To those who believe the 911 official story

[turbonium]

Turbs... only YOU could come up with a statement as moronic as this....

Tell ya what... you hold a brand new one of these

or maybe this

up to your neck or wrist or just about any fleshy part of your body with the blade even slightly extended then exert a little pressure and see what damage it can do.

Or perhaps one of these

Or maybe this one

Maybe one that has a blade like this

You'll notice that only the first two images were of the type of boxcutter that uses the "little blades that you can snap off with your fingers"... the other ones use thin yet solid stainless steel blades.

indeed

Cz

The only moronic statements I see are yours, Czero.

Have you heard of any crimes (other than the supposed 9/11 hijackings) where a box-cutter was brandished by the criminal(s)? Probably not many, I'd bet.

Why? Because, like scissors are the perfect tool for cutting paper, and a corkscrew is the perfect tool for opening a bottle of vintage Chablis, box-cutters are a perfect tool - for cutting cardboard, drywall, and carpet. But, as weapons, they are a poor choice.

Certainly, you can injure, or even kill, another person with box-cutters / scissors / corkscrew. But even one person can defend / fight back against a box-cutter. And if you think you'd be able to fend off 20 or 30 people with a box-cutter, as they tremble in sheer terror, you're totally delusional.

[grither]

I don't know if there is more to 9/11. I know the Iraq war is a waste. I agree with turbonium though on box cutters are bad weapons. I stock shelves at a grocery store cutting boxes with them they are hardly good weapons.

[turbonium]

I don't know if there is more to 9/11. I know the Iraq war is a waste. I agree with turbonium though on box cutters are bad weapons. I stock shelves at a grocery store cutting boxes with them they are hardly good weapons.

That's something I know as well, because I use box-cutters all the time.

Unless you can get right up to someone's neck with a box-cutter, it's not effective as a weapon. The tip (or point) of a box-cutter with a "snap-off" blade is utterly useless to "stab" with, because it will break without much force. And the single blade box-cutters (used for carpets & drywall), while stronger than a snap-off blade, are short in length, and not lethal (unless you can get right up to someone's neck and stab the carotid artery or jugular vein).

Even scissors would be a more effective weapon, actually.

[Redtail]

That's something I know as well, because I use box-cutters all the time.

Unless you can get right up to someone's neck with a box-cutter, it's not effective as a weapon. The tip (or point) of a box-cutter with a "snap-off" blade is utterly useless to "stab" with, because it will break without much force. And the single blade box-cutters (used for carpets & drywall), while stronger than a snap-off blade, are short in length, and not lethal (unless you can get right up to someone's neck and stab the carotid artery or jugular vein).

Even scissors would be a more effective weapon, actually.

What country are you from? I ask because the box cutters/utility knives in America have many versions where the blade is not breakaway. It's more like a single edge razor blade. Yes you would have to get close but one slash and most people would freak out.

Alright, i want ever person who believes the "official story" to point to the "official report".

Now, if you stand on our governments side, this is WHAT YOU BELIEVE TO BE TRUE.

ironically i hope your all not going to point to the 911 commission, because i WILL make you LOOK and FEEL stupid...

9/11 commission and the NIST report among others. Have at it, but I must ask, what makes you think that the 9/11 commission report (or and single paper or report) is "The official story"?

Edited March 6, 2008 by Redtail

[Space Commander Travis]

Don't bother with these people, they're much happier believing a few primitive **** ****** muslims armed with sticks with no flight training magically stole a couple of planes and flew them off course without USA fighter intervention.

hmmm.. is that a hint of cultural superiority i see before me?

Remember, they didn't have to worry about taking off; nor did they have to worry about landing.

All they needed to know was that the thing in front of them steers the plane, and provided you've got enough momentum, that's about all you'd need to know really. Believe it or not, even **** ******s are actually biologically capable of flying a plane; most of these **** ****** countries have airlines and air forces of their own, for instance.

