9/11 - The Great Nose In Nose Out Hoax

[chek]

[utopiated]

[utopiated]

[chek]

[Micpsi]

[utopiated]

Are you Phillip Stevens?? Micpsi??

[marky 54]

the theorys surrounding cars are full of errors and assumptions. they try to pull the wool over your eyes and you fall for it.

there may well be a small portion of cars or 1 or 2 that are mysterious, but the vast majority are being used as evidence for something when debris falling on them and causing fire explain it, especially if they were in underground garages effected by fire and collapse. and the car one mile away claim is also misleading. especially when it is known cars were towed away from ground zero. where do you think they put them? in available spaces around new york would'nt be suprising.

no point telling others though, they don't want to listen, they don't want to look for that evidence. make your own mistakes and errors, but you cannot say you had no idea it may of been otherwise, you just could'nt bare to look or accept the vast majority of evidence where cars are concerned is misleading.

so i'll provide some information, why don't you go and check for yourselves if it is true.

http://www.thecarconnection.com/?article=4416

[utopiated]

You're wrong on the car front. Most of the images used by Judy Wood and Ted [the Ex Nasa guy] Wotsit had not been moved before those images were taken.

Take for example this image:



..you think a fork-lift placed all those cars nicely in rows like that given the time-scale they had on clear up?

This notion that the sort of damage we see to cars alone [forgetting the other artifacts] was caused by the [non-existant] heavy debris is just plain silly.

Anyway - the end-point of this thread isn't so much to discuss the minutia of evidence elements - it was to highlight the point that the thermate only theory is fatally flawed yet on this forum we have [or had] a dominating group of persons, including moderators, who refused to accept other alternatives.

It's all OK - you don't have to create this solid identity around 9/11 theories. Far better to be open to everything at this point. So many movements got screwed up by dogmatism in the past. We need to learn.

That's me done on this one.

[marky 54]

[utopiated]

There would be track marks from the wheels of the things used [fork lifts, trucks whatever...] to shift the vehicles. There are none.

[John White]

[chek]

[gruts]

[marky 54]

[marky 54]

i could'nt be bothered to do this before to explain my point in my last post on this thread. i have no idea how to imbed from my picture folder so i'll have to add attachments.

first of all no dust build up on the cars. so was they always placed in that spot? or were they moved to those spots?

see attachment.

[marky 54]

next, the floor shows signs of having something move over it, due to compacted dust debris.

see attachment

[marky 54]

and the dust seems to of collected up against one side of the cars on the floor rather than on the bonnet, roof etc. this is simply dust carried by wind or blown about by near by traffic.

one car shields the other yet the sheilded car has the same amount of dust gathered up along the bottom edge, indicating one car was placed there before another.

see attachment.

and if any of this is wrong, point out why. this is just how i see it.

[utopiated]

Marky54

I can't do the dust argument without having a specimen car that we know has been recently moved into a set area for comparison.

The point is, we don't even need to go there - youe idea of mass movement of cars via fork-lift or pick-up is not supported by the images of the time. We'd see shots with cars on the back of trucks/lifts in the first few days and I've not seen any. I'm sure there are loads from event + several days but not in the immediate time frame.

[marky 54]

[chek]

[utopiated]

This is a good image - not seen one so clear...



To get all of those chekkers shaped beams to do that ALL THE WAY down the vast towers would need thermate shape charges patched cosily on every foot of beam.

You're talking truck loads of material.

...and either way - flying/embedded chekkerboards or not, you still have to make a huge logic leap to the most definate UNCONVENTIONAL damage in the surrounding area to the WTC complex. An explosion may throw a beam but it doesn't cause the anomalies we see half a mile from the core action.

