Do people still believe 911 wasnt a inside job?

not only the bbc, cnn and I think abc as well announced about 20 minutes before hand.

nothing to see here folks......just "COINCIDENCE"!

 

nah nah nah....

I am not the government spokesman here you are.

Its not me on trial its them. You want to take their position then prove their position.

you first need to prove aircraft actually hit those towers and so far all I have seen is CGI mockups. Pretty piss poor ones at that.

On the other hand if you want government approved proof of molten steel look at the usgs sat pics.

most people settle for this










https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqNugYbZX7E"]molten steel firefighters

now you tell me what made the molten steel?



1) Fuel fire that burned off according to nist in 10 seconds,

2) office materials,

3) thermate,

4) demolition nuke.

those are your only choices.

 

assuming of course that the substance wasn't misidentified.

sorry, just adding the qualifiers to your question which i'm sure you forgot to include, happens to all of us

 

what other substance do you think it could have been? Aluminum?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHFdcPv3XXI"]New: Fox News 5 reports WTC 7 collapse BEFORE it happens - YouTube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1LetB0z8_o"]WTC 7 Foreknowledge - YouTube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mxFRigYD3s"]BBC Reports Collapse of WTC Building 7 Early-- TWICE - YouTube

To me it boils down to so called journalists reading something from old style news ticker tape.
It's not something they know to be true.
They are miles away from the scene.
They personally have no idea what they are saying.
Like I said, it is a reporter in situ for televisual purposes.
The CNN guy atleast says 'may have collapsed' - he doesn't actually say it has for sure.
The BBC woman just has an air of arrogance, and is just making stuff up as if she was literally in spitting distance of WTC 7.
It just makes you realise these guys get their information from the same sources, and just pad the rest out with BS.

Ok, several news outlets got it wrong - and?

 

:bobby: out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHhiRIgzI_c"]9/11 WTC Eyewitness Testimony Compilation.(SEE INFO) - YouTube

Obviously these guys are BSing, right? Obviously you will not hear the word 'plane' - just 'explosions' and 'boom' 'boom' 'boom'.

Oxidation of iron by air is not the only EXOTHERMIC reaction of iron (= structural steel which is about 98 % Fe, 1 % Mn, 0.2 % C, 0.2 % Si.....). There is at least one additional reaction of iron with the capability of keeping the rubble pile hot and cooking!

The reaction between IRON AND STEAM is also very EXOTHERMIC and fast at temperatures above 400 deg C. This reaction produces Fe3O4 AND HYDROGEN. It is the classic example of a REVERSIBLE REACTION studied in Chemistry labs at high school. But believe it or not, back at the turn of the century, the reaction of iron and steam was used as an industrial process for the manufacture of hydrogen.

I think iron and steam could have reacted in this way (at least for a while) and generated a lot of heat. What is more, the hydrogen released would have been converted back to water by reaction with oxygen, thereby generating even more heat. In this case spraying water on the rubble pile was like adding fuel to a fire!

Now add in gypsum reactions with H2 and CO and we have a great source of SO2 and/or H2S to sulfide the steel!

Perhaps the endless spraying of water on the rubble pile was not such a good idea!

In the usual lab experiment on the reversible reaction of iron and "steam", nitrogen (or some inert gas) is bubbled through water to create a gas stream saturated with water vapor at room temperature. This gas is then allowed to flow into a glass tube about 1 meter long containing iron in an inert boat at its center. This assembly is heated in a tube furnace to some desired temperature, say 500 deg C. The hydrogen/ nitrogen gas mixture is collected at the outlet of the tube furnace.

In the industrial process the feed gas might also be "water gas" which is a mixture of CO and water vapor. The outlet gas contains mostly H2 and CO2.

I am sure there was plenty of water vapor AND oxygen in the void spaces in the rubble pile. This is the "steam" I am referring to.

Please remember that the recovered pieces of structural steel were heavily OXIDIZED as well as sulfided. The most important oxidizing agents available in the rubble pile were obviously O2 and H2O.

The rubble pile was not only inhomogeneous with regard to its composition, it was inhomogeneous with regard to its temperature. This was due to localized chemical reactions. Such reactions were capable of generating high temperatures in these localized hot spots.

The demolitionists much beloved thermite is a good example, BUT NOT THE ONLY EXAMPLE. AND THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF WHATSOEVER THAT THERMITE, THERMATE, SOL-GEL NANO-THERMITE WAS EVER PRESENT AT THE WTC SITE!!!!!!

It is irrelevant whether or not the steam was wet or dry, that is a chemical engineering notion only of interest in a closed and controlled system, usually under high-pressure, such as a steam generator in a power station.

Water vapor was present in the rubble pile and water vapor reacts with iron releasing HYDROGEN.

ITS CALLED A CORROSION REACTION:

METAL + WATER = METAL OXIDE + HYDROGEN

WHEN IT HAPPENED AT THREE MILE ISLAND IT CREATED A HYDROGEN BUBBLE

- NEU-FONZE

http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm

That's how bored I am talking about supposedly molten steel. :frown:

 

wow!

Kool!

demonstration please


so the airlines have black airplanes? WTF is up with that?

 

and there is nothing to see folks "ITS JUST A COINCIDENCE"!

 

"No! not a plane it was a bomb!"

I wonder what those strange "brilliant" white glowee thingies are that we see all over in every video that is clearer?









probably another coincidence!

