Insanely Incredible Issues as Proof of a 9/11 Conspiracy

This fascination with thermite in relation to the towers has always been puzzling to me and the only reason I can see for it is the relative quietness of it in comparison to demolition charges. Thermite is more for constructive rather than destructive purposes eg welding steel rails in remote locations because it produces molten iron and it would be a very inefficient way to try to sever major steel structural elements. The reaction is over in a minute or two for 'standard' type Al/Iron oxide thermite and much faster for the more vigorous mixes containing additional oxidizers like nitrates.

There's no way thermite could maintain molten metal for longer than a few minutes unless it's fed into the reaction continuously and there was no evidence I saw of massive hoppers for that purpose so thermite is not the answer here. Fires did burn and smolder for a long time but the measured temperatures do not support the stories of 'molten steel'. Some pockets were hot enough to reach red heat but that's about it.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: Xtrozero

How about you look at the entire big picture of everything this BIG LIE we've been spoon fed our entire lives?

But your original post is about 911 and that is what I addressed in the sense that with a 100 conspiracies all can not be correct, and all that I have read about spiral out of control after one goes down the path of actually looking at what it would take for the conspiracy to happen.

The official story can be vastly correct with Rumsfeld still the puppet master, so it seems most waste their time with alternate narratives that for 15 years have been nothing but pipe dreams in substance. My favorite is John Lear's hologram aircraft and reversed engineered alien lasers taking the towers down.

originally posted by: Pilgrum

There's no way thermite could maintain molten metal for longer than a few minutes unless it's fed into the reaction continuously and there was no evidence I saw of massive hoppers for that purpose so thermite is not the answer here. Fires did burn and smolder for a long time but the measured temperatures do not support the stories of 'molten steel'. Some pockets were hot enough to reach red heat but that's about it.

When something does not work right then create something fictitious that does. In this case nano-thermite fits the need to over come those pesky engineering issues. Just because it is not real doesn't prevent its use and that is easy to explain away to as in it is secret technology...done

a reply to: Pilgrum

Thermite is a dodge used by the truthers in response to others pointing out the flaws in their "Controlled Demolition"
theory

Namely how does one smuggle in sufficient quantities of explosives into a occupied building and em place
the explosives without cutting open walls and severing structural columns like is done in real world (not
fantasy) demolitions and without tipping off people something is wrong

Also solves issues that real demolitions would shatter windows all over southern Manhattan

Thermite was given patina of respectability by Stephen Jones and his claim to have found thermite in the dust from the
scene. The alleged dust sample was collected and stored under dubious conditions which would never stand up to
scientific scrutiny

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: hellobruce

911research.wtc7.net...
NASA Thermal Images.

No evidence of "months of hot flowing molten metal" there....

911blogger.com...
Testimonials.

No evidence of "months of hot flowing molten metal"

So as expected, no evidence of "months of hot flowing molten metal", just another truther claim not based on anything factual!

Ah yes, good old Skeptics (the social group).

Thanks for the lesson in cherry picking, all of you.

Just keep glossing over pages of relevant arguments, as if they never happened, and keep pushing the thread forward by focusing in on cherry picked arguments (classic No Planer tactics) while acting as if I never had a leg to stand on, and keep pulling everything back into the sorts of arguments specific to the deeply flawed and entirely outdated Loose Change 2nd Edition.

I mean damn sticking to 10 year old material with 10 year old arguments... LOL!

I've been away from the big 9/11 issue since around 2008. What's your excuses?

Your extreme absolutist approach to all this, as if you or anyone ACTUALLY knows (with certainty) the real scoop... It reminds me of watching Atheists & Christians argue, where both sides thinks they are 1. right (as if either could be) and 2. they aren't biased at all its just the other guy that is.

Me? I'm the Socio-Agnostic. As as I tend to piss Republicans off in one topic, the democrat's that were all excited by what I was doing, the next day they see me in another topic and want to hang me.

