The Soap BoxHave your say here. This is a forum for divisive issues such as politics, religion, and gender issues. Keep it civil and intelligent please! In association with Isara
Listen here to his eyewitness account of the security systems power down and mysterious 'cabling' contractors working in the south tower the weekend immediately prior to the attacks.
One person, who didn't work in the building, while thousands who did, never noticed the drilling and the holes and the wiring?
Eso, I'm sorry but you are grasping at anything, not even to say you are (or he) are wrong, but it's not evidence, It's barely conjecture.
Where are the holes, the wire, the explosives? How did these devices not burn up in the initial fire or how did the wiring remain intact during that time? You have a massive plan with lots of complicated procedures and to top it off these conspirators also flew two jets (4 if you count the other two) into these buildings.
Don't you think that they would've been concerned with the massive security leaks involved in using so many different people to coordinate these operations?
__________________
"We're all very different people. We're not Watusi, we're not Spartans, we're Americans. With a capital "A", huh? And you know what that means? Do you? That means that our forefathers were kicked out of every decent country in the world. We are the wretched refuse. We're the underdog. We're mutts."
PFC J. Winger
obvious to who? those propagating the official story in order to promote their agenda??
Obvious to the people who saw the planes hitting into the towers that there were planes hitting into the towers which then caused further consequences. Not very complicated and a bit dull compared to the c.t. I know. That's the appeal of the c.t. though, and partly why people are attracted to it. The truth is much more ordinary. Why have ordinary when you can have fantastic?
An aside point, when you look where the c.t. is huge, on sites like Stormfront, other right-wing sites, Alex Jones, etc. you can see the kinds of people that really go for this and propegate the whole premise are really pushing it and pushing it. There's not much letting the "facts" speak for themselves. Why the need to promote and advocate it so much? An agenda perhaps? Kerux was great example of how much paranoia and Jewophobia goes into a lot of the creation of the c.t.
^yup, lets let the voice of reason soothe the masses. Don't listen to those nutters asking uncomfortable questions about the scenario we've created while the smoke and dust was still rising. Dick and I and all our neo-con, PNAC buddies knew who did this and how it went down while it was in progress. Didn't you see our watertight explanations on FOX, CBS, ABC, BBC and CNN while it was happening? Investigations? Who the fuck needs that? Evidence? Ship it off to China, we don't need it. Eyewitnesses who were telling a different story later? Fuck em, they're crazy or they're just trying to make money off a horrible event, and we're not going to give them the time of day on our mainstream news outlets. Real patriots don't question their leaders! We've got a war or two or three to get on!
__________________ "Let Hercules himself do what he may; the cat will mew and the dog will have his day." ~ Hamlet
Similarly eso, just because Bush says something doesn't mean it's automatically a lie or completely iodiotic. The fact that he gave credence to the c.t. by even bothering to deny it shows his lack of forsight. Apart from that he's actually right in that clip.
It's easy to turn denials like this one by Bush and a refusal of people to engage in arguing with the "truth" movement as some kind of tacit admittion. It's the beauty of the logic behind the c.t. Denial of it, people attempting to actually explain what really happened, genuine holes in the investigation are all further fuel for the paranoid basis of the c.t. Every single fact, half-truth and opinion out there exists only to further the c.t. itself regardless of what happens and no matter what is said. It's a self-sustaining meme now, which will go on and on as long as anything to do with 9-11 is ever mentioned again.
How come there were no sounds of explosions caught on cameras filming the "demolitions"? The c.t.-ists love to remind everyone that people reported sounds liek explosions. As this clip shows demolitions make a fuck load of noise that was strangely absent from the dastardly secret plot to blow up 3 towers in NYC.
The team also found no evidence of explosives at the scene. So in order to think they did, you have to believe in the c.t. and that there has been a cover up. If you don't believe in the c.t., and you go only on the evidence, then there was no evidence of explosives found.
-----
-----
Anyway I'm gonna bow out here. It's all been gone into a million times already. I'm happy to live with some ambiguity. Not every detail has to be explained to disprove some outlandish theory for me. Reality doesn't have to be made more fantastic for it to be credible in my book. I'll find plenty of ways to express my individuality, demonstrate how I'm my own man and there's no fooling me, than to go along with things like the c.t.
Ultimately as far I'm concerned it's a matter of choice as to whether you want to buy into the c.t. or not. Personally I'm gonna spend elsewhere.
amazing in that video^ WTC 7 is used to disprove controlled demolition...the only building that wasn't hit by a plane.
