| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Wibble
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 03 May 2008
Posts: 162
Location: Wibble
|
 Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 11:11 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Oh god here we go again!
| Quote: | | In the preceding months and weeks before the terrorist attacks, several testimonies from WTC workers that are now deemed 'irrelevant' by the 9/11 Commission Report, reported of abnormal power outages, shut-down orders (where people could not go to work for several days each time these orders were carried out), security and evacuation drills that were not normal activities in terms of the WTC complex |
So in several months despite the fact the buildings were the work place for thousands of people only several workers reported "abnormal power outages etc. What are abnormal power outages?
To wire the WTC with CD you would need to disturb people on every floor.
| Quote: | | Perhaps you might have heard of Scott Forbes |
I have and he has been debunked in various Youtube videos. Just one man noticed the "suspicious" noises and white dust!!!!!! The only possible explanation is the drilling of holes for CD!!! On the outer, non load bearing walls. My god they were so thorough in planting the CD but let down by the lack of a dyson.
Sorry, none of your middle paragraph makes sense? What are you getting at? Lobby damage? You seem to spend more time trying to counter your own argument than making it?
If you are trying to say the lobby damage is evidence of CD then...
Why would they CD the lobby as the aircraft impacted? It is not load bearing? Surely they would wait until the rest of the alleged CD went off? Why did the towers not collapse from the bottom if they CD the lobby? How did they fly the aircraft into the towers accurately enough not to destroy/upset the CD by the impact zone? How did they stop the fires from affecting the CD? And all the wiring and etc they secretly hid?
| Quote: | | he alternative theories are so many that is why it is not one united theory. |
But there is only one truth yet 7 years later the truth movement can not agree on anything. Surely all your evidence points to the truth? What is it?
But the reports of molten metal are confirmed by the personnel of the FDNY, from the interviews , the videos of these firemen and the testimonies in the FDNY 9/11 Oral Histories
But not one of them carried out any form of testing. Not one of them stated the quantity. Not one of them showed what type of metal it was. You are twisting what the eye whiteness said to suit your own needs, a common truther ploy. Anyway, the NIST have accounted for this and if you dont believe (just a guess, you are a truther) please prove them wrong and prove your theory?
| Quote: | | Subterannean fires (that could explain the molten metal) could not possibly result after the collapses of the three buildings, since these fires, if any resulted, would have been knocked out by the lack of oxygen, the amount of soot and pulverized dust abound, and especially weeks after 9/11 when there would not have been any fuel left for these 'subterranean fires' to be well and alive. |
What lack of oxygen? How does CD burn at 1000 degrees weeks after it has blown up? Or without oxygen? How do volcanoes work if there is not CD, air, thermite, fuel? What about the under water ones? Could it be a volcano under the WTC? Do you have any calculations of how much fuel would be needed to fuel the fires for weeks? Do you have any calculations of how much fuel and air would be available? Or are just saying all this because it suits your blinkered view on events? I dont want to tar you with same brush or anything but it is very common for truthers to come out with all sorts of stuff like this with nothing to back it up. Then when question they go "you prove it wrong" or something like that. So you prove it right first, then I will prove it wrong.
Why do Truthers believe terrorists dont exist? Or if they do exist they believe they are stupid?[/code] |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Micpsi
Moderate Poster
Joined: 13 Feb 2007
Posts: 505
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 9:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Wibble wrote: | Oh god here we go again!
Yeah. You can say that again....
| Quote: | | In the preceding months and weeks before the terrorist attacks, several testimonies from WTC workers that are now deemed 'irrelevant' by the 9/11 Commission Report, reported of abnormal power outages, shut-down orders (where people could not go to work for several days each time these orders were carried out), security and evacuation drills that were not normal activities in terms of the WTC complex |
So in several months despite the fact the buildings were the work place for thousands of people only several workers reported "abnormal power outages etc.
Nope. Only several people made public this fact. Obviously, thousands of people were aware of the outages at the same. But like everything else in life, you don't have everyone going around afterwards complaining about such things. Especially when you are so brainwashed by the official story of 9/11 that you misjudge such events to be irrelevant.
What are abnormal power outages?
A rhetorical question to make it appear the concept is meaningless.
To wire the WTC with CD you would need to disturb people on every floor.