Edited March 6, 2008 by 747400

[Zaus]

hmmm.. is that a hint of cultural superiority i see before me?

Remember, they didn't have to worry about taking off; nor did they have to worry about landing.

All they needed to know was that the thing in front of them steers the plane, and provided you've got enough momentum, that's about all you'd need to know really. Believe it or not, even **** ******s are actually biologically capable of flying a plane; most of these **** ****** countries have airlines and air forces of their own, for instance.

Are said monkey's able to fly a plane WHEN THEY AREN'T EVEN ON IT?

from the 911 commission.

"S. SUSAN GINSBURG: Beginning with passports. Four of the hijackers passports have survived in whole or in part. Two were recovered from the crash site of United Airlines flight 93 in Pennsylvania. These are the passports of Ziad Jarrah and Saeed al Ghamdi. One belonged to a hijacker on American Airlines flight 11. This is the passport of Satam al Suqami. A passerby picked it up and gave it to a NYPD detective shortly before the World Trade Center towers collapsed."

The hijacker on flight 11... who was a crappy pilot... "hijacked" the plane, flew it into the world trade center, the passport SURVIVED, fell to the ground, and it was picked up by a passerby.

Do you remember that image? cause it was all over the mass media.

THEN HE WAS FOUND TO BE ALIVE AND WELL.

This is the "evidence" you believe??? WHAT PLANET ARE YOU ON??

Edited March 6, 2008 by Zaus

[Space Commander Travis]

Zaus... did you see, on the videos that I'm sure you're seen, many times, any planes fly into the Twin Towers?

What were they, please? were they real? hallucinations? Holograms? Astral projections? Radio controlled models?

And if they were holograms, disguised cruise missiles, planes secretly switched by the CIA, or whatever, what happened to the actual ones, the ones that they pretended that they were?

That, merely, is the question I'm trying to clear up. Thanks.

[Ins0mniac]

Key words: ...EVEN WITHOUT STUDYING UP ON IT, MOST PEOPLE WOULD REMEMBER(I.E. were brainwashed into thinking) THAT.

Look, this isnt easy... ITS BEEN 7 YEARS AND YOU PEOPLE STILL ARE SHOWING NO SIGNS OF INTELLIGENCE!!!

From the man who TRAINED THEM

I thought I was replying to anonymous51 who said they had no flight training, not that they were bad at it or incapable of doing it. which I responded by saying that they had. Which means that your post proved me right. And yet you claim I had been brainwashed because if it... Nice logic dude.

Also, I don't know the details of your pet theory. But even if someone's right, revelling in one's own opinion of self perceived superiority is rather embarrassing to watch.

But I still think they were capable. The twin towers were a pretty damn big and easily visible from a long distance. Steering an aircraft isn't rocket science. The hardest parts are navigation and landing. And being able to do it repeatedly many many times without risk. Flying something into a huge target wouldn't be that hard.

The pilot that was interviewed admitted he had no experience with a large commercial airliner anyway, so I'm not sure he would have known that much better than us. Obviously the controls wouldn't have been exactly the same. But the principals are. As long as you know how to turn autopilot off. They'd just handle differently/more sluggish obviously.

Certainly, you can injure, or even kill, another person with box-cutters / scissors / corkscrew. But even one person can defend / fight back against a box-cutter. And if you think you'd be able to fend off 20 or 30 people with a box-cutter, as they tremble in sheer terror, you're totally delusional.

Yeah, but you don't need to fight off 30 people. You just need to prevent anyone from making the first move and risk being slashed/stabbed and maybe killed. Wouldn't be as psychologically easy as you might think. And remember, they didn't actually know they were going to die anyway. Most airline hostage situations end with the safe release of the passengers. Not many of them end in a suicide mission.

