornado they would have had the force of gravity behind them.

I know you were being funny so I am just trying to debunk your theory. It is all in good fun. ;-)
 
2007-05-01 12:42:29 PM  
Again, if you refer only to steel melted by fire and never to fireweakened steel then you admit that your theory has been debunked by your intentional omission.

To believe yourself an expert without this crucial difference being acknowledged is complete bullshiat.

Have you ever seen and olde tyme blacksmithy? They use iron, but the principle is the same.

Does a blacksmith melt the iron, then pour it into a mold to make a horseshoe? No - he heats a bar of iron in a fire and then proceeds to bend it into shape.

Therefore - now I know this may be difficult to comprehend - fire has weakened the iron enough so that it is pliable. And this using a fire of burning wood, which is far cooler than jet fuel or gasoline.

I know steel is an alloy and is much stronger than iron, but the analogy still applies.

Unless the government is using camera tricks to make the History Channel's "Wild West Tech" look like it explains the making of horseshoes...
 
2007-05-01 12:47:55 PM  
jso2897:Your "theory" (Kennedy, 9/11, you name it) is incredibly complex. It would have required the complicity of hundreds, maybe thousands of people. We all know damn well, and have since we were five, that the human being who can keep a secret for any significant length of time is a rarity. And yet, with all the years(or decades) that have elapsed since the event, NOT A SINGLE ONE of these conspirators has blabbed. Not one. How is this even remotely possible? How statistically improbable does something have to be before you reject it as an explanation?

"All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one." In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest hypothetical entities.

Occam's Razor (also spelled Ockham's razor) is a principle attributed to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar William of Ockham. The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating, or "shaving off," those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae ("law of parsimony" or "law of succinctness"):

entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem,

which translates to:

entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity.
 
2007-05-01 01:49:48 PM  
The best part about this?

The guy who posted the "debunking" article has this in his signature:

"Physics/Science/Mathematics do not lie, only people do."

ORLY?
 
2007-05-01 03:18:21 PM  
Mugato
That's Imperial propaganda. Recent evidence has shown that his attacker shot first. Besides, Han wasn't even in the Alliance at that time.

*SIGH*

That's EXACTLY what I'd expect from a Revisionist "Greedo Shot First" Truther!!!

The "Greedo Shot First Cantina video" WAS CLEARLY an AMATEUR photoshop/fake/videoedit from a later date.

I mean, really! The "Han Shot First" video might look more clumsy from a technical standpoint... BUT THAT'S BECAUSE IT'S THE REAL DEAL. You know, from the actual point in time (i.e. THE REAL THING).

You can see the work from the cameraman in the "Han Shot First" video... whereas the "Greedo Shot First" video looks like it's been run through a video editing processor (i.e. I'll spell it out for you truthers... "GREEDO SHOT FIRST" IS AS FAKE AS ANNA NICOLE'S BOOBIES & HOWARD K STERN'S BABY CLAIMS).

Lastly, WHY DO YOU HATE SCIENCE, YOU "GREEDO SHOT FIRST" TRUTHER REVISIONISTS?!!

*SIGH*
 
2007-05-01 03:45:40 PM  
This will explain it all!!11!!111!!!eleventy!

Unfastened Coins (pops)
 
2007-05-01 04:16:08 PM  
ONE QUESTIONJ(tm):
Your "theory" (Kennedy, 9/11, you name it) is incredibly complex. It would have required the complicity of hundreds, maybe thousands of people.


Nope. How did we pull off the Manhattan Project? For years the secret was safe. Didn't thousands of people know? No. It's called compartmentalization and most government agencies, especially defense related ones, practice it.

All you need are a few well-placed directors who know what's going on. The rest of the people involved don't have a clue. Able Danger is able to keep tabs on some nutty arabs and make sure they go through with their suicide plot. Their controller in some other country makes sure they set the date the same day that the war games and simulations are planned, but this controller doesn't really know who's pulling the strings.

All in all you may need a dozen people that actually know the details.

And to the questions about molten metal at the WTC site.

Remember the "hot spots" that were there for quite a while afterwards. Everyone was wondering WTF?
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/thermal.r09.html

http://www.wnbc.com/news/962722/detail.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/12/19/archive/main321907.shtml

How the hell was it hot for weeks?

Just asking?
 
