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 07:46:01 PM  
There is not any actual evidence of molten metal at all. All the links provided do not actually show it. In every case the videos contain people who say the phrase "molten metal" and smoke coming from the ground but none actually show the metal itself. Also, the white smoke is said to be aluminum oxide but there is no evidence that this is the case. You can not tell the chemical composition of a smoke by the color alone.

Thermite burns very aggressively and quickly. If theremite were used it would have completely burned away in a few minutes. Not 3 weeks.

I say again, all the links provided do not show any actual molten metal.
 
2007-05-01 08:08:52 PM  
"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?"

Molten aluminum is white---the molten metal at the WTC was red. Now tell me what kind of molten metal would still be hot weeks after the event.

Next.
 
2007-05-01 08:14:05 PM  
Again, there was no molten metal in any of the pictures and thermite burns to quickly to still be hot after 3 weeks. It would be burned out in a few minutes. The underground fires that burned were from wood, plastic, carpeting and many other things that were inside the building. These things burned to create heat of maybe 1000 degrees in the debris pile. That's how some of the metal was heated.

Thermite would be long gone in within the timeframe you suggested to it can not be the cause of the glowing metal from your pictures.
 
2007-05-01 08:19:56 PM  
also, the fire inside a building will almost always be much hotter than a fire in open air. This fire was not oxygen starved. Air can actually get through pretty tiny gaps. The massive holes in the side of the buildings from the planes hitting them were far more that is required to allow for the passage of air molecules.

People who say that the confied space would limit the heat are simply dead wrong. They also say that the fire was oxegen starved. Agin this is dead wrong. The opposite of both points are true. Especially when there is a mostly confined space with a very large opening for air to enter.
 
2007-05-01 08:21:20 PM  
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."

Seems I missed your link to that documentation also. Care to post it again?


Gee---Osamas video came three years after the event---what made you think it was him for those three years? In addition, only one person on any of the planes mentions anything about foreignors doing the hijacking, and that call has been proven a lie. The martyrdom tapes you are referring to were released one at a time starting one year after the event, and one every year after on the anniversary of the attack. Plenty of time to evaluate the repercussions and come up with bogus martyrdom tapes. I bet they could have shown your martyrdom tape given that much time.
 
2007-05-01 08:22:14 PM  
steamingpile 2007-04-30 09:33:21 PM

I made my GF's sister cry calling her a farking idiot at a family function when she spouted this shiat. When I was told to apologize I just told her anyone that stupid doesnt deserve any pity.

img.fark.com
 
2007-05-01 08:25:13 PM  
Turok

The video is there, the reports from credible witnesses are there. The only thing you haven't done is go

LALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALL​ALALALAL ALALALALALALALLALALALALALALALALALALALALALLALALALALALALALALALLALALALALL​ALALALAL ALLALALALALALLALALALALLALALALA

To the facts.
 
2007-05-01 08:26:55 PM  
enki40

"Gee---Osamas video came three years after the event---what made you think it was him for those three years? In addition, only one person on any of the planes mentions anything about foreignors doing the hijacking, and that call has been proven a lie. The martyrdom tapes you are referring to were released one at a time starting one year after the event, and one every year after on the anniversary of the attack. Plenty of time to evaluate the repercussions and come up with bogus martyrdom tapes. I bet they could have shown your martyrdom tape given that much time."

This isn't how logic works. They're legit until you prove otherwise. It's illogical to assume they aren't real just because it destroys your fantasy.

This is also what I love about you people - your brains work backwards. A logical and rational person sees what happens on 9/11 and realizes that it makes more sense for the largest terror group, who had already attacked said site, to have been behind the attack - since it's far easier for them to pull it off than the government doing so and keeping it secret. Somehow, in nine months, Bush and his cronies get 9/11 all lined up and it goes off without a hitch (as there is no evidence for them doing it), and then they royally screw up Iraq.

