Register
Events
Popular
More
Post #121
Pretty sure he didn't say the towers were vaporized with lasers.
Edited:
I've watched about 45 minutes of this and wow, I didn't realize just what was going on.
-
-
Because the laser theory isn't true, I never said it was. You need to re-read/watch what I typed and the videos I linked.
-
No I was talking about the original theory that started this thread. Just out of curiosity.
-
Perhaps the reptillians posing as humans are laser-proof?
-
it's always the fucking argonians
-
Is there a link to his research papers and did he even release them so that the scientific community can take a look at them? Is there any proof that he did actually find nano-thermite besides his and his group's word? Have they shown the samples they used in the research to the scientific community?
Oh holy shit he did post his papers and look at the bullshit right on the first page:
Niels H. Harrit-1
Jeffrey Farrer-2
Steven E. Jones-3 (this guy also believes the Haiti earthquake was artificial)
Kevin R. Ryan-4
Frank M. Legge-5
Daniel Farnsworth-2
Gregg Roberts-6
James R. Gourley-7
Bradley R. Larsen-3
1-Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
2-Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602, USA
3-S&J Scientific Co., Provo, UT, 84606, USA
4-9/11 Working Group of Bloomington, Bloomington, IN 47401, USA
5-Logical Systems Consulting, Perth, Western Australia
6-Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Berkeley, CA 94704, USA
7-International Center for 9/11 Studies, Dallas, TX 75231, USA
3 9/11 Truth group members, yep this looks nice already.
They then go on to say how they found material that ignites at a lower temperature than normal thermite, they explain how nano-thermite works, where it is produced, etc. YET, they NEVER mention that it's nano-thermite in the whole damn paper. All they do is compare the material they found to nano-thermite and say that it could be nano-thermite but they never actually prove that it is nano-thermite.
It's just a bunch of bullshit all dodging the question.
There's also the beautiful references page at the end of the PDF that just refers to 9/11 truth websites, making more than half of the paper total bullshit.
http://www.benthamscience.com/open/t...002/7TOCPJ.pdf
Even if it did accuse for nano-thermite, do they have the samples they collected(years after 9/11 might I add) so the scientific community can look at them?
I'm done.
-
Have you also contested NISTs version of 9/11 in that manner?
Contesting it in such a fashion just makes you biased, because if you want to do that, you should do it for both sides AKA NIST doesn't even acknowledge molten steel ever to have existed. How can this be if there are numerous pieces of evidence, like that now famous big ball block of molten steel and cement? or even the video footage of steel dripping from the WTC? or fireman just saying it all just looked like a foundry?
Plus in the video i linked, there are mentioned 3 independent AND separate investigations, so 3 more than NIST ever did. There must have been over 60 experts in that video alone, and you look to discredit one, now on to the other 59. Besides, you should look to contact the group, in order to try and access the samples, if you in particular, are interested. Rambling that its not in the open or at the museum isn't going to help your cause is it.
But i do believe that anything that goes against what you were told must be a lie, formulated by a couple of people living in a basement.
-
To be honest, I don't like this kind of evidence. It's not something which the scientists of the NIST or anyone else can prove. It's for 'assumptionists', of which I'm not one. Yet, there is enough evidence to point to the glow being aluminum. (Anyone saying they KNOW what the substance is would be lying. I won't pretend to KNOW it's aluminum because I don't. The NIST doesn't say they KNOW either. They only conclude it's aluminum because it's the most likely, given the evidence.)
"NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475 degrees Celsius and 640 degrees Celsius (depending on the particular alloy), well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees Celsius) in the vicinity of the fires. Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures and there is no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning.
Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface."
The impact of the plane and it's projected collection of debris is suggests this to be the case.
Edited:
Oh, you mean the doctored photo used in "Loose Change"?
This one?
It was just a flashlight Rescue Workers were using to search through the rubble.
Alot of the other 'evidence' of molten steel are either doctored or completely taken out of context.
-
No, that is not the one i ment. I will look for it and come edit this post in a bit. I never even seen that documentary, seems its highly targetted as being "truthers" source.
EDIT
Ok so this is the NIST lead engineer i was "quoting" when they say it wasn't ever even found:
He doesn't dismiss it as Alluminium either.
