Are you seriously suggesting that red hot metal after 6 weeks of being exposed to a smoldering fire somehow invalidates the official story that the fires weakened the beams of the WTC (that were already damaged by ****ing 747's crashing in to them) and caused it to collapse? SERIOUSLY?

red hot != molten != melted

For the 90000000th time. THE STEEL DID NOT MELT. NO MELTING HAPPENED. The steel which had just been hit by a jumbo jet travelling several hundred miles an hourwas exposed to VERY HOT, BUT NOT MELTING POINT temperatures for 1.5 hours. This sufficiently weakened the floor and walls to allow a floor to collapse on to the floor below, which then collapsed as well, starting a chain reaction causing the collapse of the building. Steel does not need to MELT to lose the tensile strength required to hold up a 110 story building, nor does the entire building need to fail to collapse. On small failure is enough to create a chain reaction that cause the entire system to fail.

This is so blindingly, ridiculously obvious, that one needs to willfully disregard common sense, and completely ignore me, and everyone else, who's said "THERE DOES NOT NEED TO BE MELTED STEEL" to cause the building to collapse.


Again

red hot != melted

These are examples of Government opportunists using an event for their own purposes.

Zurvan,

I'm working on my response to WNs 'big picture problem' and I don't have a tremendous amount of patience with you anyways, but look at that picture, its dripping



omg its pouring out of the building

So, if I accept your contention that that is molten metal (I don't, btw) then how do YOU think the government created molten steel inside the building?

I believe the answer to that question is controlled demolition via explosives.

And why are you dismissing the obvious answers?

And what does molten metal found in an underground oven 6 weeks after the fact have to do with the building? Even if it is molten metal and not just really hot steel?

Which does not create molten steel.

Thats deductive reasoning and not inductive reasoning. Just because you can't comprehend the motives/possible motives, doesn't have any sort of bearing on the various facts. You're letting your worldview color your perception of the facts (which I'm sure your friend has said to you many times)

On one level I could say that discussing motives is irrelevant. I do not want to take that approach, but I definitely prefer to work from the bottom-up. Its so much easier leading into the motives than starting there. And there are levels to the various motives too.

On the simplest level you have war in the Middle East. Lets face it. Without 9/11 the Iraq war probably would not have happened. I fully understand that even according to the official story Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, but 9/11 created the political will for war there when it would not have existed before.

There was a book written by Zbigniew Brzezinski (who as I'm sure you know is Obama's adviser) called The Grand Chessboard which lays out some of it. Afghanistan is vital for natural gas pipelines through central Asia- and this gets into the whole Russia/Georgia issue that spawned this thread.

Brezezinski's thesis is that for American to hold onto its dominance it has to go after central Asian resources. And not so much that we get them, but to make sure that no one else (Russia, China) does.

This begs the question: if its all ultimately about Russia and China then why aren't those countries fighting to expose the truth about 9/11? Why is Europe going along with it when perhaps they want some claim to Middle East and Central Asian resources?

There are answers to those questions but we would just keep going deeper and deeper and engaging in a more speculation than I would like. But one good answer is that specter of international terrorism benefits not just the people who are behind the U.S. government, but all governments. It allows them to crack down on their citizens, to fight wars (on Chechen rebels, on the 'terrorists' in Tibet). Governments do not want their citizens thinking critically.

As far as the E.U goes. We can't really look at the E.U and the United States as two separate entities. The exact same international conglomerates (and the people behind them) are behind both the U.S and the E.U.

On a really really deep level its about keeping us in fear and controlling us. Why is that? What motivations? They are there but there isn't too much to get into that right now.

*I didn't really discuss motives for the Iraq war which I suppose I should have done. There are layers and layers of motives for that though.

thermite

thermite does

Here is a lecture on thermite from Stephen Jones, who is a physicist
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...18450327382904

*there is a longer video that includes that segment but im not going to bother to find it since I doubt anyone would watch anyways, but there are a number of Stephen Jones videos on google video that are worth watching

We haven't even discussed the Pentagon/flight 77

Thats a whole other can of worms.

And I don't deal with flight 93 at all. I consider that whole issue a giant red-herring.

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

About halfway down the page is a video that makes the crackpot professor look like a tool. Continue reading for more thorough debunking of every single thing Jones said.

You are misunderstanding me. I'm not making a deductive argument at all. Indeed, if I were to say "I don't see a coherent strategy underlying these events, therefore they are not the result of a conspiratorial plot" than I would be falling into a logical fallacy, namely argument from ignorance. But it's not my intent to make an argument in the persuasive sense. I'm just saying that existing as I do in a state of ignorance about the totality of facts regarding 9/11, I apply a kind of probablistic filter about the likelihood of various conclusions being true given what I know. And given what I know, the conspiracy conclusion does not seem to be the most likely, and part of the reason it seems to be less likely is that given what I know about what has actually occurred in the last 7 years, it seems relatively unlikely that those events could be the desired end result of some conspiracy.

Again though, it's not a deductive argument, it's really Bayesian, and it's speculative. I'm not trying to argue that it's a necessary logical conclusion at all. Now, how I assign the probabilities is certainly influenced by my world view, I don't think I could possibly deny that, but I do not think my judgment is unduly clouded by my expectations or by fear in this sense. But obviously I can't prove that to you.

