More LIES of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists exposed...

page: 4
13
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 



“We are literally treating the steel removed from the site like garbage, not like crucial fire scene evidence.” [Fire Engineering, 1/2002]


Wow. As someone as dedicated as you are to denying every single aspect of any and all theories other than the OS when it comes to 9/11 I am really surprised by your thread. So surprised in fact that I know there is some alterior motive going on here. You are very thourough in your debunking, typically, and this is simply not up to your usual standards. As a matter of fact, for all of the things you have posted, this is outrageous. You yourself must admit that a picture of some steel from the WTC in the smithsonian proves nothing - other than it is a piece of steel from the WTC.

Are you claiming that the truth movement believes ALL of the steel was either melted or blown up? I am really going to have to think about why you made this thread because all it does is show you posted something you knew is not evidence of lies. You knew by posting this thread it would be torn apart very easily...too easily and something is up with you rationale for doing so. What that is remains to be seen.


In the month that lapsed between the terrorist attacks and the deployment of the BPAT team, a significant amount of steel debris—including most of the steel from the upper floors—was removed from the rubble pile, cut into smaller sections, and either melted at the recycling plant or shipped out of the U.S. Some of the critical pieces of steel—including the suspension trusses from the top of the towers and the internal support columns—were gone before the first BPAT team member ever reached the site. Fortunately, an NSF-funded independent researcher, recognizing that valuable evidence was being destroyed, attempted to intervene with the City of New York to save the valuable artifacts, but the city was unwilling to suspend the recycling contract. Ultimately, the researcher appealed directly to the recycling plant, which agreed to provide the researcher, and ultimately the ASCE team and the SEAoNY volunteers, access to the remaining steel and a storage area where they could temporarily store important artifacts for additional analysis. Despite this agreement, however, many pieces of steel still managed to escape inspection.


This is from Congressional records...I don't know why buy my link won't work - it is easy to find though...strange as I am looking at it right now...

Regardless, you can click the link from story on this site...anyone remeber the missing evidence that was supposedly stolen by the mafia? It resulted in all trucks carrying steel and debris away from the site to be fitted with $1,000.00 GPS systems...Mafia indeed...


The New York Police and FBI are investigating the theft of over 250 tons of steel from the remains of the collapsed WTC towers. Apparently, the steel was hauled away by trucks involved in the official clear-up operation (see September 12-October 2001), but instead of being taken to Fresh Kills—the FBI-controlled dump on Staten Island where it was intended to go—the steel was driven to three independently-owned scrapyards, two in New Jersey and one on Long Island. The London Telegraph says the scrap metal value of the stolen steel would have been roughly $17,500. Investigators believe the theft was organized by one of New York’s Mafia families. [Daily Telegraph, 9/29/2001] Consequently, on November 26, 2001, the city initiates use of an in-vehicle Global Positioning System (GPS), to monitor the locations of nearly 200 trucks removing steel from the WTC collapse site, at a cost of $1,000 per unit. This system sends out alerts if any truck travels off course or arrives late at its destination. One driver involved with the clear-up operation is subsequently dismissed simply for taking an extended lunch break. [Access Control and Security Systems, 7/2002]


Here's a kicker:


New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg defends the decision to quickly get rid of the WTC steel, saying, “If you want to take a look at the construction methods and the design, that’s in this day and age what computers do. Just looking at a piece of metal generally doesn’t tell you anything.” Officials in the mayor’s office decline to reply to requests by the New York Times regarding who decided to have the steel recycled. [New York Times, 12/25/2001; Eastday, 1/24/2002]


CJ
edit on 23-7-2012 by ColoradoJens because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 11:20 PM
link   
Interesting that the sheared-away edges of those beams look rounded off, not sharp. Like they were subjected to intense heat.

