The end of "911 Conpiracy", and the beginning of "911 Common Knowledge"

page: 15
139
<< 12  13  14    16 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 09:47 AM
link   
ppcat, anything you said about king can be used about you.

You should be on a sports channel making irrelevant comments about a race or a game, because that's all you did about king's OP.

If you say that many of his arguments are invalid, how the hell can you use his own words to justify that?

You quoted king's phrase "We must use undisputed facts" 6 times, yet, you haven't presented any.


I agree with King, although I also have some points that I consider a larger number of possibilities, but in essence, I agree with OP.

I'm young, with only 22 years of age, but I have lived enough time and experienced enough episodes in my life to know that many things in this world, especially in governaments, simply don't add up.

Politics, in my opinion, are just a mask to those who really control the way the world goes around. Who and why, I honestly can't tell. But you simply can't help feeling that way when you look from a far view all the important events in WORLD history.

From wars to peace, to politics and religion.

I can't add any new facts to the discussion, I'm a reader not a contributer, but I would like to share a different approach to a simple point in the discussion.

When talking about the terrorists that were on the plane (and made 9/11 happen) those who defend the OS show passenger lists and AA service records.

I would like you to consider this example(bare with me in the contextualization):

My brother is a commercial pilot. He flies a Fokker-100 (yeah, I find the name funny aswell) for a portuguese company.

You may remember the brazilian crash of a TAM airline plane a year ago. The one that didn't brake on the track and crashed onto a building.

That company has a bad reputation in aviation. They have already crashed two Fokker's because of bad maintenance.

On another accident, while in flight a portion of the plane blew up, sucked out a lot of debris and blew up the left engine (the engines are on the back of the plane). They managed to land the plane, but the "funny" part comes next.

TAM was being accused by the pilot community and aviation community for having no respect for the lifes of the crews and passengers.

After a weird and incompetent investigation the cause of the accident was pointed to be an terrorist attack.

The worst part comes next. Neither TAM nor the airport security could retrieve the terrorist identity. Every other passenger was listed and with full detail information, but "that guy" simply vanished within thin air. Nobody know who he was, or what he did... According to "reports", it was "a bomb in one of the terrorist shoes".

It's not that weird if you don't consider this important information:

My brother told me that the Fokker-100 had a structural problem in the middle of the passenger cabin. Some of the bolts that made the structure a whole were not in the correct position from the factory.

EVERY AIRLINE COMPANY made the security repairs, and NONE had problems.

TAM didn't, and had an accident with "a shoe bomb" EXACTLY in that section.

The story of the misterious guy on the plane, that in a very weird way died in the crash, was just a cover up to disguise the negligence of the company maintenance philosophy.

I'm just pointing this example out to show that if a company wants to give away false reports, they can actually do it.




posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Tifozi
 


sorry that you feel that way.. I simply pointed out that none of his claims can be proven as facts.. that is why I quoted him so often.. it was his self imposed standard.. when someone wants to sell me a story they need to do a better job of connecting the dots.. not just jump from A to C.. bypassing B.. I would not have even responded, but his arrogance towards people that did not agree got me motivated.. sorry but the OP was nothing more than an emotional plea, based on unproven assumptions..
remember? undisputed facts..



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 10:23 AM
link   
I have one niggling question about all of what happened on September 11th.

Okay, so debunkers cite that the fires caused by the plane collision were hot enough to weaken the steel structural supports and cause them to fail, bringing the whole building down. Every time this is brought up, it is in response to the melted steel theory that the conspiracy theorists query about on a frequent basis. i.e; "The fires in the building could not get hot enough to melt the steel beams, but it got hot enough to compromise them". The debunkers are always very clear that this is the case, that the steel did not in fact melt. Assuming this is true, I have this to ask...

It is well documented, proven, corroborated and supported by witness report that after the collapse of the buildings there was molten steel found that stayed searing hot for weeks after the collapse.

As far as I know about physics in and of itself, pressure from a collapse (Regardless of the size) cannot contribute enough kinetic energy to melt steel.

So, my question on this is as follows...

Where the bloody hell did the Molten Steel come from?