Who is talking about wiring the tower? It could have been pre-wired long (according to Paul Laffoley, who worked on the design of the South Tower, it was), with explosives added during the preceding week-end.
| Quote: | | Perhaps you might have heard of Scott Forbes |
I have and he has been debunked in various Youtube videos. Just one man noticed the "suspicious" noises and white dust!!!!!!
Again, no. Just one man who has got the guts to speak publicly and question events.
The only possible explanation is the drilling of holes for CD!!! On the outer, non load bearing walls. My god they were so thorough in planting the CD but let down by the lack of a dyson.
Exaggerated sarcasm is not a very effective argument (sigh!)
Sorry, none of your middle paragraph makes sense? What are you getting at? Lobby damage? You seem to spend more time trying to counter your own argument than making it?
If you are trying to say the lobby damage is evidence of CD then...
Why would they CD the lobby as the aircraft impacted?
They didn't. Some of the explosives went off prematurely. They would hardly have blown up the lobby deliberately at such a moment. Too suspicious. In fact, it's clear except to the very thick that some explosives went off before they should have done.
It is not load bearing? Surely they would wait until the rest of the alleged CD went off? Why did the towers not collapse from the bottom if they CD the lobby?
False question based upon a false assumption. The explosions in the lobby were premature.
How did they fly the aircraft into the towers accurately enough not to destroy/upset the CD by the impact zone?
Firstly 'they' did not fly into the tower. The plane was remote-controlled. Secondly, those who targeted the plane were not concerned about avoiding explosives on the 81st floor. Anyway, there did not have to be explosives on every floor in order to bring down the tower. Your objection is as weak as a wet toilet tissue.
How did they stop the fires from affecting the CD? And all the wiring and etc they secretly hid?
Perhaps the wires were thermally insulated against office fires? Don't you have any imagination?
| Quote: | | The alternative theories are so many that is why it is not one united theory. |
But there is only one truth yet 7 years later the truth movement can not agree on anything.
Yes, of course it can. But I don't expect you to report it accurately.
Surely all your evidence points to the truth? What is it?
IT WAS AN INSIDE JOB. Disagreements on some of the minor details about how it was carried out are beside the point.
But the reports of molten metal are confirmed by the personnel of the FDNY, from the interviews , the videos of these firemen and the testimonies in the FDNY 9/11 Oral Histories
But not one of them carried out any form of testing. Not one of them stated the quantity. Not one of them showed what type of metal it was.
You really think that matters when it is obvious except to the scientifically illiterate that it could not have been steel and certainly was not the molten aluminium remains of a plane, which would have quickly cooled and solidified? Such pedanticism to obscure the damning fact of unexplained pools of molten metal. Tut Tut. But predictable.
You are twisting what the eye whiteness said to suit your own needs, a common truther ploy.
Really? And non-truthers don't do the same? LOL!
Anyway, the NIST have accounted for this and if you dont believe (just a guess, you are a truther) please prove them wrong and prove your theory?
No, they have not. They don't even admit it. The chief of NIST said on camera that he was unaware of such reports of molten metal. Your really should stop making up facts to suit your case. You might start to look like a truther. God forbid! 
| Quote: | | Subterannean fires (that could explain the molten metal) could not possibly result after the collapses of the three buildings, since these fires, if any resulted, would have been knocked out by the lack of oxygen, the amount of soot and pulverized dust abound, and especially weeks after 9/11 when there would not have been any fuel left for these 'subterranean fires' to be well and alive. |
What lack of oxygen?
Um, any student of chemistry understands that normal fires need oxygen. Being underground means the supply of oxgen is limited, leaving it a problem why they should have lasted so long at Ground Zero. But perhaps you still believe in the phogiston theory of combustion? If so, please hurry up and get yourself a GCSE in chemistry
How does CD burn at 1000 degrees weeks after it has blown up?
It doesn't. No one claimed it did. That's why the fact remains puzzling, suggesting to some that thermate was used.
Or without oxygen?
Thermate does not need oxygen.
How do volcanoes work if there is not CD, air, thermite, fuel?
A dumb question. Volcanoes merely release already molten larva from deep fissues. But I guess if you try to compare apples with oranges, you may dupe some into seeing oranges instead of apples
What about the under water ones? Could it be a volcano under the WTC?
Another dumb question intended to make truthers look dumb but which actually make you look dumb for asking it in the first place.