For the umpteenth time folks, it wasn't thermite except possibly in certain sections to give it a push. Thermite is a cutting agent, not an explosive, and it would have had to have been used in almost 1:1 ratios throughout the building to bring it down, and even then that doesn't account for much of the destruction and aftermath seen. Look at the pile, where are all the desks, computers, chairs, toilets, room dividers and vending machines? Each building held tens of thousands of them and yet nothing can be seen in pictures of the pile, however crushed they might have been. Any combination of gravity collapse, no matter how managed, would require all those articles to show up in the pile.

Nothing answers the question of the sustained extreme heat in the pile for months afterwards except leftover nuclear fission. The government now has mini-nukes the size of potted plants, your lunch bag or a computer. Kinda solves the problem of 'how'd they wire the building', doesn't it?

That's just the tip of the iceberg of the evidence.

New York City was nuked. Mini-nukes on every other floor, remote controlled. And don't bring up some crap about how 'there wasn't any radiation'. There's nukes with any kind of radiation signature you may want, and any size explosive yield. Take a look at the buildings in mid-collapse. The outside cladding is being blown explosively outwards with incredible power (thermite will not do this), the interior walls and concrete floor pans are turning to dust in mid-air, and the black column of smoke rising from the interior is the massive steel support beams being vaporized. Nukes.



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 11:28 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Wait a minute. Let me get this straight.

You post photos, that you took, at the Smithsonian, of metal in a display case, and you say that this proves no thermite was involved in bringing down the towers?

You do realize not everything you see at the Smithsonian is the real deal, right? The Titanoboa on display there is not real, it is a model. Suppose the Declaration of Independence were on display there. You could understand a situation where the US Government might substitute a copy, for security reasons, right?

Point is, the Federal Government controls what is on display at the Smithsonian. So it really just boils down to the same old "truther" question. Do you believe what the Federal Government tells you? If they were to put a piece of metal in a display case and labeled it, "From WTC2, result of thermite damage" would you accept that as true?



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 11:41 PM
link   
reply to post by VictorVonDoom
 


Well, I have to be honest. When I first saw the pics in the OP I thought it was some crazy kids art exhibit...looks like a tin can man or something - clearly not the steel beams themselves as anyone who has eyes can see they were much, much, larger than this tin can man...

CJ
edit on 23-7-2012 by ColoradoJens because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 12:02 AM
link   
There are steel beams all over Long Island, NY at memorials. I can take pictures of a few if you want. But those few "10' sections" that you speak of do NOT prove or disprove anything. Do you realize how much steel was involved in the collapse three buildings like that? 200,000 tons of it was recovered at Fresh Kills Landfill on Staten Island. Some was sold off to Baosteel in China (for a hefty profit), some was kept for memorials, and some even went into building the USS New York (LPD-21). FEMA kept 150 pieces of steel for investigation. Some of it is in a hanger at JFK airport.

Anyway, my point being, you can not possibly analyze the complete destruction of three buildings by ony 150 sections of steel.... out of several thousand. I mean.. 200,000 tons of steel, 450,000 cubic yards of concrete, office equipment, furniture, lights, elevators, computers, etc etc etc... all of it should have been considered evidence. But to this day all they relied on was a few questionable members thrown together for the NIST report (which I'm sorry.. is a joke, and yes I've read it).

I dunno.. at this point its been 11-years.. we are still stuck in two endless wars, corporations are making billions of dollars over there. At this point it amazes me people still believe wholeheartedly the "official story".

Bin Laden was "behind the attacks".. so Bush goes to Afghanistan, says he "doesn't know where Bin Laden is, doesn't care".. then goes to Iraq and all his buddies make billions and billions. Obama takes over after promising to end the wars... and more of the same. Why? Because war is money. And we wouldn't be involved in these two wars had 9/11 not happened.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 06:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by VoidHawk
I dont normaly frequent this forum but offering those little pieces of steel is laughable. Please try again!


And are these items of steel and other artifacts "laughable" ? Care to explain why ?

www.dailymail.co.uk...



You still don't get what he was saying, do you? lol

Plus, those could have come from anywhere....



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 07:00 AM
link   
The columns you post are the most ignorant evidence ive ever seen for anything, just as ignorant as the worst 9/11 conspiracies. What makes you think every single piece of damaged structural steel is going to have damage caused by explosives? They dont use explosives every six inches when they demolish buildings.