If 9/11 was an inside job, so was Khobar, Bali, Madrid, 7/7, and the Cole.
 
2007-05-01 08:27:54 PM  
enki40

I believe the offical story of 911. I'm sure all the details are not 100% accurate but it's correct in general. The burdan is on you to proove otherwise. I have nothing to proove so I will not be posting links.

Like I said the fire would have been more intense in an enclosed space stoked by the inflor of large ammounts of air. This is just common sense so again I will not post a link. You are the one arguing against the official facts so you are the one who needs to proove otherwise.
 
2007-05-01 08:29:10 PM  
enki40

"LALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALAL​LALALALA L ALALALALALALALLALALALALALALALALALALALALALLALALALALALALALALALLALALALALL​ALALALAL ALLALALALALALLALALALALLALALALA

To the facts."

The irony that continually spews from you people is unbelievable.
 
2007-05-01 08:30:11 PM  
Sry about the spelling, I'm dyslexic.
 
2007-05-01 08:37:00 PM  
Ahe Abstreactor

The let's play hero. I won't cry when you call me a farking idiot because that's all you've got. Try getting some facts.

How about this little fact--the call from Barbara Olson to Ted Olson is a proven lie---made up by Ted Olson.

http://www.vialls.com/lies911/lies.htm
 
2007-05-01 08:38:36 PM  
Americana---I already said that's all you have---get some facts and get back to me.
 
2007-05-01 08:39:22 PM  
Yes, enki citing antisemitic websites (the "nuking Beirut" was a real laugher) tends to make your credibility jump up quite a bit.
 
2007-05-01 08:40:09 PM  
enki40

By the way, I'm just about to earn my degree in Civil Engineering. I know a large amount about steel and concrete, structural mechancis, material science, chemistry, fluid mechanics, thermodynamics and physics. (all classes I have taken at one of Americas top universities. I am both smarter than you by far and much more qualified to talk about this subject than you.

Have you even ever been educated in one advanced science? I'm guessing not.
 
2007-05-01 08:43:02 PM  
I don't think you understand what irony means.

You might want to start with some facts (I have used plenty, stop pretending they don't exist so you can live in your world of unicorns and Roswelss). Like what would cause the steel to melt in the fashion you ascribe to it? Thermite wouldn't. Thermite is also not used in demolition, it'd be particularly awful for it, as it burns down (you would want it to burn across).

People can't eyeball a molten metal and know it's steel, by the way. Your only evidence is second-hand eyewitnesses. You seem to think this is sufficient - it is not. The "best" evidence is Jones' non-peer reviewed paper that shows concrete mixed with rebar as cooled "molten steel".
 
2007-05-01 08:44:27 PM  
Turok

Sorry--you are mistaken. Air does not go through solid walls---therefore solid walls will restrict airflow. Simply placing an object in a restricted area will not increase its temperature unless you pump in lots of oxygen.

There was lots of smoke---where there is smoke there is less oxygen. The WTC towers had restricted airflow---reduced temperature---the WTC had lots of smoke---reduced temperature.

Show me a smoke free blazing WTC and I'll STFU. Until then, you should try it.
 
2007-05-01 08:46:45 PM  
Yeah right! I bet you have a Super Genius card too.
 
2007-05-01 08:47:27 PM  
"There was lots of smoke---where there is smoke there is less oxygen."

Another of the oft-repeated Truther myths. You people are the living example of the Big Lie.

Dark smoke can indicate low oxygen - but you know what else it can indicate - lots of things burning. Smoke is, as you probably aren't aware, the particulate matter of the burning items being sent skyward. Ergo, the more items being burned, the darker the smoke.

http://www.buethe.onlinehome.de/hagersvl.jpg

Open air tire fire - yeah, real oxygen-starved, eh?

Perhaps you forgot those big ol' holes knocked in the sides of the towers? Only an absolute idiot would think the burning towers would send out completely white smoke.
 
