The Best 11 9/11 Questions to 'throw back' at 'Official Believers....!

Originally posted by thefutureisuncertain
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

www.thepowerhour.com...

link to picture of columns!

Is this the TITANIUM columns that someone spoke about ?
Has it occured to anyone when was the picture taken and
just a thought these could have been cut to aid the clear up
but i suppose thats to much of a sensible idea!


reply to post by SPreston




I love how you answer my question BY not answering them and changing the subject.

Please answer how much explosives needed! and how was it planted you are the guys who claim it back it up!


[edit on 3-12-2008 by wmd_2008]

Originally posted by thefutureisuncertain
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

www.thepowerhour.com...

link to picture of columns!

Sorry double post!

[edit on 3-12-2008 by wmd_2008]

Originally posted by wmd_2008
2) What TITANIUM COLUMNS provide a link to that PLEEEEASE!

The poster didn't say titanium columns. They said steel/titanium.

High strength low alloy (HSLA) steel is a type of alloy steel that provides better mechanical properties or greater resistance to corrosion than carbon steel. HSLA steels vary from other steels in that they aren't made meet a specific chemical composition, but rather to specific mechanical properties. They have a carbon content between 0.05–0.25% to retain formability and weldability. Other alloying elements include up to 2.0% manganese and small quantities of copper, nickel, niobium, nitrogen, vanadium, chromium, molybdenum, titanium, calcium, rare earth elements, or zirconium.[1][2] Copper, titanium, vanadium, and niobium are added for strengthening purposes.[2]

en.wikipedia.org...

For someone who claims to be in the construction industry and especially the steel making and testing industry, I would assume you would know this. HSLA steel was used in the towers.

3) To the security expert you calcluate how much explosive would
have been required to cause the destruction seen then post back
how that much could have been planted.

Since different explosives produce different effects, can you calculate this without knowing what was used? What about thermobarics which are more powerful than regular HE?

Thermobaric warheads put the power to demolish buildings into the hands of the average U.S. marine. But Americans aren’t the only ones with the weapons. The Chinese, the Russians -- even guerilla groups -- now have thermobarics' shockingly destructive power in their grasps.

Thermobarics aren't just a more powerful version of normal high explosive. The term encompasses a range of different types of warhead from fuel-air explosives, which release a cloud of flammable material and detonate it, to metallized explosives whose expanding fireball takes in oxygen from the air. What they have in common is that they produce blast which has a lower overpressure but a longer duration than normal condensed explosives. In effect it is a shove rather than a punch: a thermobaric explosion does not smash a hole in a wall, it pushes the wall over.

www.defensetech.org...

Sounds kind of like what we saw that day eh?

Look at any demolition video will say again building stripped
supporting internal walls removed explosive directly on main structural members miles of cable months of planning and guess what
they start at the bottom you see the explosive blast then the dust
not the collapse then the dust you see in south tower collapse.

Again, I have to question whether you really are in the construction/demolition/steel industry.



Yup, looks like it started from the bottom to me.

4) Was it before plane impact or are the making it up because they think like you?! (basement explosions)

Yes, because we know that everyone who questions the official story is crazy right?

5) Bldg 7 was damaged by the collapes of the towers although never shown by you guys! Large gash in building and a fire !

Since the collapse is suppossed to start around column 79 (where there was NO...I repeat...NO damage from the towers collapse) I think you should rethink your stance here.

Did you know that just 3 minutes and 3 seconds after the start of an average living room fire involving a couch, that the temperature 3 feet above the floor within the room is over 500 F? Just 38 seconds later, the temperature in the room is 1,400 F. If you want to protect your possessions from an inferno like this, you will need more than a simple metal box.

Question. Do you know the difference between heat and fire?

Originally posted by thefutureisuncertain
www.thepowerhour.com...

link to picture of wtc columns

picture of an iron worker cutting a core column with an oxyacetylene lance





[edit on 3-12-2008 by A W Smith]

Originally posted by wmd_2008
just a thought these could have been cut to aid the clear up
but i suppose thats to much of a sensible idea!

Just a thought. Why would anyone cut a column 10 feet above their head?

Please answer how much explosives needed!

Please answer which explosive you are talking about. Was it nano-thermite thermobarics? Or was it HE? Which one is more powerfull and uses less explosive material?

and how was it planted you are the guys who claim it back it up!

Just because we can't give you the exact locations and etc. doesn't negate the fact that it could have been done.

Originally posted by A W Smith
picture of an iron worker cutting a core column with an oxyacetylene lance

Yes, look how nice, neat and straight his cut is too. Not to mention that nice 45 degree angle he is cutting at. Also look how he is cutting 10 feet above his head. Also look at how the slag is just pooling around the column like in the other pic.

