Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
Pulsar_J

911

994 posts in this topic

Well, no, Raptor, it needs to be disregarded because it contradicts the official story, that's all.

Just as the 911 Commission was "set up to fail", all efforts to discover the actual truth needs to be set up to fail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, no, Raptor, it needs to be disregarded because it contradicts the official story, that's all.

Just as the 911 Commission was "set up to fail", all efforts to discover the actual truth needs to be set up to fail.

Considering that claims of 9/11 Truthers have been successfully refuted with facts and evidence, what more is there to say?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, no, Raptor, it needs to be disregarded because it contradicts the official story, that's all.

Just as the 911 Commission was "set up to fail", all efforts to discover the actual truth needs to be set up to fail.

No it does not. It needs to be disregarded as it cannot hold to scruitny.

Are you willing to accept "evidence" that is indeed questionable of its authenticity.

Cause thats what it seems like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is YOU sir, who prefers NOT to scrutinize the molten metal, vaporized bodies, immense source of heat & energy, and reported explosions prior to the aircraft strike.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is YOU sir, who prefers NOT to scrutinize the molten metal, vaporized bodies, immense source of heat & energy,....

But, you have been recently claiming that temperatures inside the WTC buildings were too low to weaken steel and now, you are changing course again!! Apparently, you are pushing your disinformation campaign for all to see. Check it out.

Babe Ruth, on 17 September 2012 - 02:48 PM, said:

Kevin Ryan and others pointed out early on that the temps were too low. That's why he was fired--exposing the lie early on. This is common knowledge in some circles, but is denied in other circles. I'm going with Kevin Ryan and the others who analyzed the fires visible with the appropriate sensors. Way too low, and way too short of duration to weaken steel.

...and reported explosions prior to the aircraft strike.

But, Rodriguez didn't initially say anything about explosions, he said rumbling sounds.

Testimony of William Rodriguez

"We heard a loud rumble, then all of a sudden we heard another rumble like someone moving a whole lot of furniture," Rogriguez said.]

http://www.911myths...._rodriguez.html

Let's watch and listen to this video and you will notice that there are no explosions prior to the impact of American 11, which simply means that someone made of the false story of explosions prior to impact.

Edited by skyeagle409
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is YOU sir, who prefers NOT to scrutinize the molten metal

You claim it was molten steel, MOLTEN STEEL is the CT's claim that evidence of thermite was used.

Thermite does not burn long enough to keep steel molten FOR DAYS/WEEKS/MONTHS.

Even if there was thermite used to keep that STEEL MOLTEN as you say it did, where is measurement of Aluminum oxide that conincides with the amount of thermite needed to weaken the steel core and also keep MOLTEN STEEL, molten for months?

Where is it?

Molten Steel theory cannot hold up to scruitny yet again.

, vaporized bodies

Considering the amount of jet fuel and fires present that day, and the collapse of the twin towers, how else would a HUMAN body, take that amount of force?

Are you suggesting, that the human body is enough to withstand fire and millions of lbs of steel rfalling on it to remain intact?

Common sense told you that?

immense source of heat & energy,

Yes, fires and a building collapsing outputs enough energy to cause extreme heat.

Didn't you learn that in physics class?

Friction can cause extreme heat in the right conditions. Maybe you want to refresh your physics knowledge.

and reported explosions prior to the aircraft strike.

We have already gone over this with your ross and furlong paper.

It did not hold up to scruitny.

Simple research on how FAA radar and crash time identification would have helped you in that instance BR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You claim it was molten steel, MOLTEN STEEL is the CT's claim that evidence of thermite was used.

There is certainly strong corroborating eyewitness, photographic and scientific evidence of molten steel: -

http://www.unexplain...20#entry4415870

Thermite does not burn long enough to keep steel molten FOR DAYS/WEEKS/MONTHS.

Two options: -

  1. The melted steel was insulated by the debris pile and fires.
  2. Unreacted thermite ignited during the clean up operation.

Even if there was thermite used to keep that STEEL MOLTEN as you say it did, where is measurement of Aluminum oxide that conincides with the amount of thermite needed to weaken the steel core and also keep MOLTEN STEEL, molten for months?

As above, there did not need to be a constant thermite reaction for months to produce the observed molten steel. Therefore, why should significant measurement of aluminium oxide exist? There is certainly visual evidence of aluminium oxide – the white smoke (much lighter than the fires around it) produced by the WTC2 molten metal flow that began shortly prior to the collapse initiation.

Molten Steel theory cannot hold up to scruitny yet again.

Of course it can, and does – it is the leading answer, based on the evidence.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is certainly strong corroborating eyewitness, photographic and scientific evidence of molten steel: -

http://www.unexplain...20#entry4415870

Thermite doesn't leave behind molten steel days later.