2007-05-01 09:01:00 PM  
Where there is smoke there is less fire. There is less firte because there is less oxygen. The smoke takes the place of the oxygen.

Lots of smoke at the WTC---smoke lowers the temp.

facts are facts---deal with it.
 
2007-05-01 09:01:34 PM  
enki40

you posted this link
http://www.vialls.com/lies911/lies.htm

You claim that it proves that the call was fake. Just like all of the links you have provided it actually does not contain any evidence that the call did not occur. Did you expect that no one would read it because it was so long?
 
2007-05-01 09:05:11 PM  
What I said about my education is true. You are uneducated so you shouldn't speak. The massive hole in the building is where the air came through.

You said that the air could not have gone through the walls but you ignore the massive hole from the plane and explosion. Not to mention the elevator shaft and ventalation ducts.
 
2007-05-01 09:07:30 PM  
Torok

I didn't expect anyone to read it because I don't believe you farkers read anything.

I don't believe you read it. But on the off chance that you have, How was the call made---cell phone or seat phone on the plane?
 
2007-05-01 09:11:27 PM  
enki40

"facts are facts---deal with it."

You keep saying that like it changes the fact you're wrong. I showed you a picture of an open air tire fire with thick, black smoke coming from it. Open air means it's out in the open, and the picture wasn't taken on Venus - so the fire had an ample supply of oxygen. You also seem to ignore that dark smoke (or lots of it) can signify low oxygen, but isn't a set rule. I explained when else you had dark, thick smoke. You can keep being a moron and ignoring it, but it just makes you look like a fool.

"I don't believe you read it. But on the off chance that you have, How was the call made---cell phone or seat phone on the plane?"

Did you realize you cited a source that contains numerous fabrications and antisemitic rants?
 
2007-05-01 09:12:12 PM  
"What I said about my education is true. You are uneducated so you shouldn't speak. The massive hole in the building is where the air came through.

You said that the air could not have gone through the walls but you ignore the massive hole from the plane and explosion. Not to mention the elevator shaft and ventalation ducts."

I did not ignore the massive hole left by the plane---I said the airflow was restricted to the fire. The smoke takes the place of oxygen, and is an idicator of incomplete combustion. You have incomplete combustion when you have restricted air flow. Incomplete combustion is an indication of lower temperatures. You can have lots of smoke with very little fire. I saw lots of smoke at the WTC, very little fire after the initial fireball which burnt up most of the remaining fuel. Not much smoke from that fireball--it had lots of oxygen.
 
2007-05-01 09:15:13 PM  
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41138000/jpg/_41138284_oil_fire_​pa_416.j pg

lolz no oxygen!

http://www.regionalinfo-alert.org/Pictures/03-17-05_crew7_drill4.jpg

lolz no oxygen!

http://www.nrc.govt.nz/environmental.education/school.information.pack​s/images /air_quality_plume_black_smoke.jpg

lolz no oxygen!

God, I love pwning you fools.
 
2007-05-01 09:18:44 PM  
Why do you keep asking me to prove things? That article does not contain any information that proves the call did not happen. The oficial record and personal accounts shows that it did happen. I do not have anything to prove. The article actually claims that the plane was flying so iratically that it would not be possible to hold on the a telephone durring flight. Do you realize how stupid this sounds?

You have not answered why you choose to ignore the massive hole in the building alllowed large ammouts of air to enter.
 
2007-05-01 09:19:26 PM  
enki40

"very little fire after the initial fireball which burnt up most of the remaining fuel"

...you're not serious are you?

http://thewebfairy.com/nerdcities/WTC/Seven/wtc-fires.jpg

That's from a conspiracy site for crying out loud.

And damn you are dumb. The fuel ignited all sorts of materials inside the towers - you think that everything was fireproof inside? That's the false premise most of you argue from, that the fuel was all that burned, which no intelligent person would argue.
 
