I just flew from the US to Japan without crossing Europe. If the earth isn’t round, Based on every model you have, How is that possible ?
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (47)
sorted by:
i've watched it, and i've watched corey and dylans lame attempt at selling DVD's... it's all nonsense.
the "evidence" of "thermite residue" is literally someone saying they found aluminum and iron oxide (rust) in the dust of the collapse.
two of the more common metals or metal oxides found in any building in the world.
yes, there are more exotic compositions (in particular using magnesium+aluminum alloy aka mag/al or "magnalium", some use copper oxide rather than iron oxide), however all of them are using the same essential methodology... create a metal fire hot enough to get the lower melt metal to burn, creating enough heat to melt the high melt temp metals to liquidize and flow onto the target.
there is zero evidence of thermatic melt, zero evidence of chain "explosions" caught on audio in the lead up to the collapse, and zero evidence of any of the necessary pre-demo work to make that a viable tactic...
incidentally i'd highly suggest you look into thermite, how it's made (8:3 ratio of iron oxide and aluminum), how it's commonly initiated (usually by using a stepped combustion to bring the temps up high enough to trigger the exothermic reaction in the aluminum... ie e-match -> BP slurry coated sparkler -> thermite), how thermite reacts when you are able to initiate the reaction (hint it doesn't "explode" so you wouldn't hear explosions anyway), etc...
you can add things to the composition mix (like sulfur or other free oxidizers) to lower the ignition temps, but the utilization of thermite in demolitions is essentially just starting an aluminum fire in some form of crucible, that aluminum uses the "oxide" from the iron oxide to burn, producing tremendous heat that is hot enough to leave behind slag/molten iron. this molten iron is then used to either weld things or cut things but it needs gravity to do it... you essentially drip or pour the hot metal onto your target.
if i place a flower pot on the hood of your car filled with thermite, then jab a sparkler into it and light it... the sparkler is hot enough to initiate the reaction and the whole contraption would begin to spit and sputter sparks and molten metal until the reaction worked it's way through the powdered thermite composition and found that little hole in the bottom of the flower pot...
the molten iron then pours out that little hole and burrows a hole through your hood, and most of the way through the top of your engine.
it would look like your engine got hit by a fucking meteorite...
but it doesn't explode.
anyone saying "there was thermite because witnesses say they heard explosions" doesn't understand how thermite works (thermite doesn't explode).
...
in order to rig a building for demo you have to pretty much gut the damn thing. you have to get down to the supporting structure. in order to do this you gotta bust holes in drywall and fireproofing and insulation... then make weakening cuts with a cutting torch or a grinding disk, then attach cutting charges to the remaining structure to complete your cuts.
it's long tedious messy loud noticeable job that takes months even for small buildings.
it takes massive crews the better part of a year to rig a building that size for demo.
thousands of people worked in all three of those buildings every day, that work would have been noticed.
beyond that, in order to control all these cutting charges, you would need to connect these charges to one another or a central blasting box that can initiate the charges using electricity to pass fire to the primary devices (usually e-matches) that initiate the secondary devices.
the only other way to tie all these charges together would be using some type of det-cord chains.
this brings up two major problems with the theory...
if it was ematches and a blasting control box... the planes could have severed the control wires rendering the cutting charges useless. way to big of a risk to take and as i mentioned earlier... this method requires miles of control wires. there would have been a telephone thick truck line of wires running down the stair case by the time you got to the bottom.
it it was det-cord, the impact of the planes and the ensuing fireball from the aerosolized jet fuel fireball would have trigged the det-cord chains and all the shaped charges on impact of the planes... so the buildings would have fallen right away.
lastly... thermite requires that containment to function, you can't just paint things with a thermite paint and expect it to do anything other than briefly heating up the steel... frankly unless you painted it on a few inches thick it probably wouldn't react at all because the powder needs to be loose to allow air to be mixed into the composition for it to function properly... you can't have it locked up in a thin painted on film and expect it to do anything more than just make something hot for a few seconds.
... look... i've been in blasting, demo, and pyrotechnics most of my adult life. i've personally built more thermite devices than i've had birthdays. moreover i know people who've been in the building demo business, who's families have been into blasting and demo, for generations...
none of the people who do this sort of thing for a living have ever found any of the "9/11 controlled demo" theories to be worth a squirt of piss.
we laugh about it.
it's a fucking joke.
i firmly believe the entire thing was planted into conspiracy circles so people would shift focus away from important questions and onto the nonsense they invented.
it appears to have worked.
Wow, thank you for the thorough response man. I will certainly have to look more into all of that but on the surface, unless you are a top tier bull-shitter, it sounds like you know your stuff.
I personally know jack about those reactions and technical factors in controlled demolition but it was an attractive theory along with the support of the Fairbanks study and the claims saying the parameters for the 9/11 commission report have never been able to be duplicated in any independent studies attempting to recreate the event.
Some things I would be curious about your take on in order to attempt to discredit the Zeitgeist movie further if you don't mind taking a crack? Because it sounds like you are knowledgeable and level headed and you're the first person I've encounter who might have facts/ sound theories to back it up.