Edited March 6, 2008 by Ins0mniac

[Cradle of Fish]

Don't bother with these people, they're much happier believing a few primitive **** ****** muslims armed with sticks with no flight training magically stole a couple of planes and flew them off course without USA fighter intervention. Then of course the CIA magically produces the identity of these hijackers out of the evaporated ashes of their remains. Then of course we have to retaliate by attacking a country that had nothing to do with it, with all those nasty invisible WMD's, and conveniently with all that delicious rich oil. Makes sense.

You're really ignorant of the history of Radical Islam. They had struck the US several times before, were those false flag attacks too? They really aren't that primitive, most if not all of the hijackers were university educated, they had the funding they needed and most importantly they had the will to do such a horrible thing, which is really all you need. It's also not easy to find a plane that's switched off all it's tracking instruments.

As for the aftermath, did you forget the ongoing campaign in Afghanistan? That war is the forgotten one, which you conveniently left out. The Taliban was taken out, and Al Qaeda was driven away. That was retaliation, the current Iraq War is a continuation of the Gulf War.

The only moronic statements I see are yours, Czero.

Have you heard of any crimes (other than the supposed 9/11 hijackings) where a box-cutter was brandished by the criminal(s)? Probably not many, I'd bet.

Why? Because, like scissors are the perfect tool for cutting paper, and a corkscrew is the perfect tool for opening a bottle of vintage Chablis, box-cutters are a perfect tool - for cutting cardboard, drywall, and carpet. But, as weapons, they are a poor choice.

Certainly, you can injure, or even kill, another person with box-cutters / scissors / corkscrew. But even one person can defend / fight back against a box-cutter. And if you think you'd be able to fend off 20 or 30 people with a box-cutter, as they tremble in sheer terror, you're totay delusional.

Maybe I'm not as ultra macho as you but if a crazy man pulled a box cutter on me, I'd do what he says. If you've read the report they first stood up, killed a flight attendant then stormed the cockpit and killed the pilots. The hijackers assured the passengers that they'd be safe, like it was a traditional hijacking. If you know the history of Islamic Terrorism, you'll see that they've done it before. The safest thing to do is wait for the ordeal to be over, if the passengers stormed the cockpit and took out the terrorists they'd likely be unable to land the plane and would all die. The difference comes in in Flight 93 where the passengers became aware of the other 3 attacks, and pieced together that this was going to be the fourth. They knew whatever they did they were going to die, and by overpowering they forced the hijackers to crash the plane then and there to prevent them from regaining control.

That right there is bravery on a level rarely seen, I bet most people would just lower their heads and wait for it to be over.

[ifisurvive]

Have you heard of any crimes (other than the supposed 9/11 hijackings) where a box-cutter was brandished by the criminal(s)? Probably not many, I'd bet.

Why? Because, like scissors are the perfect tool for cutting paper, and a corkscrew is the perfect tool for opening a bottle of vintage Chablis, box-cutters are a perfect tool - for cutting cardboard, drywall, and carpet. But, as weapons, they are a poor choice.

Certainly, you can injure, or even kill, another person with box-cutters / scissors / corkscrew. But even one person can defend / fight back against a box-cutter. And if you think you'd be able to fend off 20 or 30 people with a box-cutter, as they tremble in sheer terror, you're totally delusional.

Disbelief that a box-cutter could be a threatening enough weapon for a hijack is absurd. A few seconds on Google:

Murder

Murder

Murder

Attack

Attack

Attack

The fact that you CAN kill, injure or threaten with a box cutter is obvious and backed up by the links above and many others that are easy to find. Is it the most terrifying weapon ever used? No, of course not but it doesn't have to be, it's still a very sharp knife. I'm sure the hijackers would have prefered to have pistols, machine gun, large ticking belt bombs, flamethrowers - these are much more threatening weapons, but not quite as easy to get on board (that said, given the information about security maybe not. Just imagine what had happened if they had managed to get guns on board "Wow man, there's no way dirty arabs could get guns onboard a plane, the government must have helped them. If they had done it themselves they would have had to smuggle in something easier to get on board, like, um, a box cutter")

I assume you've been on an aircraft before so I'm not sure how you think 20-30 people can run down an aisle and attack at the same time. People are not naturally heroic. No one wants to be killed or even cut - why would someone take that risk? Before 9/11 no one worried about hijackers crashing planes, they would always go somewhere and land. Even if someone was feeling heroic why would they risk an in-flight fight when they could take their time, build up a little courage and do when it's much safer on the ground.

