99% Undeniable Conclusive Evidence That 9/11 Was An Inside Job

reply to post by vipertech0596

Thank you for showing how closed off you are.

You posted pictures of molten aluminum before it had been poured, and I posted videos of molten aluminum actually being poured and as we can all clearly see it is silver. If you can post a video of molten aluminum being poured and having a bright orange color, I will be more than happy to consider the possiblity that it was molten aluminum, but since every video I've seen clearly shows it being silver with at the very best a slight orangish pinkish hue to the silver, that doesn't even come close to resembling the liquid metal seen pouring out of the tower.

I wouldn't call myself closed off, I would say logical is the word. You say it could be molten aluminum and so did NIST with no experimental confirmation, but as I just showed you molten metal being poured is silver. The metal seen dripping from the tower was bright orange, and so is molten steel. So why would I think that the metal which was dripping from the tower is a metal that doesn't even resemble what was dripping? That's "closed off"?

Would you agree that the molten aluminum from the videos does not resemble the molten metal seen pouring from the tower?

And thank you for not addressing the fact that the dust sample was taken well before the clean-up began, so blowtorches could not have compromised the sample.

Have a nice day.

...Thanks?

reply to post by TupacShakur


And yet, if I go have enough back in the thread, I will find you speaking about the pools of molten metal and declaring its steel. Even after you've seen that pools of molten ALUMINUM can be orange. So, like I said, closed.


Im curious though. Wondering if you know what a melting lead acid battery looks like....

reply to post by TupacShakur


the intro? Did you ever write a term paper? This is where you state you points. So in saying this you are admitting that the first two minutes is bs. So, if the first 2 are, why should be waste our time?

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by Wizayne

 

Then why do so many OS'ers say that NIST determined it to be aluminum. Did they test it or not and are those tests avail?

They made a semieducated guess based on the available evidence.

but is Active Thermitic Material a byproduct

Seeing A, and B....and arriving at Z (like the "Active Thermitic" material research folks did) is sloppy research.

They made a semieducated guess based on the available evidence.

Sounds like sloppy research.


Isnt it funny how you spend more words whacking at me but refuse to address the real smackdown that has been handed to you by Tupac and Hijaqd and others.

reply to post by esdad71

the intro? Did you ever write a term paper? This is where you state you points. So in saying this you are admitting that the first two minutes is bs. So, if the first 2 are, why should be waste our time?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f8344fb8f65f.jpg[/atsimg]
Stop BSing around and just do what everybody wants you to do, debunk the evidence and facts that I've posted. When I posted the summary of the video, two times, along with the experiments, evidence, and facts to go along with it, do you think I wanted you to completely ignore what I psoted and just focus on a portion of the video that I didn't even post?

Debunk what I posted, debunk Exhibit A, B, C, D, E, F, and G, using evidence and facts, and prove to me how the impossible is possible. That's what I've been asking you to do all along, and you know it. You won't do that because you can't do it.

Debunk Post #10 on page 37.

Just so you're clear on what I'm asking, even though I've clarified and simplified it 26 times, look at the facts and evidence presented in that post, (post #10 on page 37 in case you missed it), and use facts and evidence to show how that video is incorrect in stating that the official story is impossible.

Use facts and evidence to show how the video is incorrect in stating that the official story is impossible.

Let me clarify what I'm asking you to do:

Look at Exhibit A. Look at the facts and evidence used to back up the statements. Show us what is wrong with those facts and that evidence, show us how the experiments used to back up the statements are flawed, show us how the physics used to back up those statements is wrong.

Next, move on to Exhibit B, and do the same thing.

Are we clear? Or do I need to waste another post explaining to you for the 7th time that I want you to debunk the information in that video which proves that the official story is impossible?

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by TupacShakur

 

Im curious though. Wondering if you know what a melting lead acid battery looks like....

edit on 2-7-2011 by vipertech0596 because: (no reason given)

I wonder if you know what a building falling because of gravity alone looks like....

reply to post by vipertech0596

And yet, if I go have enough back in the thread, I will find you speaking about the pools of molten metal and declaring its steel. Even after you've seen that pools of molten ALUMINUM can be orange. So, like I said, closed.


Im curious though. Wondering if you know what a melting lead acid battery looks like....

Yes that's great and all, but you still didn't answer my question:

Would you say the molten metal dripping from the tower more closely resembles molten steel or molten aluminum?

reply to post by TupacShakur


I started with the Number one and 2 minutes in nothing is the truth...don't tell me what to do or what to debunk and in what order. I did what you asked. 2 minutes in it is all bs. So, we move onto the next in your list which was prior knowledge and Able Danger.