Quote:
Originally Posted by robitusson
Ultimately as far I'm concerned it's a matter of choice as to whether you want to buy into the c.t. or not. Personally I'm gonna spend elsewhere.
robi I haven't bought the official story from day 1, long before Alex Jones or anyone like him came on the scene.
Yes honestly it's become an unhealthy obsession for me because of my conscience.
Meaning I feel responsible in some small way for what has resulted in what I believe in my heart to be the official lies. Not just what has happened to our soldiers in the wars(and soldiers from other countries whom we've drug along for the ride as allies), but also what's described as the "collateral damage" that has taken place to innocents in at least two countries. All of it justified by what supposedly took place on 9/11/2001.
As a working citizen in the US I feel the taxes I pay into this system in somehow makes me responsible for what is happening. In other words there's innocent blood on my hands.
I've been told to forget about it because it's something I can't control. But I can't and it's eating me up inside, as my conscience tells me it's oh so wrong what we as a nation are doing....what's being done in our name.
I guess that's why I just can't let it go.
-----
I guess I can take some small comfort in knowing that besides the relatively few posters here that seem to be on the same page regarding 9/11, I'm not alone.
Quote:
One failure is the lack of skepticism about the US government’s explanation of 9/11.
The same forensic science, which turned up Molten Steel? You can't have it both ways Larkinkny.
You're confused.
Quote:
The amount of evidence left after the WTC collapsed certainly wouldn't have shown hot spots or even much of scorching, so I know you are grasping at straws now.
Not grasping at anything. There were reports of molten steel in the rubble and extremely high temperatures for weeks afterwards, but I haven't brought that up yet.
Quote:
If you are using forensic science to determin the temperature of this fire and you find evidence of molten steel, then a good scientist would conclude that the temperature wasn''t usual.
So this was the reason I asked you about the actual measurement of the temperature. If there was some evidence (other than forensic science) to indicate that the temperature had been normal, you might call my line of questioning idiocy. Instead you are using the term to cover up your own shortcomings.
What shortcomings? I assumed you were clever enough to work out that, when the forensic evidence shows the temperatures weren't high enough to provide molten metal samples, yet that's what we have, then you would conclude that there must have been another source of energy. But that's not what you did.
Quote:
Just like Kerux, I can always tell when you fanatics are over your head, it's when you start to pull out the personal insults.
Well you see, I've been asked these idiotic questions before. When in another thread I quoted two structural engineering professors from Zurich saying that the video evidence indicated WTC 7 was most likely brought down by controlled demolition, someone (was it you?) replied, "And they can tell that from Zurich?"
Quote:
You were the one who stated that Jet fuel mixed with regular air (vs. straight oxygen) couldn't burn at a temperature higher
Only I didn't state that, I quoted experts as saying that.
Quote:
I was simply proving that that statement was not a fact. You used the above "FACTS" to establish that Jet Fuel mixed with Air could not reach a temperature over 1000 degrees C, which is in FACT incorrect.
Either you're trolling again, or having comprehension problems again, because, based on what Eagar and Musso presented I said: "There's quite a difference between the controlled combustion of a jet engine and the uncontrolled jet fuel burning at the WTC".
The two can't be compared.
Quote:
But of course you will, because you want to believe that crews of invisible men, worked tirelessly and soundlessly in buildings where thousands of people worked and yet no one reported the holes, wiring, unusual workers nor the sound that the drilling would have made. Not only that but after a fire had raged within this building, none of the explosives went off prematurely, none of the wiring burned away and the sounds of the explosives were soundless as well.
Now you're going off in another direction. Stick with the issue: molten metal samples were found in microspheres analyzed by the reputable RJ Lee group. So if they didn't come from the fire, because the temperature wasn't unusual, they must have come from another source of energy. What was that source of energy?
Quote:
Originally Posted by robitusson
They're dead. Why would there be a trial?
OBL and his crew aren't dead. At least that's what we're told.
Anyway, chaps, don't expect any speedy replies from me until all this Songkran madness has passed.
__________________
I've never seen a president - I don't care who he is - stand up to them (the Israelis). It just boggles your mind. They always get what they want ... If the American people understood what grip those people have on our government, they would rise up in arms.
Admiral Thomas H. Moorer, Former Chief of Naval Operations, and Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, quoted in Andrew Hurley's book, One Nation Under Israel
I assumed you were clever enough to work out that, when the forensic evidence shows the temperatures weren't high enough to provide molten metal samples
What evidence would show that temperatures weren't high, when molten steel is present?