I think you're just being overly macho in thinking you would have laughed at the hijackers and attacked them right away. Add in the option of first seeing someone being stabbed / killed without warning (as proof the hijackers will use force), and the threat of a bomb on board and you're the one who's being delusional if you think you would have done anything different.

[Czero 101]

The only moronic statements I see are yours, Czero.

Have you heard of any crimes (other than the supposed 9/11 hijackings) where a box-cutter was brandished by the criminal(s)? Probably not many, I'd bet.

Why? Because, like scissors are the perfect tool for cutting paper, and a corkscrew is the perfect tool for opening a bottle of vintage Chablis, box-cutters are a perfect tool - for cutting cardboard, drywall, and carpet. But, as weapons, they are a poor choice.

Certainly, you can injure, or even kill, another person with box-cutters / scissors / corkscrew. But even one person can defend / fight back against a box-cutter. And if you think you'd be able to fend off 20 or 30 people with a box-cutter, as they tremble in sheer terror, you're totally delusional.

You, like all your opinions, theories and ideas, are simply unbelievable, Turbs....

Cz

[Zaus]

Zaus... did you see, on the videos that I'm sure you're seen, many times, any planes fly into the Twin Towers?

What were they, please? were they real? hallucinations? Holograms? Astral projections? Radio controlled models?

And if they were holograms, disguised cruise missiles, planes secretly switched by the CIA, or whatever, what happened to the actual ones, the ones that they pretended that they were?

That, merely, is the question I'm trying to clear up. Thanks.

Scary thought eh?

[Space Commander Travis]

Ok, right. Digital imagery.

So the people, there, on the spot, who saw the planes, in real life, were seeing digital imagery.

Digital imagery which, it seems, can now be projected into real life.

three dimensional, solid, audible, digital imagery.

ok.

Still, at least I do seem to have got this admission out of Zaus, which is perhaps a historic moment in itself:

I don't know

For that, I suppose, I should be grateful.

[Archosaur]

Well, as I believe that the WTC Towers were destoyed by terrorists in hijacked plains, I will add my two cents.

Responding to various theories:

*The WTC Towers were designed to withstand an airplane impact.

True. And they did. Then the structural dammage, combined with the fire took them down

*Molten metal seen before the collapse, proof of thermite.

Aluminum from the aircraft melts at a lower temperature than steel, thus stands of it flowing out of an inferno of tons of aviation fuel is not that strange.

*How can we believe that fire melts steel?

That is how steel is made.

*The buildings fell straight down.

Yes. When the supports weakened, the concrete slabs of each floor pancaked onto the one below, bringing the structure almost straight down.

*Glass ans debris was blown out sideways.

Yes. As each of the floors collapsed, air was forced out from between them.

*The rubble burned for a long time.

And? This was a massive aggragrate mixed with flammable materials, with small airspaces. low intensity fires could well have burned for weeks.

[turbonium]

Disbelief that a box-cutter could be a threatening enough weapon for a hijack is absurd. A few seconds on Google:

Murder

Murder

Murder

Attack

Attack

Attack

The fact that you CAN kill, injure or threaten with a box cutter is obvious and backed up by the links above and many others that are easy to find.

I've already mentioned that box-cutters can injure or kill someone. So can a corkscrew or scissors. But someone wielding a box-cutter/corkscrew/scissors is not going to subdue 20 or 30 people through intimidation. Your examples describe one-on-one incidents, where the perpetrator was able to threaten a single victim, at close range. Take a few seconds and Google "murder" with "corkscrew" or "scissors", and you'll find at least as many (and probably more) incidents using these "weapons", than there have been with box-cutters.