You need to be ready to defend what you post and not count on others. I don't. It is me and me alone. No one is backing you up with fact, they are just trying, and poorly at that, to discredit what I say but it cannot be done.

Now, do you want me to do what you originally asked in this thread or not?

reply to post by esdad71

I did what you asked

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/75feed4f614d.jpg[/atsimg]

No you DIDN'T DO WHAT I ASKED. I've asked you the exact same thing 300 times:
"Use facts and evidence to show how the video is incorrect in stating that the official story is impossible. "

I asked this:
"Let me clarify what I'm asking you to do:

Look at Exhibit A. Look at the facts and evidence used to back up the statements. Show us what is wrong with those facts and that evidence, show us how the experiments used to back up the statements are flawed, show us how the physics used to back up those statements is wrong.

Next, move on to Exhibit B, and do the same thing. "

And you haven't done that. I spent hours putting that video together and getting all of the evidence and experiments there to back it up, and you just want to ignore it and move on to Able Danger?

I've asked you multiple times and I'll ask you again:
Use facts and evidence to show how the video is incorrect in stating that the official story is impossible.
Use facts and evidence to show how the video is incorrect in stating that the official story is impossible.
Use facts and evidence to show how the video is incorrect in stating that the official story is impossible.

Look at Exhibit A. Look at the facts and evidence used to back up the statements. Show us what is wrong with those facts and that evidence, show us how the experiments used to back up the statements are flawed, show us how the physics used to back up those statements is wrong.

Next, move on to Exhibit B, C, D, E, F, and G.

That video uses facts and evidence to back up it's statements, and the video proves that the official story is impossible. We're not just going to ignore that video and move onto Able Danger or some other weak point, you're going to debunk that video.

That video proves that the official story is impossible, using facts and evidence. You made the claim that the video used no facts or evidence to back up its statements, but I organized it for you specifically (post #10 on page 37) so you could try to debunk those facts and evidence.

Debunk post #10 on page 37, show us how the video is incorrect in stating that the official story is impossible.

Do you understand what we want you to do? We don't want to talk about Able Danger, you were the one that said the video didn't use facts or evidence, and I showed you it did. Now, since you made the claim that it didn't use facts or evidence, show us what is wrong with the facts. Show us how the physics used to back up the statements is incorrect. Show us the flaws in the experiments used as evidence.

Now, do you want me to do what you originally asked in this thread or not?

No I want you to do what I've asked you to do dozens of times.

reply to post by esdad71


Here are some simple questions that I would like you to answer:

Looking at the facts and evidence provided (Post #10 on page 37), would you agree with the videos statement that the presence of molten steel and iron microspheres is impossbile according to the official story? If not, what facts and evidence led you to this belief?

Looking at the facts and evidence provided (Post #10 on page 37), would you agree with the videos statement that a downward accelerating object crushing a lower structure that once supported it statically but experiencing no jolts acting by gravity alone is impossible? If not, what facts and evidence led you to this belief?

Looking at the facts and evidence provided (Post #10 on page 37), would you agree with the videos statement that a freestanding structure collapsing straight down through its path of greatest resistance by gravity alone is impossible? If not, what facts and evidence led you to this belief?

Looking at the facts and evidence provided (Post #10 on page 37), would you agree with the videos statement that the theory of a smaller top block crushing down a stronger larger lower structure of similar material is impossible? If not, what facts and evidence led you to this belief?

Looking at the facts and evidence provided (Post #10 on page 37), would you agree with the videos statement that since eutectic formations have not been replicated experimentally, the official story is impossible? If not, what facts and evidence led you to this belief?

Looking at the facts and evidence provided (Post #10 on page 37), would you agree with the videos statement that a progressive collapse will not allow free fall, so the official story is impossible? If not, what facts and evidence led you to this belief?

Looking at the facts and evidence provided (Post #10 on page 37), would you agree with the videos statement that the formation of nano-thermite naturally is impossible? If not, what facts and evidence led you to this belief?

Seven questions formatted the exact same way, can you answer them? Or will you ignore them and talk about the videos introduction, term papers, and Able Danger?

reply to post by TupacShakur


Personally, I would say it looks more like a lead acid battery UPS that has been on fire. Maybe something to do with the Sun Bank computer room that was in that corner of the tower.........