Two options: -

  1. The melted steel was insulated by the debris pile and fires.
  2. Unreacted thermite ignited during the clean up operation

Nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. :no: Ever wondered by thermite is not widely used by demolition companies?

Rethinking Thermite

Rethinking Thermite

http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm

As above, there did not need to be a constant thermite reaction for months to produce the observed molten steel.

What molten steel? You mean the flashlight reflection which 9/11 conspiracist confused as molten steel?

wtc_light.jpg

And, take a look here.

[media=]

[/media] Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is certainly strong corroborating eyewitness, photographic and scientific evidence of molten steel:..

.As above, there did not need to be a constant thermite reaction for months to produce the observed molten steel. -

Not by any means at all. :no:

Therefore, why should significant measurement of aluminium oxide exist? There is certainly visual evidence of aluminium oxide – the white smoke (much lighter than the fires around it) produced by the WTC2 molten metal flow that began shortly prior to the collapse initiation.

Look at the photo and tell use why the molten material is not molten steel. What are the indicators that the material is not steel at all? A hint; The fascade of the WTC buildings is mostly of aluminum as was the case with the airframe of United 175. Look at those droplets at the bottom of the next photo.

Moltenal.jpg

The next photo is of an aluminum droplet taken from the fire of a C-141, which I witnessed that day.

650253_blob_david_giancaspro.jpg

Now, look at the next photo and tell us what you see.

capture7.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thermite doesn't leave behind molten steel days later.

Your unsupported opinion is worthless - you need to address each of the two options I gave (numbered 1. and 2. skyeagle).

Ever wondered by thermite is not widely used by demolition companies?

Thermite is not widely used (though has been used before and also been demonstrated to cut steel columns in isolated experiments) by commercial companies, because it is not the most efficient method of overt demolition. Do you have a point here or are you wasting everyone’s time?

What molten steel? You mean the flashlight reflection which 9/11 conspiracist confused as molten steel?

No.

If I meant “the flashlight reflection” then I’d use those pictures.

I did not use those pictures.

I linked to a post of evidence for the existence of molten steel.

Please stop spamming the thread with irrelevance.

Not by any means at all.

Why are you responding twice to the same post? Why don’t you take the time to actually think about what you are saying and get it all down in one post?

Look at the photo and tell use why the molten material is not molten steel.

I’ve never said that the WTC2 molten metal flow is steel, so the whole rest of your post is a waste of space.

It actually has every appearance of a thermite reaction.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys you should drop this 11 years passed by and noone has ever came up with good conclusion about the events, maybe it was terorrists, maybe US military, maybe gov. but one thing is for sure every theory had mssing evidence or inconclusive information.

So there will ALWAYS be believers or sceptics on this topic no matter what...a neverending story..

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You claim it was molten steel, MOLTEN STEEL is the CT's claim that evidence of thermite was used.

Thermite does not burn long enough to keep steel molten FOR DAYS/WEEKS/MONTHS.

Even if there was thermite used to keep that STEEL MOLTEN as you say it did, where is measurement of Aluminum oxide that conincides with the amount of thermite needed to weaken the steel core and also keep MOLTEN STEEL, molten for months?

Where is it?

Molten Steel theory cannot hold up to scruitny yet again.

Considering the amount of jet fuel and fires present that day, and the collapse of the twin towers, how else would a HUMAN body, take that amount of force?

Are you suggesting, that the human body is enough to withstand fire and millions of lbs of steel rfalling on it to remain intact?

Common sense told you that?

Yes, fires and a building collapsing outputs enough energy to cause extreme heat.

Didn't you learn that in physics class?

Friction can cause extreme heat in the right conditions. Maybe you want to refresh your physics knowledge.

We have already gone over this with your ross and furlong paper.

It did not hold up to scruitny.

Simple research on how FAA radar and crash time identification would have helped you in that instance BR.

Bodies crushed by metal are simply torn apart Raptor, not vaporized. Common Sense tells you that, AND science. The NYC coroner, or whatever his proper title, referred to the bodies as being vaporized. I am merely citing his description. Bodies burned by jetfuel do not vaporize sir. Cremation ovens are much higher than the temps brought by jetfuel.

You're grasping at straws Raptor, and we both know it. We both know how radar works, and I have already acknowledged and agreed with your point on that. Desperation is not pretty. You're grasping at straws.

I learned it 6 years ago or more--ain't no fun at all having to defend the government story, unless you're at one of Sky's christmas parties. :tsu:

Unless you are really deep into denial, your posts indicate you have not scrutinized any of the evidence. You grab a few worn out talking points and run them into the ground. That is NOT rational public dialogue, it is a display of being in denial somehow or other.