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by TheColdDragon
 


it has not been proven to have been STEEL..
molten metal would be a better term until steel is proven..
it was a very large burning pile of debris..
most likely the metal was aluminum.. but we do not know for sure..
ironically this is one of the things that got me questioning the motivations of 911 truth seekers.. Steven Jones falsely displayed a picture of rescue workers peering over a supposedly hot hole with molten metal.. it was later revealed that the coloring had been changed.. the glow did not come from any molten metal but rather a light they were using at the time.. I then started looking for other misrepresentations.. and discovered many..



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by TheColdDragon
 


There was no molten metal, here`s John Gross with 100% proof not to believe anything associated with NIST
.

www.youtube.com...



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 11:01 AM
link   
I submit to you the following link.

My question stands and remains, while there are some uncorroborated claims that are popular in the mainstream, there are OTHER corroborations which have more legitimacy as to their accuracy.

So, it still stands;

Where did the Molten Steel come from?



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by TheColdDragon
 


Did it not come from the reaction of the nano-thermite melting the steel?

Nano Thermite particles have been found all over the debris.

www.russiatoday.ru...

I don't know how credible the source is but then that always is the problem isn't it

[edit on 22-7-2009 by bonsaisert]



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by king9072
 


I don't entirely believe the story and the follow up. At minimum the way W responded was absurd and unconstitutional. As for figuring out what is true without additional information that is difficult if not impossible. For starters consider the possibility that what ever is wrong started before 9/11. Consider the 2000 elections and how absurd they are and many other events. this doesn't mean they are related just a lot of different possibilities to consider. This could have everyone running is circles so most of the time should be focused on organizing information that can be confirmed. also election reform should happen whether there is a conspiracy or not. the public should know what the government is doing.

As for you example of a boy shoplifting unless he saw him put something in his pocket he has no right to search but the government is supposed to work for the people we should have a right to accurate information. there should be a system set up to make information available as it happens and to make everything as simple as possible.



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 01:18 PM
link   
It is a well known fact, especially among those of us who have worked for the federal govt in some capacity, that anytime there is a horrible incident in which the govt. is somehow involved and that the official story is likely to be questioned, we can expect a major, over-the-top disinformation campaign for the express purpose of making the disbelievers of the official story seem off their rockers....conspiracy theorists.

One would think that our government and their corporate pals have never been guilty of crimes, including murder, against the American people. Most of us know better. The list is actually quite endless, from Tuskegee to MK ULTRA to spraying the San Francisco Bay Area with bacteria, killing several elderly people in assisted living/homes for the elderly, the atomic veterans and other such shenanigans.

One read of Paul Thompson's Timeline was all it took for me. How anyone could possibly read that timeline and still believe the official conspiracy theory is beyond my ability to understand.

In the first cabinet meeting of the Bush/Cheney administration, war with Iraq was the main topic on the agenda, according to Paul O'Neil. Bush wrapped up the meeting by saying, "find me a way to do it." Someone, or several someones, did just that. Will we ever know the whole truth as it might come out in a trial? I doubt it. Nevertheless, a clear majority of Americans and other ordinary people around the world know that the official story has holes in it through which one could fly a C130.

The Neocons needed a catalyzing event; a new Pearl Harbor and they got one. Too many coincidences in the official conspiracy theory for me to swallow, but then the Bush extended crime family is the first family of coincidence.



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 04:38 PM
link   
I do not trust the government (especially the current administration) but I do not trust the so-called "truthers" either.
But I'm not here to argue since no one on this forum has answers, myself included.
Instead I will provide a link that some will find offensive, some will find insightful, and some will find humorous.
Maddox sums up the "Truth Movement".....

www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net...



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheColdDragon
I submit to you the following link.

My question stands and remains, while there are some uncorroborated claims that are popular in the mainstream, there are OTHER corroborations which have more legitimacy as to their accuracy.

So, it still stands;

Where did the Molten Steel come from?



Your mincing words here and your supporting the CT perspective really.

Your question is as follows: "They say that there was molten steel found, yet the CT people believe that the fire was not hot enough to melt the steel"... correct?

