They never denied there was any molten metal, they only proved that said metal could not have been steel.
Also considering no demolition ever leaves behind pools of molten steel would you mind explaining why exactly molten metal is proof there was a conspiracy?
He doesn't acknowledge molten steel. On the other hand i have heard it was dismissed as molten aluminum, just like you mentioned, correct? ok, so first, notice that John Gross over there DOES NOT dismiss it as Aluminum in any circumstance, and second, in the video evidence that is nowadays public domain, the metal u see dripping from the building(s) is yellow/orange. Molten Alluminium is silver. They are hardly similar colors in order to be mistaken with one another. So there is molten steel dripping from the tower(s) and there was molten steel on the bottom of the buildings after collapse. Do you agree? If so, why wasn't it investigated?
No one, within these so called truthers, forces their views on you, well i for one don't, and i guess you categorize me as a truther by now. All people are saying is that NIST ignored one too many evidence to even come to proper conclusions, and want all of it re-opened for a proper criminal investigation, and see what was what.
All i saw in that video was someone that started counting the very first second he saw any penthouse budging, well thats not how everyone does it. Since they were looking to verify the resistance the building found upon collapse initiated, it starts as the building started to come down on itself, and the average 7 seconds is where the relevance is because there was 0 resistance until that building hit the ground, which is quite strange since it was just fires affecting it. So in what does stretching the time from 6.5 seconds to 13 change the event? Any given question about the buildings sort of still stand, or:
- was it a natural collapse? and how is this verified. It clearly didn't fall in portions but quite rapidly.
- how many buildings are there reports of, that fell in seconds and symmetrically like that, that weren't done under controlled demolition?
- how many high-rises do you know that ever collapsed completely out of fires?
You had high rises burning for nearly 24 hours with raging fires and at best they collapsed partially, like the Windsor tower in Spain, see how that building ended up totally disfigured, yet some 85% of it still stood. So what happened here for this building to fall in a few hours, specially when the fires weren't that enormous and pouring out of the windows?
There are also talks of debris hitting the south side of WTC 7 as reason for collapse. So wait, WTC 3 4 5 & 6, 4 buildings, all took a ton of debris more than WTC 7 since they were so much closer, got damaged, gravely affected, and not ONE structure even buckled, and some damage on the building further away (WTC 7) brings it down just like that?
That makes sense.
Also just a point: thermite can cause molten steel yes, but wouldn't an explosion of jet fuel also cause the steel frame of the tower to melt? Also to every idiot that says thermite was used: go on youtube and look at what a thermite explosion actually is. The collapse in no way resembled anything close to it.
And another thing: the guy was just asking why it is you truther trolls can't shell out for a decent camera, he wasn't saying it refuted your blatant lies in any way, he was just curious.
Fuel burning at max temperature produces no smoke. Smoke just shows how oxygen deprived the fire is, and how its burning at lower temperatures, instead of optimal ones. Besides that steel frame you talk of, had been tested by UL at 2000F. Jet A Fuel burns in open air at 600/700F. So those tower steel frames were tested at 3 times the temperatures they suffered that day.
But WTC 7 never took a plane, no jet fuel, so that issue can be put aside for this building at least. Molten steel was also found there, and it collapsed in the same fashion as the other two, free fall. How?
Cheap statement, much like yours, just i didn't call anyone an idiot.
And lies, yes. Also makes sense.
Not one official source has ever said the the steel supports were melted. Steel looses half of it's strength around 800 degrees Fahrenheit, which with the massive amounts of damage, caused the buildings to collapse. And with the towers reaching around 1100 degrees, was enough to melt the aluminum of the planes, but not the structural steel of the towers.
Well on video 1, you can see what happens to the alluminium as soon as it gets in contact with the air outside no? it turns silver. You were trying to prove me wrong or agree?
And video 2, you can see some of the other buildings of the WTC complex during the first minute or so, and how non collapsed even when hit several times worst when compared to building 7. Quoting the video itself, "due to the heavy smoke", again, means oxygen deprived fires, so lesser temperatures? this comes from firemen, not myself. "And then came the fires". These two contradict themselves?