You're grasping at straws, and we both know it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bodies crushed by metal are simply torn apart Raptor, not vaporized. Common Sense tells you that, AND science. The NYC coroner, or whatever his proper title, referred to the bodies as being vaporized.

But wait, you have been saying that temperatures were too low to weaken steel and now look what you are posting.You tend to trip over your own deception routines. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your unsupported opinion is worthless - you need to address each of the two options I gave (numbered 1. and 2. skyeagle).

Thermite is not widely used (though has been used before and also been demonstrated to cut steel columns in isolated experiments) by commercial companies, because it is not the most efficient method of overt demolition. Do you have a point here or are you wasting everyone’s time?

Thermite can be used to take down towers and dismantle military weaponry, but thermite could not have taken down the WTC buildings. :no: Do you know why? Do a bit of research and find out for yourself because I have used statements from demolition professionals who have dismissed 9/11 conspiracist claims with facts and evidence and you have failed to understand what they have said.

I’ve never said that the WTC2 molten metal flow is steel, so the whole rest of your post is a waste of space.

Convey your message to 9/11 conspiracist who have said the molten metal was steel.

It actually has every appearance of a thermite reaction.

That is not a thermite reaction. Do you know why that is not a thermite reaction?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sky

Yes, the fires WERE insufficient to weaken steel. That's rather the point sir. Not hot enough to weaken steel.

And yet, one of the medical guys makes a public statement that many of the bodies were vaporized. Not burnt, but VAPORIZED.

Obviously the problem has escaped your fine powers of perception, but that is nothing new really.

It is because of this little inconsistency that so many folks suspect some sort of special weapons were used. Perhaps DEW, perhaps tactical nukes, but SOMETHING that can vaporize human bodies and generate enough heat to keep metal molten for weeks.

I don't know what it was Sky, but at least I am able to perceive the problem. You? Not so much.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I learned it 6 years ago or more--ain't no fun at all having to defend the government story, unless you're at one of Sky's christmas parties. :tsu:

But wait!! Those military, commercial, and private pilots at our last Christmas party have what you don't have, which is, hands-on experience flying real aircraft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sky

Yes, the fires WERE insufficient to weaken steel. That's rather the point sir. Not hot enough to weaken steel.

Apparently, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that the fires burning inside the WTC buildings reached temperatures hot enough to weaken steel. Simple laws of physics, you understand. I guess you forgot how fire weaken the steel structure of the Windsor building which caused its collapse. :yes:

And yet, one of the medical guys makes a public statement that many of the bodies were vaporized. Not burnt, but VAPORIZED.

Not by a nuclear bomb! Apparently, human remains were found at the Fresh Kills landfill and were not vaporized.

It is because of this little inconsistency that so many folks suspect some sort of special weapons were used.

I know about tactical nukes much more than you do, which is why I have said that nukes were not responsible. For you to bring up nukes is ridicules if you knew anything about tactical nuclear weapons, but you have made it clear, that you lack real knowledge on nuclear weaponry and its effects.

In other words, your lack of knowledge on tactical nukes is on par with your lack of knowledge on piloting an airplane.

Perhaps DEW, perhaps tactical nukes, but SOMETHING that can vaporize human bodies and generate enough heat to keep metal molten for weeks.

Recovered human remains were not vaporized by nukes. Now, tell us what are the aftereffects of a nuclear explosion?

I don't know what it was Sky,...

Understand that aluminum and lead have a lower melting point than steel. In addition, do you remember what I have said concerning reactions and heat? What is an Exothermic Oxidation Reaction?

...but at least I am able to perceive the problem. You? Not so much.

Your past comments are in conflict with what you have just said above.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And yet, one of the medical guys makes a public statement that many of the bodies were vaporized. Not burnt, but VAPORIZED.

Can you please tell me what the word vaporized or vaporization is supposed to stand for?

To me, the scientific term is a transition phase from which liquid turns into a gas.

Are you sure your not taking the term out of context, which has become a habit of yours.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I'm not taking it out of context Raptor. I'm taking it out of the information provided by a link offered here by Bee on one of these threads.

I agree it is odd to consider that many of the dead bodies at WTC were vaporized, but then there are MANY events at WTC that are odd to consider. I still can't figure out how those tires were melted, paint blistered, and metal made molten, and so far, you and yours are unable to make a persuasive case regarding any of it.

Yeah, it's tough duty having to defend an indefensible story. :whistle:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree it is odd to consider that many of the dead bodies at WTC were vaporized, but then there are MANY events at WTC that are odd to consider. I still can't figure out how those tires were melted, paint blistered, and metal made molten, and so far, you and yours are unable to make a persuasive case regarding any of it.

But, you have been saying that temperatures were too low to weaken steel.