2007-05-01 09:24:06 PM  
Notice how enki40 has not stated his education and credentials. Does he really think that he is smarter than a Civil Engineer?

/I'm not technically a Civil Engineer because I have not taken the PE exam for my license but I do have the education and will soon be a professional engineer.
 
2007-05-01 09:25:08 PM  
I suppose you think you made a point---you did---mine.

Just because there is open access to air, that doesn't mean the source is burning up to capacity. If there is smoke, it means incomplete combustion--the more smoke, the less combustion. Now in the link with the big tub burning---lots of smoke, and the airspace is restricted. NO you say? Yes I say. If you took that tank and sprayed it all in the air at once in an oxygen rich atmosphere---THEN you would see its true potential. Facts are facts---smoke means incomplete combustion---incomplete combustion means lower temperature.

Don't you wish I had SAID no oxygen.

Its easy to beat strawmen.
 
2007-05-01 09:32:07 PM  
I say that even with the smoke the fire would still have been hot enough to cause collape when combined with the previous damage from the explosion and kinetic energy of the crash. Because of my education and your lack there of my opinion holds many times the weight of yours.
 
2007-05-01 09:32:19 PM  
"Its easy to beat strawmen."

It wasn't a strawman. But you Truthers do love to incorrectly invoke logical fallacies often, I find.

I was mocking you when linking those pictures, but it does disprove your point. All of those fires had access to quite a bit of oxygen and were burning thickly and darkly. Right there I disprove what you said. You CONTINUE to ignore that dark, thick smoke does not automatically mean that the there is low oxygen - it can also mean that the fire is burning like crazy. This doesn't seem to register in those ten brain cells you have bouncing around that empty melon you call a skull.

Stop moving the goal posts. Everytime you people are proven wrong you do it, and it's quite annoying.
 
2007-05-01 09:40:59 PM  
Torok

"Why do you keep asking me to prove things?"

I didn't ask you to prove anything---I asked how you think she made that call. I say the call never happened---you say it id. I'm simply asking you to state how you think she made the call---cell phone or seat phone. As I said---you didn't read the article.

"That article does not contain any information that proves the call did not happen."

Yes it does.


"The oficial record and personal accounts shows that it did happen."

Now you are simply lying. There are no such records. Produce a link to them and I will leave this site and never come back---if you can't produce them you should apologize for being the punk liar you are.

"I do not have anything to prove."

Now you do---you have to prove you aren't a liar or are man enough to admit it.

"The article actually claims that the plane was flying so iratically that it would not be possible to hold on the a telephone durring flight. Do you realize how stupid this sounds?"

It made that statement based by the ground radar reports of high speed and high g forces. But even if that were wrong, that would only mean it would be easy for her to make that call. Now how did she do it? Cell phone or seat phone?

"You have not answered why you choose to ignore the massive hole in the building alllowed large ammouts of air to enter."

You should have read all of my 9:12 post.
 
2007-05-01 09:43:21 PM  
cmsimg.thejournalnews.com
http://www.nyjournalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070501/NEWS​0​3/705010 427 (pops)

This accident happened today in Hillburn, NY.
The trailer looks like a small WTC leaning up against the overpass.
 
2007-05-01 09:45:22 PM  
"you should apologize for being the punk liar you are."

oh...God...irony...overload...
 
2007-05-01 09:47:49 PM  
enki40

I can tell that you have had no scientific training. You come up with a hypothesis and try to look for information to prove it. Scientists come up with a hypothesis and try to disprove it. If they are unable to disprove it over many, many tries, then it becomes a theory. After that is it is scrutinized even more and might eventually become a scientific law.

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

I know that the article you posted calims that it was not a cellphone but it actually was. The part of your acticle that states this is obviously mistaken. Who knows, maybe you made the site that you liked too. Its not well known or credible.

Also, I know you said you would leave but we all know that will never happen.
 