It wasn't much better in my 9/11 days as the CT they all insisted on focusing on the physics stuff in pushing the movement, me in the middle ground pushing the "Actionable Consensus" viewpoint, where that made me unacceptable to the Skeptics as I didn't strictly adhere to the NO CONSPIRACY IN ANY FORM IN ANY WAY NO MATTER WHAT viewpoint.

For either side hardly a one of you would ever change you position on all that physics crap, not budge for a second, when in reality nobody from either side can be entirely sure in true rationality. Hence the whole reason I came to insist we had to get off all that because nobody will ever agree and its just too big and complex for anybody to TRULY understand it all entirely (like as if anyone could actually know whether or not a "god" exists).

Here you can see how popular my thrust there wasn't:
Concrete Goals for all who actually cares about the truth behind 9/11

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

I don't adhere to the 'NO CONSPIRACY IN ANY FORM IN ANY WAY NO MATTER WHAT viewpoint' either

My feeling (in absence of any absolute proof) is that any conspiracy at the heart of this tragic event is nothing as overtly physical as CDs, faked planes, super science etc etc. The entire scheme had to be extensively planned & funded in advance for example and any vague pointers to that are outside the USA. There could also be some covering up of inadequate responses before and after the event.

The 'molten steel for weeks' claim requires a massive ongoing continuous energy input to compensate for heat loss via conduction, convection, radiation. Note I specifically said steel because there were a lot of other metals in the building with much lower melting temperatures within the heat range of the known fires so yes, there could have been molten metal eg Al

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
The GWB watching the impact is pretty wild stuff. If it was only once I could see it more easily being thrown off as an idiot bumbling in an impromptu speech, but since he reiterated the same claim it makes that view hard to swallow. But for the sake of my argument, all I need is for it to be an intentional disinfo stunt to confuse and even test our collective stupidity. If it was intentional whether he seen it or not, or if he did see it equates to about the same conclusion in my view.

This has a very depressing solution. There is a massive bull#ting problem in the USA. I have no idea why but it seems people are far more prone to inventing fantasies and then coming to believe in them, particularly when a notable event is involved. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable, but this is something else.

You might remember the tale told by Major Billy Hutchison, about tackling a hijacker airliner single-handed in a fighter jet. When the 9/11 Commission told him that his story simply was not true, Hutchison didn't stop and scratch his head - he stood up and walked out of the interview. A bold man, refusing to be cowed into participating in the cover-up? No, he was a fantasist. It was all bull# - but he believed it.

You can read about him and some other crazy delusions from people involved in the day's official reactions here: www.nytimes.com...

False memories are startlingly easy to create, according to a study conducted on US citizens. Whether it would be replicated in other cultures has not been explored. The defining research at present is that of Dr Elizabeth Loftus, who (to cut to the chase) managed to convince people to genuinely remember things that absolutely did not happen, such as seeing staff masquerading as Warner Bros characters at Disneyworld.

Summary here: faculty.washington.edu...

And the thing is, so, OK, Bush was talking out of his a## when he claimed to remember the first plane strike. But... so what? What does that prove?

a reply to: audubon

when he claimed to remember the first plane strike. But... so what? What does that prove?

Well that proves there were:
No planes
Military planes
Missile pods
Cruise missiles
Thermite
Explosive charges
Space beams
Mini nukes

Who's theory did I miss ?

a reply to: samkent

Well, to be scrupulously fair it doesn't prove or disprove anything. It's just an irrelevant distraction.

There's a really good conspiracy theory waiting to be hatched that the American public's mind is deliberately being kept malleable and highly-susceptible to the re-writing of reality, precisely so that delusions created by the powers that be can be spread more easily in order to control consensus reality. In fact, I'm very surprised that it hasn't been thought of already. And since there is a great amount of evidence to support at least the basic notions involved, it might even turn out to be something near the truth.

I should add, I don't mean any slur upon US citizens, who are a fine bunch on the whole. But there is this worrying dimension of mythomania that doesn't appear to be quite so advanced anywhere else.