[chek]

[fish5133]

[sam]

[chek]

[Micpsi]

Why does anyone still want to persist in believing that both high-explosives and thermate were used on 9/11, when the former could have done the job of demolition on its own and when there is no hard evidence (just distinctly dodgy interpretations) that the latter was used? The notion that thermate was used to cut the columns to size so that they would fit trucks is a silly, old chestnut, in view of the photographic evidence that such cutting by oxyacetylene torches and oxygen cutters was actually going on at Ground Zero. Also, let's remember the original reason why Steven Jones hypothesized that thermite/thermate was used together with explosives to destroy the twin towers. He interpreted the molten metal pouring out of the corner of the 81st floor of the South Tower as iron, which had to have been heated by thermite/thermate. However, the more natural explanation is that it was lead from the batteries housed by Fuji Bank on that floor, according to what an ex-employee of that bank told Christopher Bollyn:
http://iamthewitness.com/Bollyn/Bollyn-Fuji-WTC.html
This individual, Stanley Praimnath
http://iamthewitness.com/Bollyn/Bollyn-Stanley-Praimnath.html
website:
http://stanleypraimnath.com/1.htm
says that Fuji Bank had a large computer room (estimated 40' x 40') with an adjacent UPS backup power room along the south side of the 81st floor. According to Praimnath, the computer room is exactly where the nose of the plane entered the tower. Praimnath's office was located at the corner of the building near the arrow showing North:
http://www.usatoday.com/graphics/news/gra/wtcstairway/frame.htm
The airplane crashed into the east side of the tower, where the computers and backup batteries were located. It is now reasonably clear (if not certain) that the molten metal was lead, not iron, which means that Jones' hypothesis is redundant. This in turn means that the molten metal leaking from the South Tower cannot be regarded as evidence that thermite/thermate was used to destroy the towers, as it is no longer needed to explain why the metal was in a molten state.

Another reason why supporters of Jones' redundant hypothesis still cling to it is that they point towards all the anecedotal reports of pools of molten metal that persisted for weeks during the clean-up of the WTC. They argue that only thermite/thermate could provide the source of heating of iron debris. But is this true? Would not all the unused material have been expended long before this time elapsed?! Perhaps, instead, some (if not all) of the pools were created by molten slag accumulating from the use of oxygen cutters to cut down still standing steel columns and slice them to a convenient size for transport away? Here is photographic evidence debunking the claim that steel columns with angled cuts are evidence of thermite charges being used:
http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm
http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/02/technical-widening-about-ther mal.html
Here is photographic evidence that pools of molten metal were formed by slag dripping from girders cut by oxygen cutters:
http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/12/molten-metal-pools-may-have-s imple.html
As there is no photographic evidence of the pools mentioned in the anecdotal reports that indicates they could not have been created by the clean-up workers themselves, it is perfectly plausible that these pools were merely caused by molten metal from the steel cutting operations carried out all over the site running down into holes, the pools being fed and maintained in a hot state for the weeks and months this clean-up operation persisted. We don't need thermite/thermate/nukes/exotic weapons to explain such pools.

These reports and the molten metal that poured out of the South Tower shortly before it fell do not constitute unambiguous evidence for the use of thermite/thermate. Instead, they have a more plausible, down-to-earth explanation.

Finally, Jones' claim that his lab analysis of dust samples shows the signature of elements found in thermate is pure spin. These elements were detected in the atmosphere and in dust shortly after 9/11
http://www.ehponline.org/members/2003/5930/5930.html
and have a conventional explanation in terms of the burning of gypsum in the wall-board used in the towers. His latest claim that another lab has detected unused thermate is similar spin. When someone such as Jones seriously asks why elements like chromium, magnesium, manganese, aluminium and barium should have been found at Ground Zero and is blissfully ignorant of the fact that these elements are used in building materials, e.g., barium is used in the coating of filaments inside fluorescent lights:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barium
one has to take his uncorroborated claims and inaccurate statements with a huge pinch of salt. Not all professors of physics are good scientists.

9/11 truthers ask believers in the official story of 9/11 to question their beliefs, however hard this may be. Perhaps they should look to themselves, for some of them, too, find it hard to give up their cherished beliefs in equally mythical accounts of what really happened on 9/11. They, too, prefer to believe in their own false scenarios, rather than accept that sometimes photographic or video evidence can have down-to-earth explanations that do not require conspiracy, merely additional information plus a little intelligence that does not jump easily to false conclusions.

[John White]

[sam]

[Stefan]

[Micpsi]