2007-05-01 09:50:55 PM  
Americana

Let's keep this simple since you seem too obtuse to know when you've been humiliated.

Smoke means incomplete combustion. Incomplete combustion means lower temperature.

I was a strawman---you said I said---"no oxygen"---that makes it a strawman, and you a liar.
 
2007-05-01 10:01:00 PM  
"Let's keep this simple since you seem too obtuse to know when you've been humiliated."

Can you farkin' cut it with the irony?

"Smoke means incomplete combustion. Incomplete combustion means lower temperature."

You can repeat this all you want, hun. You seem to be under the impression that this makes it true. Not to mention you don't understand how moot this is, the temperature only has to reach a certain point to weaken steel (as steel didn't melt).

"you said I said---"no oxygen"---that makes it a strawman, and you a liar."

In my serious posts I said oxygen starved, and then mocked you with pictures saying "lolz no oxygen". You've moved your goal posts because your original argument was the problem was little oxygen could feed the fires, and now that isn't your argument anymore (it's now this incomplete combustion red herring nonsense). The only one who should feel humiliated is the one who has been wrong in every one of his posts, who believes in a nonsensical fantasy, and who has been shown wrong by multiple responsoders. That person is you.

You've combined circular reasoning with a false dichotomy - that dark, thick smoke is either incomplete combustion (which doesn't even help your side) or it's oxygen starved (which has already been shown to be nonsense). No matter what anyone says, you're right because you can argue either of these from ignorance. You just have to say "I don't see how oxygen go to the fires".
 
2007-05-01 10:34:41 PM  
Torok

So you choose---cell phone---and use wiki as your source. A couple of problems here. First, wiki doesn't address why there is no cell phone record of her call(see that is proof---show me the cell phone record and I leave the site forever) or why she called collect. You don't make collect calls from cell phones. I'm sure you will ignore these simple facts but let's hear from my source.

Ted Olson.

Ted Olson's account of how the call is made is strange and conflicting.

Three days after 9/11, he says, "I found out later that she was having, for some reason, to call collect and was having trouble getting through. You know how it is to get through to a government institution when you're calling collect."

http://www.utopiax.org/phonecalls.html

Now let's keep tabs.

1. Olson says she called collect--twice.

2. There are no cell phone records of her call.

3. She called him direct before the flight.

4. Why would she call collect to another number rather than directly to her husband?

5. Olson refuses to name the secretary that took the call.

6. There are no records of her call from the airlines.

Ignore all as usual.
 
2007-05-01 10:50:09 PM  
Again, another site made by a random person with no citation or credentials.

The call did happen.

1. So what if she called collect?
2. The records are private (just like your personal phone records)
3. What does that prove?
4. To avoid charges
5. Says who?
6. You don't know that. (you could not possibly have that information)

If she did in fact call collect then hoe does this prove that the call did not happen?

I'm not arguing that some things do seem odd but to just to the conclusion that the call never existed is unreasonable.

Why would her husband lie about her death?
 
2007-05-01 10:55:18 PM  
In her call she mentions box cutters and highjackers. It’s no wonder you would be so desperate to make the call go away. The fact is that the call will never go away. It is a matter of official record and that is how it will remain.
 
2007-05-01 11:18:42 PM  
Calling it "The Truth Movement" is an attempt to add meaningless credibility to the conspiracy. It's an appeal to emotion that mostly affects weak minded people.

Why are the CTs 100% convinced? 99% would be more credible but these guys are 100% convinced about this and can not be dissuaded.
 
2007-05-01 11:25:16 PM  
People like enki40 are why Bush was elected to a second term. His lunacy gives republicans a way to attack the Democrats. It is not fair but I bet the Republicans will be able to use "The Truth Movement" to attack the Democrats even though the Vast majority of Dems do not believe in the conspiracy.
 
2007-05-01 11:35:54 PM  
Torok

"Again, another site made by a random person with no citation or credentials."