Is it the most terrifying weapon ever used? No, of course not but it doesn't have to be, it's still a very sharp knife.

Box-cutters are indeed very sharp, but they are not even as effective a weapon as scissors are. You cannot use box-cutters to stab someone with, because the blades are not designed for puncturing. The blades are very thin, and have a wide taper, making them weak and ineffective for stabbing. Scissors are much more effective for stabbing.

That's what makes a switchblade or a hunting knife effective - and threatening - as weapons. Not for slicing someone with, but for stabbing someone with.

Look at your first "Attack" link, and note the common element in almost every standard knife incident - the victims were all "stabbed". There is only one incident with a box-cutter ("Stanley knife") - an injury to a man who was "slashed" by the box-cutter.

I'm sure the hijackers would have prefered to have pistols, machine gun, large ticking belt bombs, flamethrowers - these are much more threatening weapons, but not quite as easy to get on board (that said, given the information about security maybe not. Just imagine what had happened if they had managed to get guns on board "Wow man, there's no way dirty arabs could get guns onboard a plane, the government must have helped them. If they had done it themselves they would have had to smuggle in something easier to get on board, like, um, a box cutter")

As I said, even scissors are a better choice of weapon than box-cutters are.

I assume you've been on an aircraft before so I'm not sure how you think 20-30 people can run down an aisle and attack at the same time. People are not naturally heroic. No one wants to be killed or even cut - why would someone take that risk? Before 9/11 no one worried about hijackers crashing planes, they would always go somewhere and land. Even if someone was feeling heroic why would they risk an in-flight fight when they could take their time, build up a little courage and do when it's much safer on the ground.

It doesn't take 20 or 30 people. All it takes is 2 or 3 people to overcome someone wielding a box-cutter. People don't have to be "naturally heroic" to respond in such a situation.

I think you're just being overly macho in thinking you would have laughed at the hijackers and attacked them right away. Add in the option of first seeing someone being stabbed / killed without warning (as proof the hijackers will use force), and the threat of a bomb on board and you're the one who's being delusional if you think you would have done anything different.

I've been in a couple of situations much more dangerous than this. When your survival is threatened, it (often) sparks an instinctive "fight or flight" response, and your adrenaline kicks in, big-time. Others may "freeze up" in fear, during the same situation.

My instinctive response in both situations was to "fight". During one of these incidents, I noticed that a few people around me froze up in fear. There was no "flight" option.

I wasn't being "overly macho", or trying to be some sort of hero. I was just trying to prevent my friends from being injured / killed at the time.

But you haven't mentioned the most important point...

Even if all the passengers and flight attendants cowered in fear from a few hijackers wielding box-cutters, there's no way in hell the pilot and co-pilot would give up control of their aircraft to them. To claim they did so, on 4 different planes, all on the same day, is so far beyond absurd that it's laughable.

[Czero 101]

To claim they did so, on 4 different planes, all on the same day, is so far beyond absurd that it's laughable.

What's really laughable, Turbs, is that you actually believe - AND expect OTHERS to believe - the mountains of garbage that pours forth from your mind in the form of your sad opinions...

Cz

[Redtail]

I've already mentioned that box-cutters can injure or kill someone. So can a corkscrew or scissors. But someone wielding a box-cutter/corkscrew/scissors is not going to subdue 20 or 30 people through intimidation. Your examples describe one-on-one incidents, where the perpetrator was able to threaten a single victim, at close range. Take a few seconds and Google "murder" with "corkscrew" or "scissors", and you'll find at least as many (and probably more) incidents using these "weapons", than there have been with box-cutters.

You know this how?

Box-cutters are indeed very sharp, but they are not even as effective a weapon as scissors are. You cannot use box-cutters to stab someone with, because the blades are not designed for puncturing. The blades are very thin, and have a wide taper, making them weak and ineffective for stabbing. Scissors are much more effective for stabbing.