[edit on 12/3/2008 by Griff]

Sounds kind of like what we saw that day eh?

well except for the sound part. Come up with a hush a boom yet?

why would someone cut a column ten feet above their head

who says they did? are you not aware that as debris was cut away excavation continued?

nice straight cut

You can see all sides of that column thats not completely cut yet? Are you saying all angle cuts must be thermite? and only straight cuts are torched?

www.youtube.com...

[edit on 3-12-2008 by A W Smith]

[edit on 3-12-2008 by A W Smith]

reply to post by Griff




Most important part re HSLA STEEL

SMALLquantities of copper, nickel, niobium, nitrogen, vanadium, chromium, molybdenum, titanium, calcium, rare earth elements, or zirconium.[1][2] Copper, titanium, vanadium, and niobium are added for strengthening purposes.[2]

about 0.025% is it not?

The poster put STEEL/TITANIUM columns (looks like 50/50)

SO lots on components in an aircraft are also titanium alloys about 2% in a 767.


Link please to the full video!


Is every official story a LIE for all events?


Yes I know the difference it was to show what temperature can be
achieved with items that would also be in an office enviroment!

Originally posted by A W Smith
well except for the sound part. Come up with a hush a boom yet?

Do you think it was silent when the towers were exploding? Would that be a "hush-a-collapse"?

It's funny how you guys will claim that collapsing steel sounds just like an explosion when we show you videos of explosions heard, but yet turn around and claim that there were no explosions heard when 110 stories of steel is collapsing.

who says they did? are you not aware that as debris was cut away excavation continued?

So, they decided to cut columns first and then clear the debris away? While there might be someone trapped below said debris. Way to prioritize the importance of the clean-up eh?

Are you saying all angle cuts must be thermite? and only straight cuts are torched?

No, but I am saying that with a straight cut you get 2 things.

1. Less oxyaccetalene used per cut...i.e. money.

2. More control over where it will fall.

Why don't lumberjacks cut trees at a 45 degree angle if this is the best way to cut a columnar object?

Originally posted by Griff

Do you think it was silent when the towers were exploding? Would that be a "hush-a-collapse"?

Did i say silent? Want to compare the sounds of controlled demolitions to the collapse of the wtc? I'm game.
WTC NOT a controlled demolition

So, they decided to cut columns first and then clear the debris away? While there might be someone trapped below said debris. Way to prioritize the importance of the clean-up eh?

yet not two paragraphs later you claim they are trying to conserve acetylene because of cost? Way to go with your perception of priorities at GZ.

No, but I am saying that with a straight cut you get 2 things.

1. Less oxyacetylene used per cut...i.e. money.

2. More control over where it will fall.

Why don't lumberjacks cut trees at a 45 degree angle if this is the best way to cut a columnar object?

your comparing steel columns to trees now? nice going Judy wood. send in the keebler elves. don't bother. there here.

Just a simple question.
Why does it say,

Due to member demand, this forum is now under close staff scrutiny.
Any inappropriate comments, insults, topic derailment, or trolling will result in immediate posting ban or account termination.

When people constantly troll the 9/11 forum to make inappropriate comments, which are usually in the form of insults in cheap attempts at topic derailment which obviously do not result in immediate posting bans or account termination because these same trolls are doing the same thing posting their ridiculous pseudoscience page after page?

Here's one example of what I'm referring to:

What do you mean the fires weren't hot enough, the fuel burns at 'x temperature' the carpets burn at 'x temperature' the desks burn at 'x temperature' the cubicles burn at 'x temperature', add all those desks, cubicles, carpets, and each gallon of fuel and you have a fire burning at 45,974 degrees, that can melt anything!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If what these people are doing is not trolling or is not a clear attempt at topic derailment can you explain to me what it is?
Seriously it's almost an insult to those of us who have done their homework, and are attempting to take this seriously.



[edit on 3-12-2008 by ashamedamerican]

reply to post by ashamedamerican



what we are pointing out is that the questions being proposed have already been debunked. it is not trolling. or even topic derailment. Listen. if you have a problem with a particular post. feel free to report it. If you are not happy with the moderation. put those members on ignore. simple enough? Now. Do you have any "questions" you would like to propose? or will you continue to derail this thread into a moderation debate?

Originally posted by wmd_2008
SO lots on components in an aircraft are also titanium alloys about 2% in a 767.

Yes, and lots of those aluminum/titanium alloys can be just as strong or stronger as A-36 steel. hence how it can slice through the exterior columns.

Link please to the full video!

What video? Oh, the "top-down' demolition?

Here are a few.

uk.youtube.com...

uk.youtube.com...

I'd say I've sufficiently disputed your claim that all controlled implosions are from the bottom up.

Is every official story a LIE for all events?

IMO, no. And I'm not of the "9/11 was a total inside job" crowd either. My theory is that thermobarics were also used by the terrorists and the cover-up is so that we don't get too scared to find out that the terrorists have such bombs. Kind of like the reason why were are not told about alien life. They don't want another "War of the Worlds" scenario where the stupid masses panic and start killing themselves or each other.