Here's another site that has newspaper sources and says the same thing. Where's your site that quotes Ted Olson directly?

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=theodore_(_ted_)_​olson

Or how about another site--maybe its a conspiracy!!!

http://www.bcrevolution.ca/cell_phone_call.htm


1. So what if she called collect?

Do you have a cell phone? Can you make a collect call on it? No--there is no operator that will help you make a collect call on a cell phone. Why would you even try to make a collect call when you had a cell phone.


2. The records are private (just like your personal phone records).

My personal phone records can be easily subpoenaed, but if there were such a question like this about them--I would willingly show them--unless there was something tohide----then I would claim she never used her cell phone because calling collect on a cell phone is FARKING STUPID.

3. What does that prove?

It proves she knew his number and called it often and had no reason to call another number collect---if she had to call collect using a seat phone---she would have called collect to the number she always called--not some strange number to a secretary.

4. To avoid charges

To avoid chargs? WTF are you talking about? How could do you figure she would avoid charges by calling collect to a secretary rather than her husband? Do you think she thought the secretary would be more willing to accept the charges than her husband? Are you drunk?

5. Says who?

Olson

6. You don't know that. (you could not possibly have that information)

There are records of all the other calls---Beamer etc---where is the call from Barbara Olson--especially since she went through an operator.

And where is your proof she made this call? Where are your Ted Olson quotes---would you know one if you saw it? I bet not.
 
2007-05-01 11:49:16 PM  
rickets007

You can play too, or continue to talk out your ass as usual making no point.

How did Barbara Olson make that call? Torok chose cell phone, so address the issues raised with that first. There is still another alternative---would you like to choose that one?

My guess is you will continue talking out your ass as usual since that is what you are good at.

Here some more links that show you are in the minority of thinking on 911.

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/1​3469

Gee--only 16% agree with you---how's that tinfoil hat feel?

Pretty close to the Canadian poll.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/September2006/120906_b_Poll.htm

And Zogby reports on those whacky New Yorkers.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2004/310804zogbypoll.htm

There's more, but I'll leave room for your links. hehehe
 
2007-05-01 11:50:38 PM  
Meh, I'm done with this.

The official record is correct and will not be changed.
No matter how much you argue you will never get enough people to go along with you.

You can keep trying if you want but I have nothing to worry about.

I get to have piece of mind about this and that is something that you have made certain that you will never have.
 
2007-05-01 11:55:52 PM  
Ignorance is bliss.
 
2007-05-02 12:05:29 AM  
Torok

You are a punk liar. Proven. Case closed.

Next.

rickets? Come on 16% put out some facts. How did barbara make that call?
 
2007-05-02 12:28:00 AM  
Well, I think she either called collect using her cellphone or one of the phones on the plane. If she was using another passengers credit card I think it would make sense that she would call collect. Maybe she thought it would save the person money. I'm not sure if this is the case but weather it would save money or not is irrelevant. If Barbara was mistaken in thinking a collect call would be better it would explain it. I'm only basing my assumption that the call occurred by news reports and testimony of the people. The evidence that indicates otherwise is pure speculation or guessing.

Also, your profile says you are "Working on my second fifty years". Does this mean you are over 50 years old? If so why do you say things like "You are a punk liar."?

I'm 24 and I have not acted like that in years.
 
2007-05-02 02:25:35 AM  
"Well, I think she either called collect using her cellphone"

Do you have a cellphone? Can you make a collect call on it? No. If you have a cell phone---why would you need to make the call collect. Why would you make the collect call to someone other than your husband? As stated above--deal with issues already stated---why can't you read.


"or one of the phones on the plane."

Without a credit card, you can't get an operator. The phone simply will not function. If you have a credit card, the call goes through with no operator. If she borrowed another passengers credit card, the call would have gone directly through and no need for a collect call or an operator. Facts are Barbara Olson was the only passenger making calls from that plane and they knew about the fate of the other planes.
 
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