9/11 Redux - Page 7 - Ajarn Forum

robitusson · 2nd April 2008, 12:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larkinny

the speed of the collapses

Which I was led to believe by the "truth" movement was 9 seconds. That turned out to be a "fact" that wasn't exactly factual shall we say. It does suit the c.t. though.

Think they might have an agenda rather than being open minded about what happaned? Naaaah!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larkinny

What force removed the CORE?

2 hijacked planes hitting into the towers which caused a fire which caused the structure to weaken and fall.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larkinny

they would not have taken the core with them on the way down.

Why is he using "would"?

The tower "would" not have fallen that particular way... In this guy's mind it "would" not have taken the core down. However the reality is it happened. I think I'll look at the reality rather than a hypothetical situation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larkinny

What force could have moved 4 inch steel box columns out of the way with such speed?

The planes?

Hitting into the...? Aw never mind.

I just don't believe in the c.t. Lots of people are trying to convert non-believers including me, but I haven't seen the light and converted to the new faith yet. Maybe one day my soul can be saved. Who knows?

jogger · 2nd April 2008, 12:38

I've heard Bin Laden dives a Porsche 911

esoteric1 · 2nd April 2008, 17:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by robitusson

2 hijacked planes hitting into the towers which caused a fire which caused the structure to weaken and fall.

amazing how that conclusion was reached before any investigation(however shoddy) was ever conducted...don't ya think?

In fact pretty much everything about the official explanation was decided upon by the morning of 9/12......or 12/9/2001 for you Euros.

Larkinny · 3rd April 2008, 01:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by keeshou

What do you think people have been using for centuries to liquefy iron?

C4?

Get a grip, at the height of where those planes struck the World Trade Center, don't you think the velocity of the wind would have fed huge amounts of oxygen to the fire? The fuel inside a jet engine doesn't simply burn, it does explode.

Quote:

The spherical shape of the microspheres is caused by surface tension acting on tiny molten
droplets. This is the only mechanism by which the spherical shape can be explained. Therefore, these microspheres are proof that molten iron was produced in the process that caused the demise of the WTC towers, a remarkable fact that does not fit the official story.
source

In addition, the RJ Lee company found that:

Quote:

Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC Event, producing spherical metallic particles.

The RJ Lee Group report was prepared as part of damage assessment of the Deutsche Bank building at 130 Liberty Street.
-----

Quote:

Originally Posted by robitusson

Which I was led to believe by the "truth" movement was 9 seconds. That turned out to be a "fact" that wasn't exactly factual shall we say.

If you actually looked at what I posted (2nd link) you'd see:

Quote:

our equation tells us that it will take 9.2 seconds to free-fall to the ground from the towers' former height.

So you're making a fuss over 0.2 seconds? Look, you might argue that they didn't fall at free fall speeds, but no one can honestly claim that they fell slowly. By all official accounts it didn't take any more than 12 or 13 seconds for either building to fall. But the NIST theory fails to offer any explanation and makes absolutely no attempt to address the speed of the collapses. The investigation stopped at "collapse initiation".

Think about that. How can you study the event and deliver a conclusion without studying the collapse itself?

Quote:

2 hijacked planes hitting into the towers which caused a fire which caused the structure to weaken and fall.

That's the official story, but NIST had to alter the test procedures in order to achieve the desired result. IOW, fixing the facts around the policy. Hardly scientific, eh?

Quote:

Why is he using "would"?

That was my wording.

Quote:

However the reality is it happened.

Everybody saw the towers collapse, that's the reality. The unanswered question is, why?

Quote:

I think I'll look at the reality rather than a hypothetical situation.

Read his paper:

Quote:

The (NIST) report ... relies upon the theoretical work of Dr. Bazant, to argue that once collapse was initiated then total collapse was inevitable ... The short cut taken by NIST in relying upon this theoretical work, allowed them to avoid a continuation of their examination to include the physical evidence available from the collapse. Such a continuation would have shown many points of evidence which cannot be readily explained by a collapse whose initiation and progression was caused as a result of aircraft impact and subsequent fires. It does however allow the authors of the NIST report to pass responsibility to Dr. Bazant for this, the most important part of the investigation.

A theory which can be so easily refuted is not an adequate foundation on which to rest the conclusions of a report on an event with such far reaching global consequences.

keeshou · 3rd April 2008, 07:56

My Statement

Quote:

Get a grip, at the height of where those planes struck the World Trade Center, don't you think the velocity of the wind would have fed huge amounts of oxygen to the fire? The fuel inside a jet engine doesn't simply burn, it does explode.

and this is your answer?

Quote:

The spherical shape of the microspheres is caused by surface tension acting on tiny molten
droplets. This is the only mechanism by which the spherical shape can be explained. Therefore, these microspheres are proof that molten iron was produced in the process that caused the demise of the WTC towers, a remarkable fact that does not fit the official story.

