1211 replies to this topic

[booNyzarC]

Babe Ruth, on 11 April 2012 - 02:57 PM, said:

Boo

You guys have not yet made the case that it is anything OTHER THAN steel.  

Erm...  there have been plenty of alternatives put forward.  Have you not seen any of them?

Babe Ruth, on 11 April 2012 - 02:57 PM, said:

It has taken months just to see you admit that it even existed.

Erm...  when have I ever denied that there was a flow of molten material?

Babe Ruth, on 11 April 2012 - 02:57 PM, said:

Have you guys no measure of common sense at all?  

I guess we can't all have the same measure of common sense that you miraculously possess...

Babe Ruth, on 11 April 2012 - 02:57 PM, said:

What other metals, in sufficient quantity, were present to account for that?  Remember, we all know that aluminum melts quickly and then solidifies quickly.

There were plenty of materials in there which could account for the flow.

Babe Ruth, on 11 April 2012 - 02:57 PM, said:

The presence of sulfur and barium are huge clues as to thermate.

And you detected this from the videos and photographs of the flow how exactly?

Babe Ruth, on 11 April 2012 - 02:57 PM, said:

Frankly, I think it is quite plausible that tactical nuclear devices were employed too.

Oh my...

It must have been a new fandangled nuclear device with no radiation that the secret gummint has been hiding.  Yes?

[mrbusdriver]

First we hear about the explosive squibs that "explain" the bursts of smoke/dust coming from random windows as the towers collapse. Now it's thermite charges that leave a (single, isolated) stream of molten material at one location. Were such measures really necessary to bring down the buildings after the plane impacts? Were they both used? Was this the plan?

I'm surprised none of the conspirators have come forward, ala "wikileaks". There had to be a lot of them with this 4 plane conspiracy, plus the teams involved in preping the targets. The idea of an air defense standown is ignorant, if you were in the business in the post-cold war days, you'd know this fact.

Yes, there a lot of seeming curiosities in the situation that day, but I find a lot more disconnects in the conspiracy theories. And I was over 15 that morning, so I understood what was happening as soon as that second plane hit.

[Q24]

flyingswan, on 11 April 2012 - 01:44 PM, said:

Couple of problems with that idea.  The colour corresponds to a much lower temperature than thermite and, with no indication that the flow is cutting downwards through any part of the building structure, it is rather ineffective for thermite.

Your excuses are just as stupid as the last time you were corrected on them.

• The colour is an ideal match: -
  
  
  
  Spot the difference – not a lot.
  
  
• Thermite can flow over surfaces: -
  
  
  
  Here it flows over and through a car bonnet.
  
  At the WTC the surface was a concrete floor which would be further difficult to penetrate.

booNyzarC, on 11 April 2012 - 03:24 PM, said:

Erm...  there have been plenty of alternatives put forward.  Have you not seen any of them?

The WTC2 flow is a perfect match to thermite in every regard.

There are no alternatives.  If you provide what you think is an alternative, I’ll let you know why it is not.  OCT’s consistently come out with, “oh there must be an alternative answer” for no other reason than they desperately want it to be so, without ever being able to actually provide one.

[OverSword]

Here is something to consider.  I used to have one of the versions of microsofts flight simulator.  The physics were supposed to be very realistic.  One of the "missions" on that simulator was landing at o'hare in chicago.  I decided to hit a building instead.  I tried multiple times and even came close on a couple of attempts.  To hit that vector perfectly at the speeds it takes to keep a plane airborne for someone with no flight experience is nearly impossible.  so to hit not just one tower but both?  Unlikely. and then a third plane manages to exactly run into a five story building without overshooting or hitting the ground beforehand?  Laughable.  I don't have the answers but the official version is definetly not true.

Edited by OverSword, 11 April 2012 - 05:41 PM.

[mrbusdriver]

Hang on...

The video said the thermite melted thought the engine block, but just showed a hole in the hood. Show us the melted engine block.
Can we see something that shows thermite being used in a CD against massive I beams/box beams (of WTC scale)?

I suspect it would take enormous amounts, if it worked at all.

[RaptorBites]

OverSword, on 11 April 2012 - 05:40 PM, said:

Here is something to consider.  I used to have one of the versions of microsofts flight simulator.  The physics were supposed to be very realistic.  One of the "missions" on that simulator was landing at o'hare in chicago.  I decided to hit a building instead.  I tried multiple times and even came close on a couple of attempts.  To hit that vector perfectly at the speeds it takes to keep a plane airborne for someone with no flight experience is nearly impossible.  so to hit not just one tower but both?  Unlikely. and then a third plane manages to exactly run into a five story building without overshooting or hitting the ground beforehand?  Laughable.  I don't have the answers but the official version is definetly not true.