Why are you osers so committed to proving us wrong that youll post evidence even worse than the evidence that proves that a plane hit my house this morning?



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 07:14 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 07:32 AM
link   
reply to post by MaDick
 


Ok, good. Glad to see this "tool" was banned.

CJ



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 07:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by TraitorKiller
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Those are pieces of structural collums?

The plates seem 2-3 mm thick.

No wonder it collapsed.

Could be just me, but looks more like a piece of facade to me.

And what, the fact that a museum has a few pieces, doesn't say a single thing about the rest of them.
edit on 23-7-2012 by TraitorKiller because: (no reason given)

You're right they should have put ALL the steel from the twin towers in the museum in order to prove the conspiracies are wrong........



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 07:43 AM
link   
reply to post by yorkshirelad
 


How logical of you. Because the OP states a "lie" has been exposed by 50 pounds of metal in a museum (out of 180,00 tons) you now reverse it and believe people are saying all of it should be there? What they are pointing out is .001% of the metal doesn't verify or expose anything...simple really.

CJ



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by thegameisup
 


Maybe should talk to the local bomb squad personnel - the bomb techs from our local sheriff department
spent 3 weeks at the site doing search and rescue and body recovery

I;ve talked to the squad commander and several members about their experiences - no bomb components


Why were bomb squad personnel doing search and rescue?

Did the bomb squad do any scientific tests to see if any traces of explosives were amongst and of the debris/dust?

Why did NIST not mention anything about these bomb squad personnel, or do any testing themselves for explosives?



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by crawdad1914
So, in other words no respect for the testimony of those who witnessed molten metal at ground zero.
Thank you for clarifying that.


Ooooh, naughty naughty! You're making a fake accusation and then make a followup statement based upon that fake accusation. This is akin to my asking you if you still beat your wife. If childish antics like this is all you have to back your conspiracy claims up, then you really need to consider finding another conspiracy to wallow in.

The fires were burning underground which essentially made it a blast furnace, so I wouldn't doubt that it would cause steel to melt. If ground zero workers saw molten steel then I have no reason to doubt them...but this is neither here nor there. I'm not asking you whethwer or not ground zero workers saw molten steel. I'm asking you how thermite would have caused the damage on the WTC steel on display at the Smithsonian. Are you denying we're seeing a twisted and bent beam here?



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 12:03 PM
link   
Double post, please ignore.
edit on 24-7-2012 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 12:25 PM
link   
Your "proof" as it is displayed in the Smithsonian isn't proof at all. If you believe the official story, then fine, but to title your thread "More LIES of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists exposed..." is meant to be inflammatory, as well as derogatory, to people who do not swallow what our government is pushing. Your posts are condescending without swaying anybody, hence the lack of stars in your responses.

Your argument lacks substance, as does the display cases at the Smithsonian museum. Junk science trying to support the insupportable.







posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by TraitorKiller

These are box columns.


Those were one among many different types of box columns. To be precise, those are the core columns that took the brunt of the load. There were columns elsewhere that took up lesser loads, as well as box columns around the perimeter.

Here's a floor layout that shows what types of columns were in the building. The squares with the X's in them are the structural columns. The one in your photo is one of the large rectangular columns, The one in my photo is one of the smaller square ones.

Blueprint of a typical floor plan for the WTC

What I find interesting is that this blueprint isn't anything new- Richard Gage has had this for quite some time and yet he still can't seem to reverse engineer where these supposed demolition charges would need to be for the structure to fall in the way it did. It's obvious he's trying to make two plus two equal five, here.





You really expect us to believe that that puny, thin piece of metal in your OP was a load bearing component?


Since this beam obviously crumpled and tore when it lost its structural integrity, the condition by itself shows it had to have been a load bearing component. Why do you think they put it in the building if not to hold something up, to make the building look pretty?