That's the entire problem for the official theory.

The office fire could not have gotten hot to melt it. Especially in the diagonal fashion that was apparent that day.

To get an idea of what I mean view the following photo www.debunking911.com...

Now, you further stated that this "molten metal" was found weeks after the attack. That's yet another issue, considering the fires alone were not hot enough to melt the steel in the first place, let alone 80 floors below the impact zone and in the basements. The basements was where the majority of the molten metal was found.

Numerous first response firefighters claimed the liquid metal was "running like in a foundry".

Additionally, as previously stated thermal imaging showed hot spots of upto 2000 degrees fehrenheit weeks after the collapse.

Yet kerosene burns at maximum of 1400, and the office fires even lower temperatures than that.




So you tell me, how did the molten metal get there - according to the official story?

Well, as of right now, it has never been explained. But since nanothermite has been found, a compound which CAN melt metal, DOES melt metal, and was FOUND in abundant supply in the ground zero dust.

I am gonna take the option that has all the arrows pointing to it.


EDIT: To show both sides, you can view the "debunking article" that the above molten cut metal comes from here.

Two things to note:
1. This article was written BEFORE peer reviewed scientific journal was released stating that nano thermite has been discovered in every dust sample studied from the world trade center.

2. They simply attribute these cuts to "worker cleanup"...

But, what they fail to aknowledge through the entire article is. Where did all the molten metal come from?

Thats the ultimate question here. The official story can't account for it, the debunkers can't account for it. But thermite can, and coincidentally enough - it was found.

[edit on 22-7-2009 by king9072]



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 05:33 PM
link   
Reply to MustangSally

''you do not trust the government but you also do not trust the truthers'' ?

Is that your opinion after all these pages ? Have you read the posts ?
Really, is that the best you can do after all these years ? What planet are you living on ? Do you understand what is happening ? Do you understand anything ? That sums up the ''truth movement'', does it now.....?

So you think it is good to make a joke about the whole thing and joke about ''truthers''. You ignorance is just beyond belief.
If you do not understand what is going on it is best to stay out of the conversation. You just carry on with your ignorance and jokes because the repercussions of 911 will land on your head.....

As mentioned in a post by nickspm, the very first attack on WTC was a confirmed inside job, so why not the second one ?

(NICKSPM)
''The first attack on the WTC buildings that killed 8 people was also an inside job.
An FBI informer named Emad Salem provided explosives to people that were being targeted in a terrorism sting operation by the government. Every step of the way this FBI informer was checking in with the FBI and reminding them that the people being framed actually had REAL EXPLOSIVES. At every step the FBI told the informer to go along with the operation. It was carried out and people died. ''

Just go and stick your head back in the sand and everything will be OK.....



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by TheColdDragon
 



possible mundane reason for molten metal?

11-settembre.blogspot.com...

analysis of chips..

11-settembre.blogspot.com...

good thread about those undisputed facts..

forums.randi.org...

and another great discussion here..

the911forum.freeforums.org...



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheColdDragon

It is well documented, proven, corroborated and supported by witness report that after the collapse of the buildings there was molten steel found that stayed searing hot for weeks after the collapse.

Could you post the documented scientific evidence stating that the melted metal was indeed steel?

Also, there have been a number of tunnel fires that have melted steel frame cars and powdered concrete. The fires were fueled by gasoline.


So, my question on this is as follows...

Where the bloody hell did the Molten Steel come from?

Could we be confusing red hot pliable metal with molten steel????



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 06:04 PM
link   
Reply to jfj123

you asked : ''Could we be confusing red hot pliable metal with molten steel???? ''

NO, we are not confusing pliable metal....

I think that you are just wasting our time with this nonsense and the best thing to do is just ignore your time wasting efforts...



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by TheColdDragon

It is well documented, proven, corroborated and supported by witness report that after the collapse of the buildings there was molten steel found that stayed searing hot for weeks after the collapse.

Could you post the documented scientific evidence stating that the melted metal was indeed steel?

Also, there have been a number of tunnel fires that have melted steel frame cars and powdered concrete. The fires were fueled by gasoline.


So, my question on this is as follows...