2007-05-01 04:24:17 PM  
Oh, and could someone please make sure you call me a name, preferably ending in _tard. k thx
 
2007-05-01 04:45:10 PM  
Borland 502

"The word is cite and I have read both, though I paid more attention to the PM article. I "cited" both since you were touching on old 9/11 saws that aren't true."

Thank you for the correction---it was late and I had been working on a website. Which old saws are you referring to, and why not post the rebuttal rather than the whole article. Posting the whole article makes it seem like you haven't read anything.
There is no credible evidence connecting arabs with boxcutters to 911

"Then the US govt. did an extraordinary job setting up their interactions with at least one flight school in my memory. Plus, you think the govt. would have manufactured Iraqi nationals, or perhaps Iranian, rather than the more embarrassing Saudi story."

Strange their names weren't on any of the passenger lists. Strange that they were bright enough to get on the planes without their names showing up and yet stupid enough to leave a suitcase with all their names at the check in counter. Sure was lucky we found Atta's passport in pristine condition on top of the rubble. Now what is your proof they were on that plane? That some arabs took flying lessons?
There was no melted steel at the bridge.

"Well, you have me there. That just makes everything clear now. It couldn't possibly be that the confined space of a building intensified the heat. Nonetheless, the fire did weaken the steel: "The driver escaped just before the overhead ramp collapsed -- the fire had melted its steel undergirders." (From the SF Chronicle)"

The confined space of the building would have restricted the airflow--that was not the case at the bridge where there was unrestricted airflow. Also, the intense smoke at the WTC restricted the oxygen available for the fire to use, lowering the temperature even more. At the WTC, the steel wasn't just weakened---it melted and flowed. As to your melted bridgework reported by the SF Chronicle---here's my link to the SF Chronicle and there is no mention of melted steel undergirders.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/29/BAGVOPHQU4​6.DTL

Where's your link?
"Hmm, now what happens before steel melts? Ah, it weakens. Not to mention that jet fuel has a higher of energy per volume while gasoline has a lower energy rating per volume."


You seem to be mistaken according to Wikipedia.

Gasoline is more volatile than diesel oil, Jet-A or kerosene, not only because of the base constituents, but because of the additives that are put into it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline

You did know "Jet Fuel" is kerosene didn't you?

"kerosene (kěr'ə-sēn') Pronunciation Key
A thin, light-colored oil that is a mixture of hydrocarbons derived from petroleum. The hydrocarbons in kerosene contain between 11 and 12 carbon atoms. Kerosene is used as a fuel in lamps, home heaters and furnaces, and jet engines."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/kerosene

Where are your links?

"The fact that steel weakened rather than pooling into a puddle is really no proof at all that you're right. Hmm, and a few of the articles I've read have used the word "melt"...could be that it did in parts. Shall we read more?"

Please do, and post your links to that melting. I've shown you that the gasoline in that truck had all the oxygen it needed and the WTC did not. I've shown you that gasoline burns hotter than kerosene(jet fuel). I've shown you that there was a good probablity that there was less fuel available at the WTC(less than 5000 gal in the building after impact) than there was at the bridge (8,600 gal), and all the heat from the bridge was concentrated on one area unlike the WTC---and yet no melted steel at the bridge.
 
2007-05-01 04:55:14 PM  
First off, the President didn't start giving bennies to companies like Kellogg Brown & Root (Halliburton is their parent company); by the end of Clinton's second term, one out of every seven Pentagon dollars went to KBR. Gore's 'streamlining' of the government ("Reinventing Government" initiative) meant that the Defence Department had to rely more and more on outside contractors for their business; that continues to this day. KBR has long standing contracts to perform work for the federal government, and a long relationship, as does Betchel, etc.

Secondly, just because you question the administration, you don't get an automatic Patriot Badge (tm). There were demonstrators during WWII; by virtue of their opposition, should we laud them for that simple act? Is that all it takes? That's a really low bar and very self-congratulatory.

Thirdly, it's funny that someone trotted out Jones, but thousands of experts in the field of materials, metallurgy and structural engineering are ignored, as are tens of thousands of eye-witnesses on the ground and millions on TV. But listen to the 'truthers'. Ah... the narcotic of people agreeing with you...inhale deeply.

Fourth, what about the Cole? What about the Khobar Towers? What about the embassies? What about Bali? Intelligence isn't perfect and it's separating the wheat from the chaff and doing it in time that's the tricky part. As others have said, hindsight is 20/20. It's putting a puzzle together when you already know what the finished product will look like.