If there was black smoke in order for them not to be able to see, there was low temperature, yea? so, you implying that those same fires and some debris damage brought the whole thing down? so what separates WTC 7 from 3 4 5 or 6 really? office fires?
And about 25% of the depth of the building was scooped out? when and how did they come to this conclusion? did they just assume things, like on those sketches they did for tower 1 & 2?
There was a user just above that said it, or strongly suggested, put it that way. Seems there are different versions to the same event. And im quite sure that the FEMA report showed 560F not 800.
But even assuming that would have been the case, and that it was 800F and that it would have weakened it, how does the building BELOW impact area cave in like its made of cheap legos? all the structural steel BELOW IMPACT AREA is still there and not exposed to 800F? how does that simply cave in and disappear?
And again, as even shown in that video, WTC 3,4,5 and 6 were ravaged by much worse fires and decimated by rubble (WTC 3 Marriot Hotel especially) yet still standing.
If Truss 1 was so important for support and collapsed first, the northeast-east section of the building would've collapsed with it, not just the East Penthouse.
All columns failing symmetrically couldn't happen, there would always be resistance.
As for the Twin Towers, as you can see again there are lots of squibs at specific locations many floors below the collapse area, and ejections happening at the collapse zone. Don't forget the sections of multi-ton beams flying outwards at a massive distance.
Try telling this to my aunt, who had buried (What was left) of her sister who died on flight 11. I'm pretty sure she would be interested in hearing this.
And i have tried looking at everything, from thermite explosions to thermite reactions. Can you please link what sort of video caused such an impression? you're making it seem that a thermite explosion would blind everyone in a 2 mile radius.
And i guess i suits the circumstances, the metal dripping on the tower(s) wasn't near any fire, was on the outside of the building, and pouring from 80 stories high, so plenty of cold air to make it silver in case it was alluminium. The vast majority of the molten metal at the bottom wasn't reported as aluminum either.
I have also seen a video called "9/11 Debunked: "Molten Metal" Explained" where the user commits a series of mistakes while trying to explain that it wasn't actually molten steel, but alumminium. Some wrongs. 1. he claims fires were burning at 1800F, False, 1800F is the maximum temperature Jet A fuel type reaches under perfect conditions, and those were never met on 9/11. Everyone agrees to this, not even 800F were. 2. he says that at those temperatures the alluminium starts to look "orangy". True but false. The alluminium was never exposed to 1800F nor would it be anywhere near 1800F when pouring on the outside and at such altitude.
There is in fact a video of planes aluminum dripping of one of the towers, i would have to look for it again in order to link. But it has nothing to do with molten steel.
All this said, why didn't NIST themselves investigate all this? all these events should be studied in order to asure it never happens again, at least. One too many evidence blatantly ignored.
Also, the hijacked planes aren't fake, and the people on board it were really terrorists, but the government still managed to put bombs in a building?
How in the fuck did they manage to place all those bombs in the first place without causing suspicion? Don't say covered up, because that's just a shitty argument to say you don't know.
They would need literally thousands of charges to blow up a building that size, not to mention so much construction and maintenance that they might as well of rebuilt the building with explosives in it.
Also, to re butte your claim that I am immoral and cheap, how about the douche bags from loose change who collect "donations" from people in order to insult and tell people their family was in on a conspiracy.
My condolences to your family member/loved one though.
9/11 RAR RAR RAR. molten steel, RAR RAR RAR.
Also I HAVE seen controlled demolitions, and I encourage you to do the same because they don't resemble WTC 7.
If, there was nano-termite in the buildings, which none were ever found. It turned out that the alleged nano-termite remains were just sulfur from the dry wall.
You know, the stuff that was made to line the walls?
And the hijackers have all been pointed out to have been CIA. But thats speculation aswell, or so i think, i haven't dwelled in who they were in detail, as im sure neither have you, and go by what you're told. There is already plenty of other straight up, physical evidence to work with, and that the govt refuses to look at, for one reason or another.