Where the bloody hell did the Molten Steel come from?

Could we be confusing red hot pliable metal with molten steel????



Good term, fueled. Though I am not going to bother sourcing for you, you make a great point. The tunnel fires were fueled, the WTC fires, were apparently ignited by kerosene and not fueled by anything but office furniture, the kerosene burn off was almost instant as witnessed in the huge fireball. After that, these were office fires, and in WTC 7 the kerosene played absolutely no part.

Steel was the primary support building material and made up most of the weight of the buildings themselves. The 'metal' reported and documented was 'molten' because it was liquefied. That is a big difference from "hot and pliable".

Furthermore, in the case of WTC 7, it's worth noting only sparse fires across only a few floors, some how caused metal which was hundreds of feet away in different parts of the building - to fail at the exact same time as the metal directly involved in the fire. Although history shows us that no steel structure like the WTC's has collapsed before or since 911, on that day we experienced at very minimum, ONE tower collapsing strictly due to office fires.

That is an anomaly.

Not to mention, we can throw the other two towers into that pile as well, since only office fires were known to have brought these buildings down. Right official story pushers? Only office fires.


Looks like we all agree that WTC 7 is a complete anomaly that the official story cannot explain. None of you can tell me how that building possibly collapsed.

And it looks like we all agree that there was molten metal found (not 'hot and pliable metal'), BUT, we don't agree that it was steel despite the fact that the building was made entirely of steel.


You guys never cease to amaze.


EDIT TO ADD:
Metallurgical analysis of the molten metal is not supplied, coincidentally, it was not supplied by the same people who delivered an illogical and physically impossible official story. Hey I got an idea, how bout a proper investigation that does include metallurgical analysis!

Looks like we agree on another point.

And as far as "molten" goes, as previously mentioned, it commonly implies the metal is in liquid form. This is distinguished from "hot and pliable metal" which is not in liquid form, but rather solid with malleability. Further - these two distinctly different states, can be visually identified.

There was a reason why fire fighters reported "molten metal running down the rails - like in a foundry"



[edit on 22-7-2009 by king9072]



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by mumblyjoe
Reply to jfj123

you asked : ''Could we be confusing red hot pliable metal with molten steel???? ''

NO, we are not confusing pliable metal....

I think that you are just wasting our time with this nonsense and the best thing to do is just ignore your time wasting efforts...



Then please post the metallurgical analysis of the molten metal. Also please define molten.
If you can't do this, you're wasting everyone's time.



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by king9072

Good term, fueled. Though I am not going to bother sourcing for you, you make a great point. They were fueled, the WTC fires, though apparently ignited by kerosene, the kerosene burn off was almost instant as witnessed in the huge fireball. After that, these were office fires, and in WTC 7 the kerosene played absolutely no part.

Steel was the primary support building material and made up most of the weight of the buildings themselves. The 'metal' reported and documented was 'molten' because it was liquefied. That is a big difference from "hot and pliable".

Yes liquid pools of metal are most definitely different then hot and pliable, I agree. I notice you use the word METAL and not STEEL.


Not to mention, we can throw the other two towers into that pile as well, since only office fires were known to have brought these buildings down. Right official story pushers? Only office fires.

Actually no. Both the structural damage from the plane impacts and the fires contributed TOGETHER to the global structural failure of the 2 buildings.


And it looks like we all agree that there was molten metal found (not 'hot and pliable metal'), BUT, we don't agree that it was steel despite the fact that the building was made entirely of steel.

Actually the building also had copper pipes didn't it? What about aluminum? Any tin in there? how about cast iron? Gold? etc... All those metals would have been found in the buildings.



You guys never cease to amaze.

As do you. The buildings were NOT made ENTIRELY of steel....were they?

So we don't know what the molten metal was, we only speculate it was steel and for no apparent reason.



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 08:03 PM
link   


Looks like we all agree that WTC 7 is a complete anomaly that the official story cannot explain.


What did they say about it in the Omission Report?



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 08:14 PM
link   
I think Fabled Enemies covers it best





new topics
top topics
 
139
<< 12  13  14    16 >>

log in

join