I'm pretty sure that video does not explain the sulfidation of the steel as it claims. I can't find the references right now, but if the sulfidation had such a simple cause then it wouldn't have given FEMA the trouble that it did in one of the early studies that they did. I'm no chemist of course.

As for the rest of that page, its a mess. A lot of the arguments it makes are just silly. Perhaps if you would pick out what you think is important?

*http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...xt=va&aid=8472
article which discuss sulfidation some

Just out of curiosity, what would you be looking for if it was part of a conspiracy?

The video shows exactly how aluminum + plaster would have had every effect that the professor says was caused by thermite.

I quoted the single most important point in the thread:

Neither true nor false, complete and utter nonsense (so yeah, false).

Both of them support the coercive removal or restriction of access of factors of production from (potential) entrepreneurs in favour of the government ergo they are Socialists.
I'll give some examples: governmental healthcare, eminent domain, the military

How long would you think it would take for such a tower to collapse assuming all your assumptions are correct?

The NY times called the sulfidation "the deepest mystery of 9-11"
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evid...rgy/index.html

Surely they wouldn't have called it that if it had such a simple explanation? And surely there wouldn't be so much focus on that from professionals knowledgeable about this if there was such a simple explanation?

As for the claim of 18,000 pounds of thermite just to produce the molten metal seen coming off the South tower. I don't know how the author is getting that number. He's obviously implying that in order for thermite to have been used the amount of it would have been prohibitively excessive.

One thing is that I think a combination of things were used. Thermite, conventional explosives, and perhaps something unconventional too used to create the 'fountains of debris' that are seen going out away from the building in all directions.

this is what FEMA said about the sulfidation
I think I understand your perspective here. Good point, i think.

It's very clearly outlined in the article using math and chemistry.

As for the rest of it, all that page has to do is show how every thing that the Jones dude says has a scientific explanation that fits with the observed facts, and matches the government story to disprove the conspiracy theory. The entire conspiracy rests on the presumption that what happened could not have been caused by a simple collision between jumbo jets and a skyscraper. Showing that it could have been removes the case for the conspiracy.

Adding some ridiculousness to the conspiracy claims doesn't hurt, ie, it requires 18000 pounds of aluminum (that's the lowball number, btw) to create exactly the effect the professor describes in his video. I don't think any reasonable person can say that the Government managed to et 18000 pounds of thermite in to an office building without anybody noticing.

watch from 1:03:55 to 1:06
http://video.google.com/videosearch?...1&sa=N&tab=wv#

as far as that 18,000 lb number. I will see about looking into that a little further for you.

dustin,

Serious question. Is the government looking totally incompetent in a lot of things part of the conspiracies? It just seems so unlikely that the Bush administration or whoever it is that would truly be running the country according to these theories could pull this off without leaving very strong evidence and having it get leaked while totally ****ing up the war, the hurricane Katrina rescue effort and so on.

Jared, while I agree with your general thought it rests on the asumption that the war was supposed to go differently or that the Katrina rescues were supposed to go differently.

This is one of the favorite deductive type arguments that people like to use.

As far as Iraq goes. I don't think its been screwed up. I think its gone perfectly according to plan. The longer the war goes on the more profits defense companies make, the more money banks make on loaning money to the U.S.

As far as katrina goes, idk. I know that some people have said that the idea in New Orleans was to let things get real bad in order have to have the troops come in as sort of a test for martial law. I don't necessarily believe that though or anything about Katrina- I just don't know enough about it.

As far as the leaks though. There have certainly been slip-ups, like Norman Minetta's testimony in front of the 9-11 commission. But again, a lack of leaks doesn't change facts.

And there is Sibel Edmonds of course.

*I should add that certainly there were a lot of honest people involved on 9/11 who certainly had to have known something was up. But you have to understand that everything is compartmentalized. So nobody towards the bottom understands the full story. There is some FAA stuff that I'll try and find though.

Nothing about FAA whistleblowers really, but here are a couple things of interest

FAA Managers Destroy 9/11 Tape
Some testimony in front of 9/11 commission about general airport security from a disgruntled FAA guy

Those pictures look to me like small broken pieces of metal that are red hot, and not flowing molten metal. I don't know enough about the rest of the arguments to discuss them. However, it's pretty clear that investigators do not have significant experience with large jet airplanes running into large steel towers and burning them into collapse. Therefore, it is not surprising to me that a complete explanation of every last detail is lacking - in fact, if the "official explanation" of events actually DID explain every single last detail that was seen and found, that would be more suspicious to me than the reports that actually came out.

I haven't followed this stuff at all, has there been a better official version than the pencace stuff for the big-picture of why the towers collapsed?

This is a mischaracterization of what 9/11 truth is about. Its not about a bunch of small little details. Its about major flaws in the official story.


pancake theory.

I don't think so. I used to be a lot more well versed on this a couple years ago and I could have told you. I know that the original idea behind the 'collapse' did change- but I'm not sure from what to what

Its important to know though that the official theory doesn't actually deal with the actual 'collapse'. its a pre-collapse theory. It covers all of the events leading up to the collapse, but it doesn't attempt to model the collapse itself.