-----
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larkinny
So if they didn't come from the fire, because the temperature wasn't unusual
So it's usual to have fires where the propellent is jet fuel?
Quote:
Originally Posted by keeshou
You were the one who stated that Jet fuel mixed with regular air (vs. straight oxygen) couldn't burn at a temperature higher
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larkinny
Only I didn't state that, I quoted experts as saying that.
But that's the point, your EXPERTS were wrong or are you trying to say that Pratt and Whitney don't know the temperature of burning jet fuel?
__________________
"We're all very different people. We're not Watusi, we're not Spartans, we're Americans. With a capital "A", huh? And you know what that means? Do you? That means that our forefathers were kicked out of every decent country in the world. We are the wretched refuse. We're the underdog. We're mutts."
PFC J. Winger
.................
Last edited by keeshou; 10th April 2008 at 22:55.
Reason: Automerged Doublepost
But that's the point, your EXPERTS were wrong or are you trying to say that Pratt and Whitney don't know the temperature of burning jet fuel?
Once again: there's quite a difference between the controlled combustion of a jet engine and the uncontrolled jet fuel burning at the WTC.
Even NIST say the temperatures didn't get that high:
"the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) ...
Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius ...
NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius "
Nowhere does NIST report temperatures in the range you state.
__________________
I've never seen a president - I don't care who he is - stand up to them (the Israelis). It just boggles your mind. They always get what they want ... If the American people understood what grip those people have on our government, they would rise up in arms.
Admiral Thomas H. Moorer, Former Chief of Naval Operations, and Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, quoted in Andrew Hurley's book, One Nation Under Israel
Once again: there's quite a difference between the controlled combustion of a jet engine and the uncontrolled jet fuel burning at the WTC.
One of those differences is that a controlled combustion isn't looking to create the greatest heat, just the most efficient use of the fuel.
But your experts flat out said that it was impossible for Jet Fuel and a regular air mixture to reach the temperatures needed to melt steel and that is wrong
Quote:
Thus, for virtually any hydrocarbons, the maximum flame temperature, starting at ambient temperature and using pure oxygen, is approximately 3,000°C.
This maximum flame temperature is reduced by two-thirds if air is used rather than pure oxygen.
temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1,000°C
No where in that quote did your "experts" ever mention a controlled or uncontrolled combustion. This was stated as an across the board "FACT", which I've proven is wrong and you now want to dance around that detail.
Larkinny, if you wonder why not too many people take these CT theories too seriously, it's exactly for the reason I've just shown you. Even when a fact is disproved or a detail that is the lynch-pin of a premise is faulted, instead of just owning up to this discrepancy you start trying to buttress the misinformation with more conditions, such as the fire wasn't controlled.
__________________
"We're all very different people. We're not Watusi, we're not Spartans, we're Americans. With a capital "A", huh? And you know what that means? Do you? That means that our forefathers were kicked out of every decent country in the world. We are the wretched refuse. We're the underdog. We're mutts."
PFC J. Winger
Pratt & Whitney J58 Turbojet The Pratt & Whitney J58 engine was a ... is about 8000 gallons per hour and the exhaust-gas temperature is around 3400 degrees.
You can't compare the combustion temperature of fuel in a jet engine with the same fuel burning in air at atmospheric pressure. A jet engine burns fuel at enormous partial pressures of oxygen, completely different from fuel burning at atmospheric pressure.
Use an oxyacetylene torch as an analogy. When you light the torch, with the oxygen line closed, you get a low temperature, sooty, orange flame - acetylene burning in air at atmospheric pressure.
It's only when you open the oxygen valve and feed oxygen at high pressures do you get the very high temperature blue flame.
Incidentally, commercial jets use turbo-fan engines, with no afterburning capabilities. That P&WJ58 was used to power the SR71 and not a commercial airliner, hardly a fair comparison
The point was the temperature capability of the mixture, there was no mention of the pressure.
I'm not the one who asserted that "the maximum flame temperature" was a certain temperature. Recreating the conditions of the WTC fire, with the wind velocity and mixtures of propellants would be next to impossible so when you assert what somethings maximum flame temperature is, that should be it's actual maximum.
__________________
"We're all very different people. We're not Watusi, we're not Spartans, we're Americans. With a capital "A", huh? And you know what that means? Do you? That means that our forefathers were kicked out of every decent country in the world. We are the wretched refuse. We're the underdog. We're mutts."
PFC J. Winger
................. 
Kerux was great example of how much paranoia and Jewophobia goes into a lot of the creation of the c.t. 
Re: 9/11 Redux