The basement workers claims of getting blown to shit in the lower levels of the building like a bomb went off. People dying, getting thrown to the ceiling, wall, etc.
The images of the perfectly angled cuts in the supporting beams.
The "rivers" of molten steel within the rubble that looked like a foundry according to the firefighters.
4 The clearly scripted phony interviews with talking points built in given by "witnesses" with those handlers standing behind them.
Reports of tower 7 collapsing before it even happened
Tower 7 collapsing perfectly like a controlled demo via "debris that started a fire".
The free fall speeds that don't support the pancake style collapse (the top layers failing and at least encountering some interference to slow the collapse)
Sure man, not a problem, and i really appreciate your willingness to consider alternate opinions... most people just attack me for not buying the official conspiracy theory.
i'd have to see those reports, and when it happened to weigh in on A: if i believe them and B: what could have caused the phenomenon. if this happened during the collapse as people were running, it could have something to do with the pressure pushing down the central core... but if thats the case i'd believe them a lot less... anyone in the building during the collapse wouldn't have much chance to get out alive to give that statement.
i'd need to see those cuts. I've never seen them but if i did i'd most likely be able to tell what caused them. if it's thermatic melt or the result of a shaped/cutting charge there would be obvious signs on the back of the cut. either splash out/slag or a curling from the force of the charge's "knife" blowing out the back.
It could also be a stress break/tear but that would show it's own signs of warping/deflection at the edges of the fracture. metal doesn't break cleanly like a piece of peanut brittle... it should have tell tale signs on it for whatever caused it.
Link and I can say more.
If you remember it took them months to dig down to the bottom of that hole, as it was packed solid with concrete rubble, twisted beams, and mangled rebar. there could not possibly have been firefighters at the bottom of that bathtub to witness the pool of molten metal... and as i said above there's no chance in hell that solidified puddle wouldn't have been photographed and video'ed as they were craning it out of the hole. it would have been a huge deal and it would probably be part of one of those cheesy memorials somewhere in the country.
But again i'd need to see the video you're talking about, without seeing it thats the only way i can explain that phenomenon without agreeing they were being coached.
It was doomed and they all knew it.
That is actually the source of the "pull it" quote. the fire cheif was saying "pull all the crews out of the building" not "pull down a giant skyscraper in the middle of downtown Manhattan"... fire chiefs have some clout but nobody's public service sector job allows them to writes checks that big.
Eventually you reach a point where the beam can't withstand the pressure anymore and the i beam fails/bends.
Ever see a steel cable snap? it'll cut you in half if you get in the way... thats a few thousands pounds of force doing that...
Now imagine a few thousand tons.
Now imagine over a million.
Building foundations aren't designed to "catch" a million tons of building falling down onto them...
Thats a fuck ton of mass to stop once it starts moving.
Inertia is a real mother fucker when you're dealing with that much weight.
So it would look EXACTLY like a freefall, because it was. If you were falling from an airplane and hit a bird... would you notice a reduction in speed?
Thanks a lot for the response. I always think it's best to hear ALL arguments with a healthy dose of skepticism, even the ones you think to be factual. Had a high school teacher who preached "don't take my word for it, not your parents, not Fox News, not CNN... etc, read everything, do your own research, try to get as close to the SOURCE as possible, and make up you own mind.". Everyone needs their own assumptions and perspectives to be challenged and doing so in a constructive, open, and uncensored way is the only route to the truth.
So thanks for engaging. To be honest, all of that "evidence" I was pointing out here came from the movie Zeitgeist and the raw footage they included (the pictures of the beams cut, very shady "scripted" looking interviews, firefighters describing the "foundry" of molten steel, the basement workers describing the explosions far prior to the actual collapse).
Maybe you could rewatch that chapter of the movie if you wanted a refresher on what I'm referring to. In the meantime, I'll see if I could find any raw footage or images myself. The way the movie presented the "facts" left no doubt in my mind that this was not something that could be accomplished by a group of self-trained terrorists without a lot of inside (gov alphabet agencies) help. Too many "coincidences" and lack of transparency.
This is what the real people in charge do though, chum/muddy the waters and push and pull different narratives to the point that no one is ever able to distinguish fact from fiction. A very scary thought. That's why I think it's important to keep questioning everything and not be complacent in accepting anything as fact.
the issue i have with movies like zeitgeist and loose change is they start out trying to prove their point, and in the process they manipulate evidence with edits and narrative injection to build their case.
worst of all they intentionally ignore all the contrary evidence that doesn't fit their assumptions so you're left with only seeing what they want you to see, and only thinking about it the way they want you to.
there are many valid legit questions left unanswered about 9/11 but someone decided a long time ago that the best way to get people to stop asking those real questions is to throw them a bone to gnaw on to distract them.
"controlled demo" is a mcguffin. it's a red herring.
we should be asking why the government lied to us about shooting down the 4th plane... instead we spend all our time debating something that didn't happen which was designed to invalidate any discussions into the events of that day.