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


The OS is false. The reason is due to National/Global security. The truth would potentially create civil/global UNrest. Think of Jack Nicholson saying "You want the truth? You can't HANDLE the truth." Might be worth heeding, 'Truthers'. As for the OS'ers, just stfu and let people ponder, you only serve to protect the Empire.


Open air burning of jet fuel: 500-600 degrees fahrenheit

Type of metal used in core beams of World Trade Center 1 and 2: A36 grade Steel

Melting point of A36 steel: 2400 degrees fahrenheit

Massive Discrepancy. Apply this to WTC 7 and it should become PATENTLY obvious that what happened was not described properly by the P.O.S. If it isn't obvious to you, and you're a fairly smart person, this means that they have successfully lassoed your brain.
Don't be alarmed though, it may be for the better. Remember in Watchmen, how Doc Manhattan was blamed for the explosion in New York? Kill some to save millions? Yea, it's pretty unethical, VERY actually, but these people, if you can call them that, operate off of 'Utilitarian' principles...

Anyway, I stopped really thinking about the events that took place that day, and it's implications/causes after I realized that a country full of brain washed peoples protecting a man that hasn't come to grips with his destiny, will literally attack your character and damn your integrity for even questioning and analyzing the greatest attack on U.S. soil in decades. Father knows best...

No. Fools, murderers, thieves, and cowards know best, presuming at this point from all that I have seen.

Happy?


I have faith in the inevitable. Equilibrium.




posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 
Admitting to molten steel at ground zero tells me that this post of yours is by far, your weakest. You may want to consider some R and R., because that molten steel seen by many, is further proof of nukes. The same ones that vaporized steel and turned thousands of tons of concrete into dust.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by crawdad1914
So, in other words no respect for the testimony of those who witnessed molten metal at ground zero.
Thank you for clarifying that.


Ooooh, naughty naughty! You're making a fake accusation and then make a followup statement based upon that fake accusation. This is akin to my asking you if you still beat your wife. If childish antics like this is all you have to back your conspiracy claims up, then you really need to consider finding another conspiracy to wallow in.

The fires were burning underground which essentially made it a blast furnace, so I wouldn't doubt that it would cause steel to melt. If ground zero workers saw molten steel then I have no reason to doubt them...but this is neither here nor there. I'm not asking you whether or not ground zero workers saw molten steel. I'm asking you how thermite would have caused the damage on the WTC steel on display at the Smithsonian. Are you denying we're seeing a beam that failed, here?


Oh, forgive me, I was pretty certain I have read multiple times where you and other's pushing the official story have disrespected those who witnessed molten steel on site, by in effect calling them liars, as to what they saw.
But it is all good in the end, since you now are giving validitiy to their words. This is progress, and a good thing in my view. Thank you.

As to you'r specific question question posed, as others have pointed out the beams you took a picture of do nothing to further your cause. I echo others in wondering why you even thought to post them.


Peace.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
I don't care how much steel has been shipped anywhere really. What I care about is somebody coming to these board and claiming that they now know without a doubt that 911 happened exactly how the government claimed..

While using a museum piece and 2 or 3 photos as evidence.

It's just poor form.

~Tenth


Why exactly is it "poor form"? The leading conspiracy claim that attempts to explain the collapse in spooky-scary terms is via secretly planted controlled demolitions destroying the support columns. Well, here's one of the very support columns that these secretly planted controlled demolitions would need to destroy for the tower to collapse, and instead we're seeing a column that failed simply because it couldn't hold up the load that came crashing down on it. Every floor was exactly the same as every other floor and no floor added structural support for any other floor, so if THIS column failed simply because it couldn't hold up the load that came crashing down on it, it's easy to see that every OTHER column could very well have failed because it couldn't hold up the load that came crashing down on it. These spooky-scary conspiracy stories are entirely extraneous to the actual cause of the collapse and these photos prove it. It ALSO proves the claim "all the steel was shipped overseas" is a lie since samples of WTC steel are popping up all over the place for anyone to see. You can go there to see this yourself if you'd like.

Please, explain why it's poor form to point that out.





new topics
top topics
 
13
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join