The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > 9/11 Truth

9/11 Truth

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 34
  7. 35
  8. 36
  9. Page 37
  10. 38
  11. 39
  12. 40
  13. ...
  14. 81
  15. 82
  16. 83
  17. All
Paul.L wrote, "Tell me Dagget how this explosive material survived the impact and inferno created by the jets flying into the towers? No explosives can withstand burning jet fuel."

I suggest you use your imagination. Surely, whoever set up the charges would have been able to find ways to have shielded them against burning fuel on the floors close to where the impact was expected.

Paul.L wrote, "... we have already established thermite does not explode."

No, we haven't.

I will repeat part of my quote from "Theories that Aluminothermic Reactions Were Used to Destroy the Twin Towers" at http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/theories/thermite.html

"The use of ultra-fine aluminum powder gives the reaction an explosive quality,
resulting in 'super-thermites'."

Paul.L wrote, "Molten steel. Where is the evidence? Certainly no molten steel was retrieved from the site."

Check out these images:
http://s3.amazonaws.com/nasathermalimages/public/images/molten_steel_unsharp_mask_resize_big_notext.jpg
http://s3.amazonaws.com/nasathermalimages/public/images/Red_Hot_Debris_oct_21_2001_from_lironews.pdf.jpg

... to be found in
http://wtcinvestigation.com/#%5B%5BWorld%20Trade%20Center%20Hot%20Spots%5D%5D

Paul.L, I am getting weary of your pronouncements that no evidence exists when not only does it exist, but it is almost impossible for anyone who has visited the links I have given to miss.

I will return some other time in order to set the record straight on the rest of the disinformation contained in your recent posts.
Posted by daggett, Friday, 31 October 2008 1:30:05 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dagget

You say “ … use your imagination. Surely, whoever set up the charges would have been able to find ways to have shielded them against burning fuel ...

I know using your imagination forms the main approach you take to this whole issue. The rest of us want evidence, we don’t want to pretend or imagine. Secondly, you again prove my point that the conspiracy theorists believe that the US gov’t can do ANYTHING they(the nuts) can think of.

I don’t think you have ANY idea of the layout of the building and the placement of the steel columns. Have a look http://www.european911citizensjury.com/WTC-fig%202-8%20floor%20construction.jpg
http://blog.wired.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/05/01/wtc_graphic.gif

Please tell me how these exposed columns were rigged with the tonnes of thermite necessary to cut them. Even when thermite is altered so that the speed of burning is increased, it is still NOWHERE near the speed of an explosive cutting charge. Hundreds of kilos of thermite would be needed to cut each of these beams in the period required, with excess thermite spewing everywhere. Furthermore thermite can require several minutes in contact with a massive steel section to heat it to a temperature that would result in substantial weakening. Even if this was reduced to seconds, an improvement of 6000%, it would still be far too slow to demolish a building sucessfully.
see http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=bUSeHOizPC4
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=ySHgiUxnLC0&feature=related

NIST says >> “Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile (weeks) than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing.(minutes) http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

But you don’t show molten steel, you show red hot steel. I know you will struggle with the difference, but molten steel means steel in liquid form and it isn't picked up by the pincers of a crane.

Normal fires like the hydrocarbon fire caused by burning jet fuel will turn steel red hot and reduce its strength to less than 10% of its normal value.
Posted by Paul.L, Friday, 31 October 2008 11:36:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Just to let others know:

I asked the moderator, who turned out to be Graham Young, to delete a post above which addressed me, yet again, as 'wingnut', on the grounds that it was insulting to me, clearly intended to further disrupt the discussion and added nothing of substance about the topic at hand.

Graham Young's response was:

"Come on James."

My response, in turn, was:

"What I have complained of is clearly harassment.

"I can only presume that your continued refusal to treat the complaints of
myself and others seriously is because it suits you to have discussions of
topics, that you feel uncomfortable about, disrupted."
Posted by daggett, Friday, 31 October 2008 11:58:56 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This looks like a very thorough debate over the 9/11 issue:

"The Ultimate 9/11 'Truth' Showdown: David Ray Griffin vs. Matt Taibbi" at http://www.alternet.org/rights/100688/?page=1

It's attracted a huge number of comments.

David Ray Griffin is the author of the abovementioned "The New Pearl Harbour" at http://www.vho.org/aaargh/fran/livres5/GRIFFIN-Newpearlharbor.pdf and a number of other books which demolish to official 9/11 Conspiracy Theory.
Posted by daggett, Friday, 31 October 2008 3:17:01 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Come on, James - I called you a moonbat, not a wingnut.

If you're going to continue to spruke crackpot conspiracy theories, you'll need to develop a thicker skin. I imagine that "moonbat" is one of the milder appellations you attract.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Friday, 31 October 2008 3:38:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Graham Young has yet again declined a request to have a post deleted. He assures me that the sound of barking in our midst "is well within the ambit of what appears on blogs and discussion threads." So I will do my best to ignore it.

---

Paul.L wrote, "Funnily enough the type of molten metal is NOT named. It could have been any of a number of metals which burns at temperatures much lower than steel."

Then Paul.L wrote, "The standard of scholarship of the conspiracy theorists is SO POOR, ..."

Poor enough for them not to understand the difference between metal burning and metal melting, perhaps?

Paul.L wrote, "But you don't show molten steel, you show red hot steel. I know you will struggle with the difference, but molten steel means steel in liquid form and it isn't picked up by the pincers of a crane."

Actually, I didn't have to struggle to hard to appreciate the difference between molten steel and red hot steel. In fact, it was only marginally more difficult for me than understanding the difference between metal burning and metal melting

Had you noticed that the caption to the first of the two images (http://s3.amazonaws.com/nasathermalimages/public/images/molten_steel_unsharp_mask_resize_big_notext.jpg http://wtcinvestigation.com/#%5B%5BWorld%20Trade%20Center%20Hot%20Spots%5D%5D) included:

"Some beams pulled from the wreckage are still red hot more than 7 weeks after the attack, and it is suspected that temperatures beneath the debris pile are well in excess of 1,000°F."

So, if we have photos of red hot steel 7 weeks after 11 September, it seems highly likely to me that there would have been some substance to the eyewitness accounts (one of which was referred to above) of there being pools of molten steel under the wreckage immediately after the attack.

Anyway, I will return to tackle the rest of the disinformation in Paul.L's posts at some other later point.
Posted by daggett, Saturday, 1 November 2008 1:41:45 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 34
  7. 35
  8. 36
  9. Page 37
  10. 38
  11. 39
  12. 40
  13. ...
  14. 81
  15. 82
  16. 83
  17. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy