9/11 conspiracy theory points to "molten steel" - Page 2

AVengeance · 06-26-2007, 05:29 PM

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

...That could be reasonably explained still with a weakening fire. Tons of steel takes time to heat up. Even a dieing fire probably was still heating the steel. Also, not being yet molten, the more time the steel was hot the weaker the steel was going to become.

That makes the erronous assumption that the fires were all over support structure. Support structure wasn't in office space. Things in office space were burning, but thos things were built to fire code, and were obviously being starved for air (hence the large amount of particulates in the smoke).

ShadowMan_xv · 06-26-2007, 07:32 PM

All your theories are cRap...........the heat generated to melt metal could easily have come from the combustion of wood of the furniture in the offices and the carpets,ceiling tiles,wall coverings etc that ignited when the aircraft hit the buildings........not to mention the combustion of dead bodies at the impact zone.The fuel onboard the planes was also a factor and as anyone who saw those video images when the the planes impacted created a huge explosion that would have turned the impact area into a fireball

nbiggershaft · 06-26-2007, 09:48 PM

Originally Posted by AVengeance

That makes the erronous assumption that the fires were all over support structure. Support structure wasn't in office space. Things in office space were burning, but thos things were built to fire code, and were obviously being starved for air (hence the large amount of particulates in the smoke).

What makes you sure of any of that?

AVengeance · 06-27-2007, 10:14 AM

Originally Posted by ShadowMan_xv

All your theories are cRap...........the heat generated to melt metal could easily have come from the combustion of wood of the furniture in the offices and the carpets,ceiling tiles,wall coverings etc that ignited when the aircraft hit the buildings........not to mention the combustion of dead bodies at the impact zone.The fuel onboard the planes was also a factor and as anyone who saw those video images when the the planes impacted created a huge explosion that would have turned the impact area into a fireball

I would like to see someone that agrees with the government's conspiracy theory (official story) come in here and tell this individual he's wrong. This is exactly what I was waiting for. It's people like this, that soak up whatever they're told by the government, even if it's blatant doublespeak, that are a big part of the problem. Then, when you've got the majority believing your convoluted story, it doesn't matter what anyone else says, it must be them (the minority) that are the "conspiracy theorists".

Simius · 06-27-2007, 03:01 PM

Originally Posted by AVengeance

I would like to see someone that agrees with the government's conspiracy theory (official story) come in here and tell this individual he's wrong. This is exactly what I was waiting for. It's people like this, that soak up whatever they're told by the government, even if it's blatant doublespeak, that are a big part of the problem. Then, when you've got the majority believing your convoluted story, it doesn't matter what anyone else says, it must be them (the minority) that are the "conspiracy theorists".

It seems to me his only mistake was taking your word for it that the steel melted.

AVengeance · 06-28-2007, 10:19 AM

Originally Posted by Simius

It seems to me his only mistake was taking your word for it that the steel melted.

You need to start with the original post, which shows that people that support the governments rediculous conspiracy theory also believed that the steel melted, and even claimed to see hot molten steel well after the incident took place. There was even physical evidence of molten steel. Of course, most of it has been carted off and destroyed. Or does you selective memory block that out, too?

But the government would never lie to you, right? Just like when the EPA said the air was safe after 9/11 ?

Joe_Cool · 06-29-2007, 02:55 AM

Originally Posted by AVengeance

I've seen roofs cave in, but I've never seen a building go down like it was being pulled. Never. And we probably won't, until the next "terrorist attack" comes along.

The best part of this whole repetetive discussion is how all the conspiracy nuts have started to say "pulled" instead of "demolished" to feel like they're using industry jargon and in the hope that it strengthens their argument.

And the way they're all demolition experts now.

AVengeance · 06-30-2007, 05:41 PM

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

The best part of this whole repetetive discussion is how all the conspiracy nuts have started to say "pulled" instead of "demolished" to feel like they're using industry jargon and in the hope that it strengthens their argument.

And the way they're all demolition experts now.

I used the word specifically and intentionally, because it is an industry term when a building is demolished on purpose by an organized effort. Why do you call people that don't agree with the government story conspiracy nuts? Any way you look at it, it's a conspiracy. A group of people CONSPIRED to commit this act of terror. You just side with one conspiracy theory, and I side with another, more realistic one.

Joe_Cool · 06-30-2007, 09:14 PM

Originally Posted by AVengeance

I used the word specifically and intentionally, because it is an industry term when a building is demolished on purpose by an organized effort.

Do you work in the industry? When you go to mcdonalds, do you use their industry terms? Do you go in there and say "I want a quarter cheese no o"? Of course not. And nobody demolished anything. That's complete nonsense.

Why do you call people that don't agree with the government story conspiracy nuts? Any way you look at it, it's a conspiracy. A group of people CONSPIRED to commit this act of terror. You just side with one conspiracy theory, and I side with another, more realistic one.

No, I side with FACTS. You, on the other hand, are determined to twist everything in any possible fashion to try to convince others of your delusion that the government did it.