That's what makes a switchblade or a hunting knife effective - and threatening - as weapons. Not for slicing someone with, but for stabbing someone with.

Slashing tends to produce an uglier wound and more blood though. Remember you don't have to kill these 20-30 people you just have to scare them enough that they won't move against you.

Look at your first "Attack" link, and note the common element in almost every standard knife incident - the victims were all "stabbed". There is only one incident with a box-cutter ("Stanley knife") - an injury to a man who was "slashed" by the box-cutter.

Have you ever seen anyone slashed with a razor before?

As I said, even scissors are a better choice of weapon than box-cutters are.

To defend yourself from an attacker, yes. To scare people into being compliant, no.

It doesn't take 20 or 30 people. All it takes is 2 or 3 people to overcome someone wielding a box-cutter. People don't have to be "naturally heroic" to respond in such a situation.

No, it only takes one IF that one knows what he or she is doing and IF they find the courage to move.

I've been in a couple of situations much more dangerous than this. When your survival is threatened, it (often) sparks an instinctive "fight or flight" response, and your adrenaline kicks in, big-time. Others may "freeze up" in fear, during the same situation.

You've been in much more dangerous situations than sitting on an airplane, 30,000+/- feet above the ground, with no weapon other than ones you can improvise, having 4-5 terrorists taking over planes, and crashing them into buildings? Prove it.

My instinctive response in both situations was to "fight". During one of these incidents, I noticed that a few people around me froze up in fear. There was no "flight" option.

Did any of the attackers say they had a bomb and were willing to blow themselves and you and your friends and family up?

I wasn't being "overly macho", or trying to be some sort of hero. I was just trying to prevent my friends from being injured / killed at the time.

Good for you.

But you haven't mentioned the most important point...

Even if all the passengers and flight attendants cowered in fear from a few hijackers wielding box-cutters, there's no way in hell the pilot and co-pilot would give up control of their aircraft to them. To claim they did so, on 4 different planes, all on the same day, is so far beyond absurd that it's laughable.

No, YOU haven't mentioned the most important part. No hijackers had ever done this before! SOP for hijacking was to sit and wait it out. Now what happened when passengers found out the planes were being crashed into buildings? They. Fought. Back. They realized that they had no choice other than to die. IF you had the flight option would you have taken it in your story above? If not, why did you point out there was no flight option?

[Czero 101]

Redtail... I sure hope you're not expecting Turbs to provide any actual evidence to back up his claims and opinions... You'll be waiting a long long time. His opinions are all the truth he needs and real facts just get in his way...

Cz

Edited March 7, 2008 by Czero 101

[ifisurvive]

I wasn't being "overly macho", or trying to be some sort of hero. I was just trying to prevent my friends from being injured / killed at the time.

But you haven't mentioned the most important point...

Even if all the passengers and flight attendants cowered in fear from a few hijackers wielding box-cutters, there's no way in hell the pilot and co-pilot would give up control of their aircraft to them. To claim they did so, on 4 different planes, all on the same day, is so far beyond absurd that it's laughable.

I think Redtail covered most of what I would have said but there's a few points I want to respond on.

You say "But you haven't mentioned the most important point...", then go on about attacking the cockpit. Yet you seem to side step an important point about how the pasengers would react if they first saw someone killed before their eyes and also if there was a threat of a bomb on board. Are you saying you'd try to be a hero if you believed they also had a bomb on board?

Also it's interesting you say "I wasn't being "overly macho", or trying to be some sort of hero. I was just trying to prevent my friends from being injured / killed at the time." and then a few sentances later say "there's no way in hell the pilot and co-pilot would give up control of their aircraft". Do you not get the contradiction here? Somone has got a knife to the throat of your colleague, maybe screaming for you to help, (remembering the pilots could not see that they were 'laughable' box cutters) they've probably already killed someone and claim they have a bomb and are willing to kill everyone on board. The pilot is responsible for the safety of the passengers and crew - before 9/11 the safest thing with hijackers (especially with bomb threat) was to comply with them. Nowadays it's different, doors are armoured and the procedure is to get the aircraft on the ground asap, but not before 9/11.