Originally posted by Wizayne

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by Wizayne

 

Then why do so many OS'ers say that NIST determined it to be aluminum. Did they test it or not and are those tests avail?

They made a semieducated guess based on the available evidence.

but is Active Thermitic Material a byproduct

Seeing A, and B....and arriving at Z (like the "Active Thermitic" material research folks did) is sloppy research.

They made a semieducated guess based on the available evidence.

Sounds like sloppy research.


Isnt it funny how you spend more words whacking at me but refuse to address the real smackdown that has been handed to you by Tupac and Hijaqd and others.

Smack down? LOL. Umm, no, not really. Have yet to see a "smack down" delievered. Posting crappy videos that play fast and loose with reality don't come close.

reply to post by vipertech0596

Personally, I would say it looks more like a lead acid battery UPS that has been on fire. Maybe something to do with the Sun Bank computer room that was in that corner of the tower.........

I find that much more believable than the half-ass molten aluminum explanation that NIST threw together. Do you have any pictures or videos of that stuff burning/melting?

reply to post by TupacShakur


Photos? No, was too busy trying to make sure that the fire didnt spread and that we didnt get too close to it till the fire was out.

As for NIST, I have never believed in everything they said. Quite frankly, any investigation done was going to be a "best guess" investigation.

reply to post by vipertech0596

Smack down? LOL. Umm, no, not really. Have yet to see a "smack down" delievered. Posting crappy videos that play fast and loose with reality don't come close.

That video is far from crappy. It uses physics, experimentation, and facts to back up everything that is says. Why don't you try to debunk that video if it's "crappy" and "loose with reality"? Surely such a crappy video that's loose with reality can be easily debunked by just one of you guys who badmouths it but doesn't back up their smack talk with facts and evidence, right?

The laws of physics apply to falling buildings as much as they apply to anything else in the universe, so that video is actually about as grounded in reality as it gets. Feel free to go through the statements, facts, and evidence that I've organized in post #10 on page 37, and show how the video is flawed, but who am I kidding nobody can debunk the laws of physics let alone statements backed up by experimentation. All you guys can do is talk s*** on that video and not debunk it when asked.

reply to post by TupacShakur


OK, lets look at the first post then. I'll go along. I was trying to do one of the other videos you posted since there are so many but you do not give any of your own thought. Just tell people to watch and debunk videos. So here we go. You ask...

Looking at the facts and evidence provided (Post #10 on page 37), would you agree with the videos statement that the presence of molten steel and iron microspheres is impossbile according to the official story? If not, what facts and evidence led you to this belief?

You have a video of some people outside somewhere pouring out what we are told is aluminum

(www.youtube.com...).

OK. Not sure how this equates to the WTC. So, I watch the second video, which shows again something being melted and there is no connection to the WTC except to tell us that pure aluminum is melting at 1800F. OK. No real reason just the color. Cool music though.

www.youtube.com...

Now, pure aluminum would pour silver as shown in your video. However, the argument is that if there was aluminum in it, it would not stay orange as it fell. Correct? Now, the assumption that has been made by FEMA and the conclusion of NIST is that the metal pouring out was

[b"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."

So, there may have been aluminum within what fell but it is not pure which would mean it would not pour silver like your videos.

Release of the molten material (possibly aluminum) that began pouring from window 80-255 on the north side of the 80th floor at 9:51:51 am provides evidence for the extensive heating that had taken place from the fire that had been burning in the area for nearly 50 min. The melting point range for the relevant aluminum alloys varies from 475C to 635C, and a great deal of heat would have been required to melt the large volume of liquid metal observed pouring from the tower. The sudden appearance of the flow at the top of the window was likely the result of the formation of a pathway from the 81st floor where the aluminum possibly had pooled on top of the floor slab as it melted. This, in turn suggests that the 81st floor slab possibly sank down or pulled away from the spandrel at this time.
During the 7 min between when the flow of molten metal was first observed and the tower collapsed, the amount of material flowing from the 80th floor increased and decreased repeatedly. At one point the flow shifted from window 80-255 to window 80-256. The change in the source window for the liquid suggests that the lowest local point with pooled aluminum somehow moved to the east. These observations suggest that the 81st floor slab in the immediate vicinity was possibly shifting almost continuously during this time, and in the process, spilling more and more of the pooled liquid. A similar release of liquid occurred from window 78-238 on the 78th floor around 9:27. It is possible that this material came from the pile of debris immediately above on the 79th floor. Since this flow was only observed for a few seconds, it is not appropriate to speculate further concerning its source.