Five, why would smoke and restricted space keep the heat down? Ever hear of an oven? Or how a fireplace uses a draft? Have you read any of the first hand accounts of the Towers after the crash? "102 Minutes" is a good place to start. Plenty of fire, tons of heat, lots of inflammable material and broken sprinkler systems as a result of the impacts. Sounds like combustion heaven to me!

Six, this is my first Fark post.
 
2007-05-01 05:13:54 PM  
Radioactive Ass

For you to ask of pictures of melted steel at the WTC shows you have really done no research at all. Look at the post by Jigger at 4:16. There are links to melted steel all over the place. Here--a nice video.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Cx33GuVsUtE&mode=related&search=
 
2007-05-01 05:25:49 PM  
Linlithgow

"Five, why would smoke and restricted space keep the heat down?"

As stated--smoke reduces the amount of oxygen available, as does the restricted space.

"Ever hear of an oven?"

Yep--electric ones don't need oxygen, so I would assume you are talking about gas ovens---reduce the oxygen supply to your gas oven and see what happens. See if you can melt steel with it.

"Have you read any of the first hand accounts of the Towers after the crash? "

Have you?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Cx33GuVsUtE&mode=related&search=

"Plenty of fire, tons of heat, lots of inflammable material and broken sprinkler systems as a result of the impacts. Sounds like combustion heaven to me!"

Whoopee---so which of those combustibles when burning will melt steel?
 
2007-05-01 05:31:09 PM  
Jedimk

I think the people of 9/11 were killed by Muslim Terrorists. That has been well documented by almost all of the worlds goverments. I am also including some governments that would love nothing better than to make the US look bad (Russia, and other Arab States).


I missed that documentation. Please post a link. I think those links are in your delusions. Have some more kool-aid. As a matter of fact---just link to the documentation by the United States.
 
2007-05-01 06:27:06 PM  
enki40

My favorite part about you folks is you don't understand the difference between molten steel and molten metal. There was molten metal (most likely things like aluminum/titantium/mixtures of various metals), but there's no proof of molten steel. Hmm I wonder what the planes were made of?

I deal with you people everyday, and you aren't even close to the brighest I've come across.
 
2007-05-01 06:28:23 PM  
enki40

"I missed that documentation. Please post a link. I think those links are in your delusions. Have some more kool-aid. As a matter of fact---just link to the documentation by the United States."

lawlz at the guy scolding people for ignoring videos when he seems to have ignored the hijacker martyrdom videos and Osama's several videos on the subject.
 
2007-05-01 06:42:25 PM  
enki40: http://youtube.com/watch?v=Cx33GuVsUtE&mode=related&search=

Your lack of reading comprehension is astounding. Read again what I posted:

Radioactive Ass: Show me where melted steel was seen and documented at the WTC.

See what I did there? Steel, not metal. There are several metals with a much lower melting point than steel such as aluminum and copper that were present in the buildings by the tons.

Now on to your little clip. The narrator says that the engineer of the WTC (Les Robertson) said that there was molten metal (again, not steel, just metal). Why don't they actually show him saying it? Should be simple enough right?

It then goes on to say that there were underground fires. You would think that underground fires have never happened in the history of mankind by the way it was presented. Of course there have been several that have burned for months on end in landfills all over the world. I would consider the pile at ground zero to be comparable to a landfill.

It then goes on to Stephen Jones and his non peer reviewed paper (even now, 2 years later). He said that scientists agree that it wasn't hot enough to melt steel (earlier 1100 degrees was mentioned, almost double the melting point of aluminum) he then says it's steel. Again I ask you, aside from speculation by some within the truthers movement, where is the evidence that it was steel and not some other metal or combination of metals? Was the molten metal analyzed? By whom?

It then goes off on the thermite/thermate explosives tangent. That's so tired and worn out and covered by so many others that I'm not going to waste too much space here other than to say go here (p) and do a bit of reading.

Even your own video link says that a "substance" was seen pouring out of the WTC, not molten metal or thermate. It does ask leading questions without answering them however, which might make the weak minded think that they actually said it was thermate while not actually saying that it was.

Now then, again I ask: Where are the pictures of molten steel at the WTC? I looked in jiggers links as you suggested. No pictures of molten steel (much less metal in general) and a quick search of the page had no hits on "molten" or "melted" in them.
 
Displayed 50 of 589 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Newest | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report