AVengeance · 07-02-2007, 10:15 AM

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

Do you work in the industry? When you go to mcdonalds, do you use their industry terms? Do you go in there and say "I want a quarter cheese no o"? Of course not. And nobody demolished anything. That's complete nonsense.

No, I side with FACTS. You, on the other hand, are determined to twist everything in any possible fashion to try to convince others of your delusion that the government did it.

You're having such trouble with the English language it is pointless to continue debating with you on this issue.

Thomas Crown · 08-10-2007, 12:06 PM

Did AV really claim Popular Mechanics and their contributors to not be a credible scientific source?

Their sources are FAR from unidentified. If you visit their entire subsite dedicated to the 9/11 conspiracy claims, you'll see that EVERY SINGLE BIT OF INFORMATION is credited and sourced. The list of contributors is so long I have to scroll.

Thomas Crown · 08-10-2007, 12:07 PM

Originally Posted by AVengeance

I used the word specifically and intentionally, because it is an industry term when a building is demolished on purpose by an organized effort. Why do you call people that don't agree with the government story conspiracy nuts? Any way you look at it, it's a conspiracy. A group of people CONSPIRED to commit this act of terror. You just side with one conspiracy theory, and I side with another, more realistic one.

The term "pulled" does not mean demolished. When an emergency situation gets to a point that the dangers are too great to risk continued rescue efforts, teams are "pulled". I know this because I have been "pulled" from several situations when I did EMS all 1/3 of a mile from the WTC.

Thomas Crown · 08-10-2007, 12:09 PM

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

No, I side with FACTS. You, on the other hand, are determined to twist everything in any possible fashion to try to convince others of your delusion that the government did it.

What annoys me to no end is that people continually go on wild goose chases with claims that the government did it. They twist and contort information, they break context, misquote and often fabricate information.

If the government was actually involved, the conspiracy theorists are helping them get away with it by drawing scrutiny away from questions of substance.

Joe_Cool · 08-11-2007, 05:18 AM

Originally Posted by Thomas Crown

The term "pulled" does not mean demolished. When an emergency situation gets to a point that the dangers are too great to risk continued rescue efforts, teams are "pulled". I know this because I have been "pulled" from several situations when I did EMS all 1/3 of a mile from the WTC.

You're obviously part of the conspiracy!

Just kidding. Good posts.

Diesel66 · 08-12-2007, 12:40 AM

Originally Posted by AVengeance

That makes the erronous assumption that the fires were all over support structure. Support structure wasn't in office space. Things in office space were burning, but thos things were built to fire code, and were obviously being starved for air (hence the large amount of particulates in the smoke).

1000 ft up with a giant hole in the side of the building and it was starving for o2 ?

Thomas Crown · 08-17-2007, 06:07 AM

Originally Posted by Diesel66

1000 ft up with a giant hole in the side of the building and it was starving for o2 ?

Fires become starved for air quite often in the open. A giant hole in the side of the building does not mean the oxygen can get to the fire. Just like smoke chokes your lung, it also inhibits oxygen from getting in.

Photon1001 · 10-05-2008, 04:11 AM

In case there's any lingering doubt:

Screw Loose Change - Not Freakin' Again edition

I think they did a pretty good job debunking.

kombayn · 10-05-2008, 08:25 AM

Originally Posted by Thomas Crown

What annoys me to no end is that people continually go on wild goose chases with claims that the government did it. They twist and contort information, they break context, misquote and often fabricate information.

If the government was actually involved, the conspiracy theorists are helping them get away with it by drawing scrutiny away from questions of substance.

I don't know if anyone else has noticed like I have... Conspiracy Theorists are in this business to sell books, websites or any other crap you can think of. These are the same guys that give you the Reptilian non-sense, the sad part is... People, smart people, believe this shit. My friend and I got into an extremely heated argument while he was bartending. He's convinced it was demolished. Thank god, an army veteran overheard us and tried to set him straight. Saying our generation has become completely delusional and we'll believe anything. It was awesome.

My friend still to this day thinks 9/11 was a controlled demolition. Fool frustrates me sometimes.

Joe_Cool · 10-05-2008, 12:10 PM

Originally Posted by kombayn

I don't know if anyone else has noticed like I have... Conspiracy Theorists are in this business to sell books, websites or any other crap you can think of. These are the same guys that give you the Reptilian non-sense, the sad part is... People, smart people, believe this shit. My friend and I got into an extremely heated argument while he was bartending. He's convinced it was demolished. Thank god, an army veteran overheard us and tried to set him straight. Saying our generation has become completely delusional and we'll believe anything. It was awesome. My friend still to this day thinks 9/11 was a controlled demolition. Fool frustrates me sometimes.

That would drive me nuts. I think people are desperate to recapture the "glory days" of the hippie movement and looking for something to be against. That's the only reason I can think of that explains the blind, delusional opposition to anything, no matter how sensible or reasonable, just because it comes from the government.