ETA: Oh yeah, you forget to mention that there were 4-5 hijackers on each plane, so the 20-30 people against 1 scenario is even more unrealistic. You now need a passenger who decides to attack 4 nutters, possibley all armed with knives, without any knowledge that anyone else will help, after that person has already seen said nutters kill someone and say they have a bomb. Barring Chuck Norris, I can't see anyone who would think that they were good odds. Even if someone was feeling macho the idea that whilst they were attacking one hijacker another hijacker could easily grab another, more 'cowardly', passenger and murder them because of your actions would probably put you off.

Edited March 7, 2008 by ifisurvive

[flyingswan]

Responding to various theories:

*Molten metal seen before the collapse, proof of thermite.

Aluminum from the aircraft melts at a lower temperature than steel, thus stands of it flowing out of an inferno of tons of aviation fuel is not that strange.

Perhaps you've missed the recent revelation that the location the cascade of molten metal came from was a UPS room, full of lead-acid batteries. Seeing what can happen when a battery is shorted, the cascade is very likely mostly molten lead.

http://undicisettembre.blogspot.com/2007/0...or-of-wtc2.html

http://www.calicorp.com/articles/batteries-hazards.html

[keithisco]

Perhaps you've missed the recent revelation that the location the cascade of molten metal came from was a UPS room, full of lead-acid batteries. Seeing what can happen when a battery is shorted, the cascade is very likely mostly molten lead.

http://undicisettembre.blogspot.com/2007/0...or-of-wtc2.html

http://www.calicorp.com/articles/batteries-hazards.html

Molten Steel was described one month later. Not shorted batteries. Why would UPS need a room "Full of lead-acid" batteries anyway? How come the "batteries" if they existed, all shorted out, broke the casings they were in (cant happen by the way - Safety Regulations), and formed a torrent?? Never happened, just a lack of knowledge about electrical engineering IMO.

[flyingswan]

Molten Steel was described one month later. Not shorted batteries. Why would UPS need a room "Full of lead-acid" batteries anyway? How come the "batteries" if they existed, all shorted out, broke the casings they were in (cant happen by the way - Safety Regulations), and formed a torrent?? Never happened, just a lack of knowledge about electrical engineering IMO.

This is referring to the cascade of molten metal seen flowing down the side of WTC2, not reports of molten steel in the debris pile.

Did you actually read the link? UPS stands for uninterruptible power supply, and a room full of batteries is a common type of UPS. Plenty of pictures of such an installation in the first link. The second link describes what can happen to a shorted battery. The UPS was just below the impact level, so debris falling on the batteries and shorting them out was a distinct possibility.

[Q24]

Perhaps you've missed the recent revelation that the location the cascade of molten metal came from was a UPS room, full of lead-acid batteries. Seeing what can happen when a battery is shorted, the cascade is very likely mostly molten lead.

Oh dear, I laughed out loud when I saw it written down like that.

Doesn't seem there is much support for the theory anyhow, but still amusing seeing you try to promote it.

Keithisco got it in one...

Never happened, just a lack of knowledge about electrical engineering IMO

... now let's see if you can get anyone to agree with this trick.

Edited March 7, 2008 by Q24

[Cradle of Fish]

Doesn't seem there is much support for the theory anyhow, but still amusing seeing you try to promote it.

Ladies and gentlemen, the definition of irony.

[Q24]

Ladies and gentlemen, the definition of irony.

That made me laugh out loud too.

It's down to perspective I guess... I personally see more evidence for an inside job than the commonly held beliefs. Perhaps it is ironic what I said is a line 'debunkers' came up with first?

Still, it leaves the point that the 'official' story is lacking in evidence every bit as much as the 'alternative' theory may be. Then we come down to which is more likely...

Edited March 8, 2008 by Q24