Do you have any calculations of how much fuel would be needed to fuel the fires for weeks? Do you have any calculations of how much fuel and air would be available? Or are just saying all this because it suits your blinkered view on events? I dont want to tar you with same brush or anything but it is very common for truthers to come out with all sorts of stuff like this with nothing to back it up. Then when question they go "you prove it wrong" or something like that. So you prove it right first, then I will prove it wrong.
Another vacuous, rhetorical question. No one can provide such calculations because no one knows how much molten metal was underground. But then you knew that, didn't you, and was just posing the question because you know it could not be answered, not because the question really needed an answer? And you of course miss the point. Molten metal cools and solidifies. It does not remain hot enough to remain molten unless it was being fed by heat. Ask any steel foundry worker. What was that heat source? Things don't keep burning for weeks, you know? Geddit? I doubt it.
Why do Truthers believe terrorists dont exist?
They don't. They merely don't believe those responsible for 9/11 were terrorists. There is too much anomalous evidence contradicting this. Yet again, you set up a bogus question for its rhetorical value because you have nothing to offer but empty, illogical rhetoric.
Or if they do exist they believe they are stupid?
No. Only those who believe the official story about 9/11 are stupid. 
[/code] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 9:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | IT WAS AN INSIDE JOB. Disagreements on some of the minor details about how it was carried out are beside the point. |
Minor details, like to total lack of any coherent theory for what happened on 9/11? Shall I check back in another seven years? | Quote: | | Thermate does not need oxygen. |
How long does thermite burn? Days? Weeks?
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wibble
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 03 May 2008
Posts: 162
Location: Wibble
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 12:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Nope. Only several people made public this fact. Obviously, thousands of people were aware of the outages at the same. But like everything else in life, you don't have everyone going around afterwards complaining about such things. Especially when you are so brainwashed by the official story of 9/11 that you misjudge such events to be irrelevant. |
So you assume thousands of people were aware of the outages because it suits you. Of course they were brainwashed. Brilliant. Case closed.
| Quote: | What are abnormal power outages?
A rhetorical question to make it appear the concept is meaningless. |
It is a genuine question. Were the power outages pre-briefed? At day or night? How long? What floors?
| Quote: | | with explosives added during the preceding week-end. |
So just how much manpower would be needed to place enough explosives to bring the twin towers down? Covertly? Your having laugh. Either back this up with some proof or drop it.
| Quote: | | They didn't. Some of the explosives went off prematurely. |
That is convenient for you. Again you are fitting the fact to suite your own blinkered view of events.
| Quote: | Firstly 'they' did not fly into the tower. The plane was remote-controlled. Secondly, those who targeted the plane were not concerned about avoiding explosives on the 81st floor. Anyway, there did not have to be explosives on every floor in order to bring down the tower. Your objection is as weak as a wet toilet tissue.
How did they stop the fires from affecting the CD? And all the wiring and etc they secretly hid?
Perhaps the wires were thermally insulated against office fires? Don't you have any imagination?Rolling Eyes |
A remote controlled plane? Well why did they not just fill it with explosives? I assume you have no proof that it was remote controlled or what happened to the real aircraft?
Thermally insulate wire? To protect from over 1000 degrees?
Why were they not concerned about disturbing the explosives? What floor were the explosives on? How much? Your really have proven nothing so far.
| Quote: | But there is only one truth yet 7 years later the truth movement can not agree on anything.
Yes, of course it can. But I don't expect you to report it accurately |
OK you report it accurately. What is the official truth movement theory?
| Quote: | | You really think that matters when it is obvious except to the scientifically illiterate that it could not have been steel and certainly was not the molten aluminium remains of a plane, which would have quickly cooled and solidified? Such pedanticism to obscure the damning fact of unexplained pools of molten metal. Tut Tut. But predictable. |
I think accurately proving what sort of metal is was is important. Your hole argument relies on it being molten steel melted by thermite. So to prove your theory you need to prove there was molten steal and thermite yet you cna prove neither and just speculate. Why would the aluminium quickly solidified when you arguing there were high temperatures for weeks? Did the high temperatures only affect steal and not aluminium?
You are continuously twisting everything to suite your needs. When your CD argument falls over you say it was thermite, when your thermite arguments falls over you can back to CD. The individuals who come forward and speak are brave all the others are cowards. Yeah right.