 

I will make one simple contribution to this thread as some of you people don't want to believe what is staring you in the face and really don't want to even attempt to convince you, other than:-

1. All these 4 planes completely disappearing, is not possible.
2. All these 3 buildings collapsing beautifully at "free-fall" speed, is not possible.
3. The passport of a vaporised terrorist, being found in the street undamaged, is not possible.
4. Flight 93 crashing in a hole that was already there, is not possible.
5. Flight 77 getting anywhere near the Pentagon, is not possible.
6. Flight 77 making a hole smaller than itself and not leaving wreckage outside, is not possible.
7. The notion that all 4 flight recorders were lost, is not possible.
8. That none of these hijacked planes were followed, or intercepted and that everyone "just screwed up", is not possible.
9. The idea of all 3 steel buildings, with only light fire damage, fell at all and fell perfectly symmetrically, in their own footprint, is not possible.
10 The idea that the owner Silverstien was sick on that one day, which saved his life, is not plausible.
11.The idea that Silversien called for the building 7 to be "pulled" and after they demolished it, claimed he didn't mean that, is not possible.

Now if anyone can ignore all those known facts and still believe 9/11 was not an inside job, you are either very faithful to the Bush administration, or a member.

Have a nice day.

 

I wonder why the sky turns multi-coloured for a brief moment - mmmm HAARP?

Gosh, we agree on something.

 

because the plane is faked.



well no, that was sarcasm, not agreement. maybe I should have added this little guy

 

The colours must be from the 3D projector, right?
I think what the "brilliant" white glowee thingies is debris - well they are not really glowing. If you have clearer footage why did you choose the worst one available? Oh yes, it happen to look like the plane was black (well, atleast, the underside). Sorry, I should be used to it by now.

I was being sarcastic, or were we both being sarcastic?
Like I keep saying: so what, and? You have a colourful theory about everything else - do share the fascinating story of why the news outlets (well one or two) were a little ahead of themselves.

 

really? then you have a good explanation for those flashes in areas where there is NO debris, like above the impact zone right!

yes exploding would be a more correct term.


the result of the explosion can be seen below at the end.
debris on the outer exo... where? not

corner blown out 30 stories above the impact.



debris 30 stories above the impact point? not

those are nbc clips btw

mysterious brilliant white glow, then everything blows to hell, I am sure it will turn out to be just another "coincidence".

 

I'm not going to try and explain every trick of the light, 'artifact' from the transfer from analogue terrestrial television footage to digital JPEG/MPEG.
How do you know it isn't debris?
I think you have been staring at your photobucket collection for too long.
Why don't you slow down the 'unseen footage' I posted earlier and see what you can see in that one.
Heck, you want me to explain what else a shadow and the glint on aluminium could be.
Look at your first clip and see what you think are explosions - then look at your other video and you will see it is debris being thrown out, but from a different angle (notice the white shards).
Anyway, why should I explain every tiny detail when you refuse to answer any of my question?

Pre HD by the look of it.

 

2001, absolutely. So why are you still in this thread again? I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish, besides being mocked. (I'm asking sincerely, not being a dick. I feel I have to make this clear after I called you a twat for no reason)

 

That was a joke, btw

Why do you think I am being mocked? What is any of us trying to accomplish here? What's the meaning of life? Who knows. Seriously, as morbid as it all is I find this interesting. It would be nice if certain individuals didn't just post their entire photobucket collection, and not answer a single question - but it passes the time, I guess. I could be doing worse things. You might notice I am giving less and less and lest - then I will just stop.

 

Odon,

Zzap produces footage of the corner being taken out, and you want to try to undermine that little piece of inconvenience to you by not addressing it. That's not how you undermine it. You undermine it by explaining that what we are seeing is not what we are seeing. Good luck with that, by the way. You shouldn't condemn something to ridicule (photobucket crack) before examining it first, and then pointing out for everyone the reasons for believing that the corner isn't being blown out.

And you can bet your ass you could be doing worse things to pass the time. Don't forget that if you hadn't been participating in this thread, you'd still be out preaching about the insignificance of the core-structure, calling it a minor part of the building in order to back up your belief about impossible collapses, when in fact it was the building.

 

Lol! Every trick of light? Is one of the tricks in light's repertoire to show itself inside a building, and have that building come down in a way that corresponds with its arrival? Pretty good trick!

The same goes for debris. Is one of the tricks of debris the ability to show up in a way that corresponds with the collapse of the building?

 

All that was said was: "corner blown out 30 stories above the impact. "
Which tower? Which corner? Which floor.
Then I might be able comment on it.
You seem to know - you tell me where it is.

Zzap's "No! not a plane it was a bomb!" video also states eye witness testimony to say there were planes hitting the towers. True - it also claims there was a car/van bomb. What did Zzap come away with? "No! not a plane it was a bomb!". If Zzap ignores 'planes' and only hears 'bombs' - then yes it will difficult to convince otherwise. You are right. I posted some testimony too - what did Zzap do with that? Ignored the word 'plane'.
If we can't even get on the same page with regards to aeroplanes hitting the towers - then god help us.
Will you wriggle out of accepting two aeroplanes flew into the towers?

I'm not going to try and explain every trick of the light, 'artifact' from the transfer from analogue terrestrial television footage to digital JPEG/MPEG.

Anyway, why should I explain every tiny detail when you refuse to answer any of my questions?


If you want to give lessons on how to post - have a few words with Zzap, too.
Like - answer some questions, and not say 'I don't have to' (= cop out.)

I don't preach. I still did say the core of one of the buildings was insignificant.
We seemed to be talking about both buildings as if they were one. I clarified my thoughts about both buildings.