Ok and this is the Block:
[url]
Thumbnail displays the block. Watch the entire video or look in 1:20 for that bit. Firemen also present in 1:05 talking about this eventual "molten steel". The video in itself just keeps pouring witnesses that saw the molten steel. Plus, fires that lasted for 8 weeks.
Care to proceed with the explanation. You seem like an educated person, so im interested in what you have to say about it.
-
There is no motive behind 9/11 being an inside job. If it was an inside job, the planners would have been so intelligent to fool everyone for so long, yet they had absolutely no motive for the attack.
-
Alan Sabrosky the army veteran seems to know that Israel wanted it done. So did the individuals that got caught by the FBI celebrating the disaster as it happened, later to be found were part of the mossad. Do i question any of this? yes.
BUT, that in itself is a whole other story, and please lets disregard all of it for now. That is not the issue at hand here, not at the moment. Just molten steel.
-
Nano-Thermite is made via fine particulates of ferrous oxide (steel and iron) with aluminum (one of the primary metals found in planes) and can only form in the presence of high temperatures (such as a fuel fire.) You can see where this is going.
-
No motive? Do the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan ring a bell?
Also, no plan is perfect. There are always going to be holes somewhere, they can't hide a buildings controlled demolition in an uncontrollable environment (eg cameras and recordings everywhere).
Last I heard, nano-thermite is military grade, and can't just be just made as simple as that.
-
If the U.S were to ever make excuses for starting a war, they would hit their allies, then themselves. For example, causing massive collateral damage in European cities, such as bombing Buckingham palace, the Reichstag or any other symbol of a nation. And to begin with causing massive damage to your own nation for an excuse to start a war in another nation for the means of resources is illogical. A much more logical solution would to exploit the poor economic condition of resource rich countries to gain favor of the local populace which would reduce terror actions. Then to control the government of said nation through means of bribery. This would result in control of a country and its resources with minimal loss of life.
-
Not really, nano-thermite is produced by the gasses of liquefied iron/steel and aluminum interacting with one another, both of which were in abundance when a plane full of jet fuel smacks into a steel building.
-
I guess nobody watched the video. At least watch what he says here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...Cfa4eQ#t=5873s
Can't embed when linking to a specific time in the video.
There's another part in the video, not sure what time where they said it is military grade nano-thermite that could only be made in a laboratory.
-
Quite the nice video link, sir.
Among so much info i didn't even realize such aspects were depicted. Thank you.
-
So you're saying the military, knowing fully well pretty much everyone ever will be extensively combing the area, chose to use an explosive that "can only be made in a laboratory and is used almost exclusively by the US military."
-
Who combed the area? NIST? They never even carried out a proper investigation nor tested for explosives/incediary, even denying that witnesses seen molten steel burning for weeks afterwards.
And of course all the metal wasn't kept long either, so another investigation couldn't take place.
And I said military grade, don't know if it was the US military.
-
Nano-Thermite exists in extremely hostile enviorments. Like canuhearme said, an aircraft smashing into a building at a high speed would be the perfect plan. And the girders didn't melt, structural weakness would occur at even moderate-high temperatures.
Edited:
How would thermite exactly work in a scenario where the theorists point out the melting of steel occuring in clean cuts?
-
Shape Charges do that.
-
They didn't carry out a proper investigation because it was painfully obvious a pair of aircraft slammed into the towers and caused the entire thing to collapse on itself. Would you say it would've been necessary for an investigation to have been made following Columbine to see if it was more then just, "a couple psychotic teens?"
Also they ignored the arguments of there being molten steel burning for weeks because that's simply an insane argument. There's no way steel can remain liquefied at ground level for a period of days without a constant external energy source. Just because you're a witness (even an intelligent one) doesn't make your telling of events carry the weight of fact.
Furthermore to go back to the "in a lab" argument. They produce it the same way you make other munitions, mass produced, it's just the demand is so small they only produce around 100 kilograms a month of the stuff.
Also, I don't see why you have to emphasize the thing can only be produced in a lab. Just because it requires exotic conditions does not mean it can't occur naturally given the exotic conditions are met. Hell, they've found natural nuclear fission going on in certain parts of the world. And if an airplane smashing into a building emulates damn near perfectly the dynamic gas-phase condensation method (the most common way to produce nano-thermite) then you'd expect nano-thermite at the scene.