And it probably caused as much suspicion, as the govt rushing to remove all the steel from the site, 400 trucks a day, and sending it to china, did. All this while blocking any investigation. FEMA was only allowed on 2 months after.
Brymir, you need to understand one thing
In life, in general, usually the simplest explanation is always true.
What is more simple.
2 massive planes loaded with fuel were hijacked and flown into buildings, causing them to collapse,
thousands of people could keep a perfect secret and form a conspiracy, with no-major loose ends.
ITT: I'm a genius on 9/11 because I listen to THEORIES(Read: Not every theory is fucking right) from crackpot idiots while ignoring all logic and reason and forgetting that THERE IS FOOTAGE OF A PLANE HITTING A BUILDING, NEARLY THREE THOUSAND LIVES LOST, A MEMORIAL SITE AND FUCKING THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE WHO LOST FAMILY MEMBERS ON THAT DAY, THE FUCK MORE DO YOU WANT?
God fucking damnit, those poor people are probably rolling over in their graves right this very fucking second.
I'm sorry, just... Sometimes Facepunch has the attention span of a gnat on non-drowsy Sudafed.
If you want to fucking argue over it, go to a conspiracy theorists forum. We should be honoring the dead with respect, not trying to pull bullshit conspiracy theories from our asses.
Excuse me, I need a fucking nap.
I love how people blame America for the tons of deaths that day, no we can't place bombs in buildings without at least SOMEONE who isn't a wackjob liar noticing. Second, if we were to detonate the building, how the fuck could we? We would need thousands of explosives, which we can't simply just pull out of a bag.
The planes hijacked were real, and the pilots trained in my city actually, Hialeah Florida. Don't believe me? Google it. You can't fake a plane crashing into a building and pretend the people who died just vanished, no they died. And the people flying the plane were terrorists, terrorists with a deadly plan that worked. I find it hard that our country of all people think the government did it, it's amazingly hilarious. Attacking ourselves for what? Put us in debt and war? An excuse to fight? No, we didn't know jack till it happened.
So in a sense, we are in agreement. I will let everyone keep their simple stories and move out of your, and everyones way.
Have a good one :)
I'm more surprised a publisher said "Yep all good" and didn't stop to use his own brain.
If most of the explosives/nano-thermite were in the elevator shafts around the inner core columns, how would people have seen them there? They wouldn't.
As for the US attacking itself? you need to look at "false flags", the Gulf of Tonkin Incident is now admitted it was a false flag so they could invade Vietnam.
So why would they attack themselves on 9/11? so they can invade Iraq.
What I'd like to know is how a country that couldn't even hide that there were no WMD's in Iraq without a CIA agent exposing it, would be able to keep something 100 times bigger, and 100 times more difficult to cover up, under wraps.
Oh god this thread's still going.
I don't want to get involved, my blood pressure can't take it. We've had threads on this before, the same bullshit gets posted only to get knocked down. Please just search and read those ones instead.
Oh wait, never mind, seems the old threads got disappeared yet again.
No wait, found one of them
That's the 3 major threads relating to this debate we've had that I can still remember (or can actually bloody find with the finicky search tools available)
You can also find any number of sites on the Internet containing archives of info and lists of relevant sites to debunking 9/11 conspiracy theories, but of course the inherent fault with them is that only the choir will listen to them preach; conspiracy theorists tend to have their minds made up and consider contrary evidence to be false, whether government-planted or otherwise.
Brymir, Techno-man, shut the fuck up and get the fuck out. No, i'm not going to debate this. If you seriously fucking believe that our own government killed thousands of people to start a war that then killed many thousands more, you need mental fucking help.
Fuck, you people make me sick.
Why do they never reply to questions about the motive?
Techno, Brymir, please explain to me why they would want to invade Iraq. What was gained by invading Iraq? What did George Bush and Cheney gain? Who at all in the government gained anything by invading Iraq or Afghanistan?
I'm guessing they won't reply to this question at all.