You do understand English, right?
robitusson say's

Quote:

Originally Posted by robitusson

2 hijacked planes hitting into the towers which caused a fire which caused the structure to weaken and fall.

and you respond

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larkinny

That's the official story, but NIST had to alter the test procedures in order to achieve the desired result. IOW, fixing the facts around the policy. Hardly scientific, eh?

So your contention is that two planes actually didn't hit the World Trade Center?

"fixing the facts around the policy" this should read "fixing the facts around the facts". It wasn't "policy" that hit those buildings, it was in "FACT" two jet airplanes.

Larkinny · 3rd April 2008, 17:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by keeshou

My Statement

and this is your answer?

Stay on topic. I gave you a scientific report which proves the existence of molten metal. Molten metal cannot be accounted for in the official story.

Quote:

So your contention is that two planes actually didn't hit the World Trade Center?

"fixing the facts around the policy" this should read "fixing the facts around the facts". It wasn't "policy" that hit those buildings, it was in "FACT" two jet airplanes.

You're the one with the comprehension problems, or perhaps this is how you amuse yourself?

I said, "What force removed the CORE?"

Rob said, "2 hijacked planes hitting into the towers which caused a fire which caused the structure to weaken and fall."

So I went on to explain, and this I bet is clear as day to everyone else here, that that is the official explanation and all evidence which does not support that (and there is a ton of it) is disregarded and ignored.

Why don't you address the scientific issues I've raised instead of quibbling?

robitusson · 3rd April 2008, 17:53

The only blatant lies I've come across have come from the c.t.

The c.t. has a very obvious agenda. People are prepared to lie to support the theory. Why? If it's so obvious that the "official version" is a lie, then why the need to fabricate evidence? My answer would be, they need to maintain a faith in the c.t. There's no c.t. and no "official version", except in cartoon, black & white land.All there is, is evidence for something that occured on September the 11th, which intelligent and open-minded people can look at themselves and make of it what they will.

I've yet to come across a c.t-ist who doesn't have belief in it. I gave up organised beliefs and faiths personally. That's not to say they're not useful for others. I'm just not so inclined.

keeshou · 3rd April 2008, 21:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larkinny

Stay on topic. I gave you a scientific report which proves the existence of molten metal. Molten metal cannot be accounted for in the official story.

Uhm... You were responding to this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by keeshou

the wind would have fed huge amounts of oxygen to the fire? The fuel inside a jet engine doesn't simply burn, it does explode.

Your response was to assert what you had said before. That's not staying on topic, that is ignoring the discussion.
-----
this is from Wkipedia

Quote:

All jet engines require high temperature gas for good efficiency, typically achieved by combusting hydrocarbon or hydrogen fuel. Combustion temperatures can be as high as 3500K (5841F) in rockets, far above the melting point of most materials
Jet engine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The point being that jet fuel mixed with air (especially forced air) creates explosions.

Plan B · 4th April 2008, 12:21

^ You do have a comprehension problem.

keeshou · 4th April 2008, 13:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Plan B

^ You do have a comprehension problem.

What is the reason that you want to disassociate the Molten Steel from the substance that was most prevelent and would have been most likely to have caused the explosions.

The fact that you want to say there was an effect (molten Steel) and you want to ignore a cause (Jet Fuel), simply because you want to believe that there was a conspiracy, indicates a comprehension problem for those who think one dimensionally.
-----

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larkinny

I said, "What force removed the CORE?" Rob said, "2 hijacked planes hitting into the towers which caused a fire which caused the structure to weaken and fall."

But you set the bar (removing the core) too high. The point that Rob was making was that the core didn't need to be removed, but simply weakened and the planes offer that explanation. Also I was commenting on your usage of the terms "facts" and "policy"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keeshou

"fixing the facts around the policy" this should read "fixing the facts around the facts". It wasn't "policy" that hit those buildings, it was in "FACT" two jet airplanes.

What Rob was talking about was a fact, what you have been talking about is speculation. The "policy" never hit the building, but the planes did and that is A FACT.

esoteric1 · 4th April 2008, 19:28

^ the real fact keeshou, is that the determinations of why the buildings collapsed were made prior to any 'investigations' by NIST or anyone else for that matter. So 'facts' were being fitted to previously determined suppositions(the official conspiracy theory).

keeshou · 4th April 2008, 21:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by esoteric1

the real fact keeshou, is that the determinations of why the buildings collapsed were made prior to any 'investigations' by NIST or anyone else for that matter. So 'facts' were being fitted to previously determined suppositions(the official conspiracy theory).

Eso, call me basic, but I did see two planes crash into those buildings, of that I'm quite sure. As far as who planned what, before that day, well unless you were there or unless you know someone REAL well who was there, I'm sorry it's just supposition.

esoteric1 · 4th April 2008, 21:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by keeshou

but I did see two planes crash into those buildings, of that I'm quite sure.

I'm not denying that.
-----
more murky 9/11 crap from officialdom:

Why doesn't the 9/11 Commission know about Mukasey's 9/11 story? - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com