Yes I know the difference it was to show what temperature can be
achieved with items that would also be in an office enviroment!

So, you are comparing the air above a couch fire to the steel columns in a tower fire? Let me know: Which absorbs heat faster?

[edit on 12/3/2008 by Griff]

Originally posted by A W Smith
Did i say silent? Want to compare the sounds of controlled demolitions to the collapse of the wtc? I'm game.
WTC NOT a controlled demolition

Sure, let's.

Here's a thermobaric grenade.

uk.youtube.com...

Sure was loud eh?

Here's a thermobaric warhead.

uk.youtube.com...

Again, where's the earth shattering kaboom?

You do know that with different mixtures we can achieve a bomb that's sound could be hidden by the collapse of the building right?

So, it is very disingeneous to say they were "hush-a-bombs" when we even have video of explosions happening.

your comparing steel columns to trees now? nice going Judy wood. send in the keebler elves. don't bother. there here.

Yeah, because physics and gravity work different when comparing steel to wood.

reply to post by A W Smith

From the OP:

Originally posted by Marlborough Red
I don't want arguments or discussions I just would like the superb combined minds here to list what they think are the best 11 points / questions to fire back at the official line.

There are tons of threads where we debate points about 9/11.
THIS thread was supposed to be a list of the (and I quote) "best 11 points / questions to fire back at the official line" yet the flood doors opened and the trolls piled in like it was the last train out of town, and are attempting to shootdown strategically cherrypicked questions, in a bad attempt to debunk and derail the thread.

If you don't like it when those of us who believe 9/11 to be a stinking pile of myth make a list of questions and/or points, than I would have to say that this is not the thread for you.

Everytime the trolls do this it causes the member who posted that question to defend their point, which slowly but surely over time derails what was supposed to have been a list.

I'm not going to report every ridiculous attempt at topic derailment because I don't have the time or energy to report every other post in this or any of the other hundreds of 9/11 threads, that's why there are moderators.
I'm also not going to put every troll on 'ignore' because you only get 10 which is not nearly enough, and because you then get to read posts that seem to be talking to themselves due to the fact that you're not getting the whole picture.

I'm asking a simple question, which by the way is obviously not intended for you and that question would be...
Why put that banner at the bottom, if it's not taken seriously and/or enforced?

reply to post by Griff


thats a stun grenade. designed to disorient you

From the comments of the video you linked to. the guy who actually filmed it says

You have to remember this is a comercial grade stun grenade, so it's effect isn't too strong. But it's certainly enough to disorientate you for a few seconds. More than enough time to clear a room. The fact that it has a loud sound profile and a fairly hefty flash (In low light conditions it's a bitch) make it more than ample for most civilian applications.

The second video you post appears to be buffering , but the comments also describe it as an anti personal device.


perhaps to destroy a building with an acre footprint you would need something with quite a bit more omph.

Thermobaric explosive

not so quiet that one is it? And the effects look nothing like what was seen on 9/11


oh i have to add this

You do know that with different mixtures we can achieve a bomb that's sound could be hidden by the collapse of the building right?

You do know that demolition explosions precede the collapse ? yes? can you show me CD videos that have masked demolition charges going off after the collapse ?



[edit on 3-12-2008 by A W Smith]

[edit on 3-12-2008 by A W Smith]

reply to post by wmd_2008

I have SHOWN science that supports what is the MOST likely cause
of what happened

What Science? Furthermore, I am not interested in (MOST likely cause of what happened.) I am only interested in real Science that supports facts and you have fail miserably to show proof, only speculations and assumptions nothing more.

Originally posted by A W Smith
You do know that demolition explosions precede the collapse ? yes? can you show me CD videos that have masked demolition charges going off after the collapse ?

Since we are not talking about HE explosives, I don't know why you keep bringing them up?

Thermobarics can produce high heat and low frequency.

Who is saying after collapse? I'm saying during.

Originally posted by Griff

So, you are saying that all the columns just decided to collapse at the same time?

I think "in rapid succession" would be a better way to express it.

Your theory is that thermxte was used to remove a few floors, which then caused Euler's buckling on the columns.

Unless you advocate that ALL the columns were so affected, then your theory relies on the columns also failing "in rapid succession" .

Originally posted by cashlink

I know what I see in all the video and what I see is a Hughes EXPLOSIONS!

What you see is the air rushing out of the building. You'd be surprised at how fast the air must leave the building as the floors above it falls.

But since you won't believe what I tell you, I'll instead give you a problem, and see if you can figure it out for yourself.

The towers were 208' x 208' square and 12.7' high for each floor.

The windows were 4' on center, and the columns were 14' wide.

If the floors fall in .2 seconds ( slow ) how fast will the air be traveling as it escapes through the gaps between the columns.

Do this first, and see what you think.