Now, I think this takes care of the first part but then you jump into asking if Iron Micro spheres where found in the dust of one womans apartment, then the temperatures were high enough to melt steel. But the fact is where you can get confused because it then says

Iron microspheres can only be formed in temperatures high enough to melt steel. Jet fuel is not hot enough to melt steel, therefore jet fuel did not create the iron microspheres. Iron microspheres are a natural biproduct of a thermitic reaction

Correct, jet fuel did not cause them but it is a natural by product of a thermitic reaction which means that a metal is in contact with another metal which releases the type of microsphere that was supposedly found. But this does not mean thermite was used which is where this argument goes.

The iron-rich spheres were found months after the collapse, right? Now, during that time, there were 1000's of thermitic type reactions that occurred during the clean up process. You cannot deny that. All of those beams cut with, what is that, a reaction hot enough to melt steel which Mr Jones himself has said has to be present for the spheres to form.

Also, why won't Jones let anyone else test his evidence?

reply to post by esdad71

OK. Not sure how this equates to the WTC. So, I watch the second video, which shows again something being melted and there is no connection to the WTC except to tell us that pure aluminum is melting at 1800F. OK. No real reason just the color. Cool music though.

Yeah there's no connection, I just wanted to post some molten aluminum videos for no reason. NIST said it was molten aluminum, and there's molten aluminum for us to see and agree that it's not what was dripping from the tower.

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.

Except partially burned, solid organic materials would not mix in with the molten aluminum, it would either float on top or burn right away. NIST never confirmed their speculation with experimentation, so that's all it is as of right now, speculation. Besides there is absolutely no way that random assorted office materials would uniformly color the silver molten aluminum orange, that's absurd.

Independent experimental confirmation that molten aluminum mixing with solid inorganic materials does not turn it uniformly bright orange: Videos are at the bottom of the paper

Now, I think this takes care of the first part

You are sadly mistaken.

it is a natural by product of a thermitic reaction which means that a metal is in contact with another metal which releases the type of microsphere that was supposedly found. But this does not mean thermite was used which is where this argument goes

That's not how iron microspheres are formed, they're formed when iron is heated to the point that it turns molten, and then surface tension pulls it into spheres. We're both in agreement that jet fuel is not capable of producing these, and the presence of nano-thermite chips as well as iron microspheres indicates that thermite was used to bring down the towers.

The iron-rich spheres were found months after the collapse, right?

No the sample was taken after the the south tower fell by Janette MacKinlay whose apartment was directly across the street from it. When the tower collapsed, her apartment was filled with dust and she sent a sample to Steven Jones.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1eb12b669cfd.jpg[/atsimg]
I can't find a source that has the exact date that she took the sample, but I really doubt that she would wait months after the collapse like you claim. But if she did for some odd reason wait months I could buy that torches used in the clean-up may have had something to do with the presence of iron microspheres.

Now, during that time, there were 1000's of thermitic type reactions that occurred during the clean up process. You cannot deny that. All of those beams cut with, what is that, a reaction hot enough to melt steel which Mr Jones himself has said has to be present for the spheres to form.

I can deny that because blowtorches do not cause thermitic reactions, thermite causes thermitic reactions. And blowtorches and whatever other hot flames were used in the clean-up would not cause thermite chips to appear in the dust sample, and as we both learned from that video the formation of nano-thermite naturally is impossible.

Also, why won't Jones let anyone else test his evidence?

Do these guys not count?:
Steven Jones and pals
Niels H. Harrit*,1, Jeffrey Farrer2, Steven E. Jones*,3, Kevin R. Ryan4, Frank M. Legge5,
Daniel Farnsworth2, Gregg Roberts6, James R. Gourley7 and Bradley R. Larsen3

1Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
2Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602, USA
3S&J Scientific Co., Provo, UT, 84606, USA
49/11 Working Group of Bloomington, Bloomington, IN 47401, USA
5Logical Systems Consulting, Perth, Western Australia
6Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Berkeley, CA 94704, USA
7International Center for 9/11 Studies, Dallas, TX 75231, USA

reply to post by TupacShakur


Looking at the facts and evidence provided (Post #10 on page 37), would you agree with the videos statement that a freestanding structure collapsing straight down through its path of greatest resistance by gravity alone is impossible? If not, what facts and evidence led you to this belief?
I take it this is Exhibit B. Please correct me if I am wrong.