Yeah, it's tough duty having to defend an indefensible story. :whistle:

Considering that you have not presented evidence that refutes the official story, what more is there to say?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Guys ,hope your all well ,, im not , a little depressed really ,coming on here and reading everything i have since my last post.

Seems to me there are a lot of blinkered people on this site who really don't get wots goin on in the world tday. Here in the UK i would reckon if u spoke to most folks, average everyday people i mean, and asked there opinion on the publicised evidence shown about what occurred on 911 most would categorically agree that all we have been told is not the full truth and there really needs to be a massive totally independant review of ALL evidence.I mean in all honesty even if theres only a few thousand people that dont believe the official theory and theres probably more surely it would be beneficial if not even empowering to the people at the top to openly embrace an independant review but everytime this idea has been put fwd the official response is always a negative ,,, similar to a lot of you folk on here there are two camps at war on this thread when i thought it was gonna be more of a debating forum with each side throwing what bits of evidence they have into the melting pot and after all is mixed hopefully some clarity would of emerged for all of our benefits but it seems that people who believe in a CT idea are open to listen codgitate and digest what other people think whereas people who are happy with the official story given seem so stuck nay impossibly anal in accepting any other view at all and just poopoo all thats proposed against there theories leading me unfortunately to concurr that most are probably middle-class church going folk who still believe heavens in the clouds hell is underground and that Adam and Eve created us all and maybe any body with a slightly different viewpoint should be charged by the witch finder general and maybe burnt at the stake. So come on its not a witch hunt and should no way have slithered to the level when your all just one step away from name callin ,,, I WANT TRUTH!!! faeries wear boots an u better believe it.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank God for Common Sense!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

, I WANT TRUTH!!! faeries wear boots an u better believe it.

You want the truth, then here is the truth.

* United 93 did not land at Cleveland airport because 9/11 conspiracist confused a Delta B-767 as United 93, which was a B-757

* Passengers of United 93 did not disembark at Cleveland airport because 9/11 conspiracist confused scientist from a KC-135 as passengers of United 93.

* No explosives were involved in the collapse of the WTC buildings, which is why explosives are not seen nor heard as the WTC buildings collapse. Monitors near the site did not record explosions. Demolition experts and investigators found no evidence of explosives in the rubble of the WTC buildings, which explains why no explosives were seen nor heard on video and why monitors in the area did not detect explosions.

* No explosions were heard prior to American 11 striking WTC1, which was evident in the video where no sound of an explosion was heard before WTC1 was struck by American 11, and that video has been presented many times here as well.

* No evidence that thermite was used to bring down the WTC buildings. Demolition experts and investigators found no evidence of thermite cuts on steel from the WTC buildings and thermite is not an explosive nor widely used by demolition companies.

* American 77 did not pass north of the gas station, which was evident by the path of destruction leading to, and inside the Pentagon, which was clear physical evidence disproving the conspiracist theory that American 77 passed north of the gas station.

* A cruise missile did not strike the Pentagon, which was clear to see from wreckage left behind by the B-757, not from a cruise missile.

* United 93 crashed near Shanksville, which was confirmed by United Airlines, operator of United 93, coroner Wally Miller, and recovery crews at the crash site of United 93.

* United 93 was not shot down by the military. Fact of the matter is, the military didn't know the whereabouts of United 93 until civilian controllers told the military that United 93 had already crashed, which was evident by communication audio tape released to the public.

* United 175 did not carry a modified pod, which was evident in the photos and because 9/11 conspiracist confused aerodynamic fairings and main landing gear doors as a pod, not knowing that such fairings and gear doors are standard on all B-767s.

* There were not two United 175s at Boston airport. First of all, that would have drawn serious attention to the Boson airport management seeking gate or parking, and landing fees for a faked United 175, and such a demand for such fees would have raised questions from United Airlines and ground servicing personnel.

* The 9/11 airliners were not switched. Question is, how do you switch flights and not draw attention?

* Switching off the transponder does not make an aircraft invisible despite claims by 9/11 conspiracist. Remember, the B-767 and the B-757 are not stealth aircraft.

* Temperatures of the WTC fires were high enough to weaken steel and a comparison can be made with the Windsor building fire, where temperatures were high enough to collapse its steel structure.

* The 9/11 airliners were not modified to fly under remote control. Question is, how would you have convinced the airlines to ground their aircraft for a year so they can be illegally modified under the watchful eyes of the FAA inspectors, airline maintenance personnel, and their inspectors, and contractors and their inspectors and suppliers?

* ACARS did not depict United 175 or American 11 airborne after they struck WTC1 and WTC2.

The list goes on and on.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank God for Common Sense!

He wanted the truth and it was just handed to him.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He wanted the truth and it was just handed to him.

I'd say that's true.

I hope he can read it and understand it!

:tsu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.