I have melted steal to its molten state hundreds of times. When I do so my biggest problem is stopping air getting at it, not the lack of oxygen. I use CO2 and Argon to keep oxygen out!! You dont need oxygen for steal to melt. You just need heat. Go look up MIG Welding!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Micpsi
Moderate Poster
Joined: 13 Feb 2007
Posts: 505
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 16, 2008 10:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Wibble wrote: | | You dont need oxygen for steal to melt. You just need heat. Go look up MIG Welding!!! |
Office fires on a couple of floors of a skyscraper provide enough heat to melt tons of steel, do they? I don't think so. Please get yourself an 'O level' in chemistry. Oh, wait a minute. Perhaps you do have one of those dumbed-down, worthless certificates. That would explain things..... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wibble
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 03 May 2008
Posts: 162
Location: Wibble
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 17, 2008 12:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Micpsi wrote: | | Wibble wrote: | | You dont need oxygen for steal to melt. You just need heat. Go look up MIG Welding!!! |
Office fires on a couple of floors of a skyscraper provide enough heat to melt tons of steel, do they? I don't think so. Please get yourself an 'O level' in chemistry. Oh, wait a minute. Perhaps you do have one of those dumbed-down, worthless certificates. That would explain things..... |
Just where has anyone stated there were tons of steel?
How many office fires start with aircraft crashing into them?
Who says any steal melted when the towers were still standing?
As always you are mixing and matching things together to suit your own blinkered view of events. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wibble
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 03 May 2008
Posts: 162
Location: Wibble
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 10:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Wibble wrote: | | Micpsi wrote: | | Wibble wrote: | | You dont need oxygen for steal to melt. You just need heat. Go look up MIG Welding!!! |
Office fires on a couple of floors of a skyscraper provide enough heat to melt tons of steel, do they? I don't think so. Please get yourself an 'O level' in chemistry. Oh, wait a minute. Perhaps you do have one of those dumbed-down, worthless certificates. That would explain things..... |
Just where has anyone stated there were tons of steel?
How many office fires start with aircraft crashing into them?
Who says any steal melted when the towers were still standing?
As always you are mixing and matching things together to suit your own blinkered view of events. |
Still waiting old boy and I know you are active as I have seen posts from you on another thread in this section. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wibble
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 03 May 2008
Posts: 162
Location: Wibble
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 11:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Still waiting |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Micpsi
Moderate Poster
Joined: 13 Feb 2007
Posts: 505
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 4:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Wibble wrote: | | Micpsi wrote: | | Wibble wrote: | | You dont need oxygen for steal to melt. You just need heat. Go look up MIG Welding!!! |
Office fires on a couple of floors of a skyscraper provide enough heat to melt tons of steel, do they? I don't think so. Please get yourself an 'O level' in chemistry. Oh, wait a minute. Perhaps you do have one of those dumbed-down, worthless certificates. That would explain things..... |
Just where has anyone stated there were tons of steel?
How many office fires start with aircraft crashing into them?
Who says any steal melted when the towers were still standing?
As always you are mixing and matching things together to suit your own blinkered view of events. |
Micpsi reporting for duty, Sir! Sorry to keep you waiting so long.
Well, all the fire fighters and clean-up workers who reported seeing "rivers of molten steel", deep pools of molten metal and girders with molten steel dripping off them - witness all the reports at
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/moltensteel.html
would indicate except to closed minds like yours that "tons" of steel were, indeed, melted.
Your two last questions are bogus and rhetorical, made to create the impression that they are sensible, relevant questions that make the opposition (9/11 truthers) look weak because they never bother to answer dumb questions like these.
I mix and match nothing. I merely follow the REAL facts that your blinkered view of events ignores and denies.
Now you know why I hardly ever bother to visit this Disneyland called "Critics Corner."
See you again in six months time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wibble
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 03 May 2008
Posts: 162
Location: Wibble
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2009 1:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Well, all the fire fighters and clean-up workers who reported seeing "rivers of molten steel", deep pools of molten metal and girders with molten steel dripping off them - witness all the reports at
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/moltensteel.html
would indicate except to closed minds like yours that "tons" of steel were, indeed, melted. |
They may well have seen molten metal but was it molten steel?
| Quote: | | Your two last questions are bogus and rhetorical, made to create the impression that they are sensible, relevant questions that make the opposition (9/11 truthers) look weak because they never bother to answer dumb questions like these. |
You call fires in the TT "Office Fires" because you want to downplay the amount of heat that was generated by the aircraft crashing into them.
The reason you hardly ever pop into Critics Corners is you, like pretty much all Truthers, only debate 9/11 with other Truthers who wont question or pull apart your blinkered view of events. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