YOUR FACT - In order to bend, crush, or move something below, any falling object must first experience a jolt, or a momentary deceleration, in order to apply a force that is larger than its own static weight. This jolt has been clearly measured in a natural gravitational collapse, and as the falling floors contact the stationary structure below, the downward acceleration reverses momentarily imposing a jolt, or force, larger than its static weight, destroying the structure below.
This is supposed to set up the video. However, the in the videos it shows a demolition by gravity using hydraulics and the collapse of the WTC. They then explain that they should look the same. They do. They are identical except in the video of the other building he adds the resistance to the model and in the case of the WTC he does not. Why is that? Because then they would like the same until they hit something. This was common sense to show the difference and as always, part of something is shown and it is taken as fact by anyone who believes it.
You then state in the post…
Statements: In other words, the instant after the falling floors should have impacted the lower undamaged floors, the upper floors actually sped up, meaning that the force from the falling floors was less when accelerating down than when they were at rest.

Facts: Some other force must have weakened the stronger lower structure first allowing the roof to continually accelerate down. A downward accelerating object crushing a lower structure that once supported it statically but experiencing no jolts acting by gravity alone is impossible, and therefore the official story can be eliminated.
This is incorrect on many accounts

1. You are not taking into account the change in mass with each floor that is hit.
2. You and the creator of the video are relying on the term ‘jolt’ as if it applies to how physics were impossible on that day.
3. There was no need for the weakening of the lower structure or need for jolts as termed. It gained mass as it fell therefore would gain momentum as they fell also.

Of course it is countered by the resistance of the floors below and if the structure was not a tube in tube frame design it may have simply toppled over causing more damage to the surrounding buildings with a greater loss of life.

reply to post by TupacShakur


Just so I know, you are stating that the only way those 'spheres' could occur is if thermite was used?

reply to post by esdad71

This is supposed to set up the video. However, the in the videos it shows a demolition by gravity using hydraulics and the collapse of the WTC. They then explain that they should look the same. They do. They are identical except in the video of the other building he adds the resistance to the model and in the case of the WTC he does not. Why is that? Because then they would like the same until they hit something. This was common sense to show the difference and as always, part of something is shown and it is taken as fact by anyone who believes it.

He didn't "add" resistance, the resistance that he mentioned referred to the fact that the building did not fall at exactly 9.8m/s^2 once the columns were blown. The purpose of that video is to show that if the top section of the WTCs did indeed become independent of the building and hit the remaining lower portion of the building, it would decelerate, as seen in the gravity driven demolition. However the fact that when the top section should experience a jolt but doesn't is a clear indication that other forces are at work causing the lower section of the tower to collapse before the top section makes contact with it, meaning controlled demolition.

1. You are not taking into account the change in mass with each floor that is hit.

The mass is irrelavant, the concept would be the same for a cardboard box falling onto other cardboard boxes, or neutron star matter falling onto other neutron star matter (an extremely dense material in case you're asking why did I bring that up). Regardless of the mass of each floor, there would be a momentary deceleration when the top section makes contact with the bottom section.

2. You and the creator of the video are relying on the term ‘jolt’ as if it applies to how physics were impossible on that day.

"Jolt" is slang for a physics term, a momentary deceleration. Physics apply to everything during every second of every day, and the top section of the towers not experiencing a jolt defies the laws of physics, according to the official story at least. We're not implying that physics were impossible on that day, we're implying that physics prove the official story to be false.

3. There was no need for the weakening of the lower structure or need for jolts as termed. It gained mass as it fell therefore would gain momentum as they fell also.

Yes there definitely is the need for a jolt, if the top section of the building became independent of the rest of the tower and the only force acting on it is gravity, then the moment it comes into contact with the bottom section of the building it will slow down before crushing it. The objects mass and momentum are irrelevant when discussing acceleration by gravity alone, the concept of deceleration when a falling body comes into contact with another object is set in stone. That is a fact, you can't argue against physics, unless of course you want to get into it with this fella:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/07823ce23b5a.jpg[/atsimg]
The WTCs falling but experiencing no jolt when the top sections should come into contact with the bottom section means that the bottom section already began falling before the top section came into contact with it. No deceleration from coming into contact with the building means that the top section never hit the lower part when it should have to crush it. The only explanation which would be consistent with the laws of physics is a controlled demolition.

Just so I know, you are stating that the only way those 'spheres' could occur is if thermite was used?

No, I'm saying that the microspheres presence combined with nano-thermite chips and three towers falling just like controlled demolitions means that thermite was used.