Outstanding, I love people that state "no flight experience is nearly impossible".  You are using the wrong verbage, "improbable" is more likely.

Then again there were some extra-ordinary things that happened that day does not make them impossible in the least.

Just like the reply to MysteryX, you are entitled to your assuptions but then again just by saying "if I can't do it then obviously it can't be done" is very weak.

[OverSword]

RaptorBites, on 11 April 2012 - 05:50 PM, said:

Outstanding, I love people that state "no flight experience is nearly impossible".  You are using the wrong verbage, "improbable" is more likely.

Way to knitpick.  You really prove your point.

You're obviously correct.  It should be fairly easy for someone who has never flown before to exactly hit a relativley small target while under extremely stressfull circumstances.  How silly of me.  

But on the serious side I recomend you give it a try yourself.  Go download microsofts flight simulator and give it a try.  Otherwise you can just stick with correcting my verbage because that's the important part, right?

[Q24]

mrbusdriver, on 11 April 2012 - 05:49 PM, said:

Can we see something that shows thermite being used in a CD against massive I beams/box beams (of WTC scale)?

I don’t think so but the centre image of the five I posted above shows how a small, extremely crude thermite device can cut a steel beam in an engineer’s back garden.  Now if we imagine a slightly larger device, more technologically advanced, ejecting military grade thermite and doing so in multiple bursts, it’s going to cut through or severely weaken any size/thickness of steel.

I know…

You can have as much jet fuel and office combustibles as you like, along with a lighter.

I’ll have a thermal/thermite lance.

Let’s see who can cut through or weaken a 5” thick steel column first.

Edited by Q24, 11 April 2012 - 06:18 PM.

[Babe Ruth]

Boo

Yes, I've seen the alternatives you and others have offered regarding which metal was molten.  The trouble is sir, that neither you nor the other 'debunkers' have managed to put forth any sort of persuasive argument to support those alternatives.

Your claim that plenty of other metals might have been involved is fine, IF ONLY you could make a case.  You cannot.

Sulfur and Barium were detected in the dust, as sampled by the lady in her apartment, and at other locations in Manhattan gathered by ordinary citizens who DO NOT WORK FOR THE GOVERNMENT.

Possession of common sense is not miraculous sir.  Study the etiology of the term.  It is "common" sense, not "miraculous" sense.  

[mrbusdriver]

If you're pretty well lined up, hitting things isn't that difficult in FS at high speed. But, either way, FS isn't real world.  You'll note that the WTC2 plane made a late course correction before impact, making an off-center, banked impact. This likely resulted in more damage (more floors and external) and the earlier collapse.

Using FS flying as a yardstick isn't necessarily accurate...though it does replicate a lot of the physics pretty well. Meanwhile, they didn't have to land the thing, and that's where the flying sense comes in.

[Dredimus]

mrbusdriver, on 11 April 2012 - 05:49 PM, said:

Hang on...

The video said the thermite melted thought the engine block, but just showed a hole in the hood. Show us the melted engine block.
Can we see something that shows thermite being used in a CD against massive I beams/box beams (of WTC scale)?

I suspect it would take enormous amounts, if it worked at all.

  You won't be granted any evidence that you are asking for. I think sometimes they fail to grasp how many TONS of thermite/thermate it would have taken to do any considerable damage to the beams in question. All you will hear is that they found the compounds needed to make thermate/thermite... nevermind the fact that those compounds are also found in the paint/sealant used on the steal beams.

[Babe Ruth]

Dredimus

Can you imagine how easy it might be to place that thermate if the outfit that ran security at the complex were owned by a friend?  

[Babe Ruth]

BusDriver

Your comments above regarding landing an airplane, and other aeronautical maneuvers, suggest you are a pilot.  What sort of licenses or experience do you have?

[Babe Ruth]

The video offered by MysteryX was informative.

I never realized that the FBI had siezed 86 cameras that day.  I had previously thought it was only the 1 at Doubletree Hotel.  Busy boys, those FBI types....

I never realized that General Larry Arnold had ordered one of his fighter types to check out the Pentagon, and that the pilot had reported that he saw no sign of a crashed Boeing there.  

[OverSword]

mrbusdriver, on 11 April 2012 - 06:20 PM, said:

If you're pretty well lined up, hitting things isn't that difficult in FS at high speed. But, either way, FS isn't real world.  You'll note that the WTC2 plane made a late course correction before impact, making an off-center, banked impact. This likely resulted in more damage (more floors and external) and the earlier collapse.

Using FS flying as a yardstick isn't necessarily accurate...though it does replicate a lot of the physics pretty well. Meanwhile, they didn't have to land the thing, and that's where the flying sense comes in.

Yeah, but I'll wager that real world is more difficult than ms flight simulator.  But forget the towers and think about the difficulty of hitting the pentagon.