-
I am lost for words.
I wonder why there was an investigation at all. Its all so clear that it was all planes.
Wait but WTC 7 never took a plane in it. But NIST still didn't investigate. Makes perfect sense, i am clarified now.
-
Comparing 9/11 to Columbine is ridiculous, when there is so much evidence piling up, including what you see on video.
So you're saying the firemen and others who witnessed the molten steel are insane?
And again as they said in the video, NANO thermite couldn't have formed naturally.
-
And why is that? And can you point to where a fireman or first responder said they saw molten steel "weeks after the attacks?"
Nano-thermite can't be formed "naturally" because the conditions needed for it are by their nature unnatural. Are you implying a jet fuel fire with molten aluminum and steel intermingling is natural?
-
So nothing happened to damage WTC7? Nothing even fell on it?
-
[url]
From 2:10 on. Experiences and testimonies about it.
-
It was hit by some of the beams from the North Tower collapse, unlike what Larry Silvestein said: " The north tower mast hit it", even though the mast went the opposite direction away from it.
-
Metal and concrete does a damn fine job of keeping in heat, and without a source of oxygen a hot piece of metal's not exactly going to just catch fire or smolder (and even then, it'll only do so when the proper materials are fused/nearby, such as crap you'd find in an office.)
An example of this, just on a massively larger scale is the coal mine fires in Centralia, Pennsylvania. The fires below are burning hot, but only produce visible flames or smoke when exposed to air (which is also a reason it's been kept so hot for so long, since the thing's oxygen choked and surrounded by soil/stone it's well insulated.)
-
Official investigation suggests the whole building collapsed in 6.5 seconds out of office fires. Also, from debris from towers 1 & 2, the tall buildings.
Which, when you look at it, also makes plenty of sense, because WTC 3 4 5 AND 6, all took with debris, were closer to the 1 & 2 towers, got partially destroyed, yet non of them collapsed not in 6.5 seconds, or 6.5 hours, or 6.5 days. Not as of Febuary 15, 2012 at least. And they gone now aswell.
So no need for an investigation. It was obvious why it fell.
-
All I know is that there is a lot we don't know, but I don't want to come to any conclusions without actually knowing what happened.
-
You mean the kind of "office crap" that is mandatory to be fire resistant in high-rises? you mean the same high-rise that firemen that day, and i quote, "charged in there" to save lives, because they knew such a building collapsing to fires was an impossibility? these fireman are all "truthers" these days.
And you are instigating the theory yourself. "Metal does a damn fine job at keeping heat" ?
So why wasn't that investigated. Where is all the heat coming from. Must have been planes and their fuel burning for months on end? i don't have a degree in physics, or anything of the sort, im just the common citizen looking to form an educated opinion, and all i get are people that didn't investigate a damn thing on the official side of it, and on the other people that actually did and said non of this would have been possible unless it was done under special conditions.
So investigation vs no investigation. I will always take the first.
-
Well the evidence points a long long way away from the official theory.
-
Another addition:
-
Someone learned how to use Photoshop.
-
"people give DBS shit all the time but he's really a good guy and i'm glad he's my friend" -no one
March 2009
17,012 Posts
The problem with that way of thinking is that it can potentially continue indefinitely. If the evidence seems to be pointing in an uncomfortable direction (or just any direction) you can always demand more evidence and comfortable claim that "the issue is still controversial" or "both sides have strong arguments". You have to draw the line somewhere and reach a conclusion.
-
Why are all conspiracy videos so blurry and shaky?
-
Clearly because its all edited and done under some sort of video editing software.
Done to cover the REAL truth, and by people living in a basement, and...i forgot the rest you think of them.
Because those videos DO NOT show NIST lead investigator(s) being caught in their own lies. Just poorly edited stuff to try and make them look like phonies.
I wonder if the girl from texas is going to win dancing with the stars...
-
So you should believe the lie just because it's easier/comfortable and provides false closure?
-
My uncle, aunt and cousin died on one of those planes.
Don't try to say that the planes didn't exist.
Informative x 1
Optimistic x 2
Funny x 10
Agree x 3
Zing x 1
Dumb x 7
Disagree x 1
Useful x 1
Friendly x 10