Please give me summary of the plot. You can't because everyone would (and should) laugh at you.snowdog90 said:RWWilson said:
I challenge any 9/11 conspiracy "truther" to come up with a detailed, complete summary of the alleged plot -- not the bits and pieces, but the whole story, put together -- that would not make any fifth grader anywhere burst out in convulsive laughter.
You ask this because you have no answer for Barry Jennings. This is typical.
If I'm wrong, tell me what you think of Barry Jennings. Does his story support the official story? Is he a liar?
The latest "proof" from a 9/11 conspiracy friend
64,607 Views |
1244 Replies |
Last: 2 yr ago by double aught
snowdog90 said:AggiEE said:
I've seen this video before, but I'm a business major. I assume you're an engineer, what do you conclude from watching this?
The claim that it is molten steel flowing from the tower. It doesn't make sense it goes against the other argument that fire wasn't hot enough to melt steel. More than likely it's molten aluminum pouring out from the impact zone.
He'll probably come back with liquid aluminum glows silver in the sun…it actually doesn't, but does have shades of orange and red depending on the liquid's temperature.
What I find disturbing is his belief in the thermite paper when the author won't allow others access to his samples nor let them verify his experiments. The EE in his name leads me to believe he is and electrical engineer. Someone with an engineering degree should see that glaring problem.
Your debunking has been....debunked. No need to turn what was a civil conversation into something hostile.Satellite of Love said:
That's the Stephen Jones paper that was debunked in the video I posted…HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Shows didn't really watch my first video.
If the British accent was too distracting then watch Mick West covering the same topic and covering your paper.
https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/technical-articles/articles-by-ae911truth/690-refuting-a-demolition-denier-s-false-claims-about-iron-microspheres
RWWilson said:Please give me summary of the plot. You can't because everyone would (and should) laugh at you.snowdog90 said:RWWilson said:
I challenge any 9/11 conspiracy "truther" to come up with a detailed, complete summary of the alleged plot -- not the bits and pieces, but the whole story, put together -- that would not make any fifth grader anywhere burst out in convulsive laughter.
You ask this because you have no answer for Barry Jennings. This is typical.
If I'm wrong, tell me what you think of Barry Jennings. Does his story support the official story? Is he a liar?
You answer mine amd I'll answer yours. Actually I already answered a couple pages ago. But you have no answer for Barry Jennings, so you treat me like a crazy lunatic.
Again, this is typical. This makes me really appreciate people like titan and Satellite who are willing to have a conversation, even if they think I'm a lunatic.
snowdog90 said:AggiEE said:
I've seen this video before, but I'm a business major. I assume you're an engineer, what do you conclude from watching this?
The video is obviously low quality but we can easily see very white/orange hot liquid metal with sparks being generated and flowing in significant amounts mere minutes before the tower collapses. It's visual characteristics are not consistent with aluminum, and it looks quite similar to thermite reactions.
Nm
Listen moron, I am ignoring Barry Jennings. Even if it were not the rank steaming bull**** my few scientist friends assure me that it is, none of that stuff would prove anything. All of the 9/11 science claims belong to the "All men are Socrates" school of logic, so named after the famous Woody Allen syllogism: Socrates was a man; All men are mortal; Therefore, all men are Socrates.snowdog90 said:RWWilson said:Please give me summary of the plot. You can't because everyone would (and should) laugh at you.snowdog90 said:RWWilson said:
I challenge any 9/11 conspiracy "truther" to come up with a detailed, complete summary of the alleged plot -- not the bits and pieces, but the whole story, put together -- that would not make any fifth grader anywhere burst out in convulsive laughter.
You ask this because you have no answer for Barry Jennings. This is typical.
If I'm wrong, tell me what you think of Barry Jennings. Does his story support the official story? Is he a liar?
You answer mine amd I'll answer yours. Actually I already answered a couple pages ago. But you have no answer for Barry Jennings, so you treat me like a crazy lunatic.
Again, this is typical. This makes me really appreciate people like titan and Satellite who are willing to have a conversation, even if they think I'm a lunatic.
That's how 9/11 Truth lore works. The towers couldn't have fallen the way they did; there are no big plane parts in the Pentagon crash photos; therefore, all men are Socrates. That's basically the case against George W. Bush. A bunch of people heard explosions, an anchorman says the falling Towers remind him of a controlled demolition, therefore... George Bush committed the crime of the ages? Am I missing something?
Where is your source that he won't let others verify/test his samples, and even if that is the case, have you possibly considered that the amount of dust samples that are available are extremely limited, and he does not want to freely get rid of the only material in his possession? In the future, there may be more advanced methods of analysis and he could possibly wish to preserve it for that purpose.Satellite of Love said:snowdog90 said:AggiEE said:
I've seen this video before, but I'm a business major. I assume you're an engineer, what do you conclude from watching this?
What I find disturbing is his belief in the thermite paper when the author won't allow others access to his samples nor let them verify his experiments. The EE in his name leads me to believe he is and electrical engineer. Someone with an engineering degree should see that glaring problem.
I am still waiting for the first conspiracy theorist to come up with a detailed, complete summary of the alleged plot -- not the bits and pieces, but the whole story, put together -- that would not make any fifth grader anywhere burst out in convulsive laughter. I'm pleased to see that most of low IQ conspiracy theorists don't have an AgTag. It gives me hope Aggies are still of above-average intelligence.
RWWilson said:
I challenge any 9/11 conspiracy "truther" to come up with a detailed, complete summary of the alleged plot -- not the bits and pieces, but the whole story, put together -- that would not make any fifth grader anywhere burst out in convulsive laughter.
This is where the discussion turns to emotional appeals. It seems as though you're open to the idea that something like WTC7 was an obvious controlled demolition, but this belief lies in the face of your pre-conceived notion that nobody could possibly pull something like this event off.
Cognitive dissonance is strong, but the physical reality is hard to deny. I don't think that it's too much of a stretch to believe that: 1) false flag events have happened historically, 2) conspiracies do happen and are not simply the ideas of fringe, 3) the resulting after-math of 9/11 was instrumental in catalyzing the political agenda of those in power. It certainly did not seem to benefit the plight of the middle eastern terrorists that are supposed to have pulled this off. I find it more likely that a small team of highly powerful individuals were able to orchestrate a compartmentalized mission through various mechanisms than I do that terrorists were able to successfully hijack all of the planes they attempted to with limited flight training, and were able to successfully navigate and hit both of the towers.
AggiEE said:snowdog90 said:AggiEE said:
I've seen this video before, but I'm a business major. I assume you're an engineer, what do you conclude from watching this?
The video is obviously low quality but we can easily see very white/orange hot liquid metal with sparks being generated and flowing in significant amounts mere minutes before the tower collapses. It's visual characteristics are not consistent with aluminum, and it looks quite similar to thermite reactions.
Okay, that's damned impressive that they managed to wire thermite into the building in the days preceding 9/11, and then managed to crash the planes precisely where the thermite was placed. Not only that, but the wiring to the thermite was still intact.
Amazing.
RWWilson said:Listen moron, I am ignoring Barry Jennings. Even if it were not the rank steaming bull**** my few scientist friends assure me that it is, none of that stuff would prove anything. All of the 9/11 science claims belong to the "All men are Socrates" school of logic, so named after the famous Woody Allen syllogism: Socrates was a man; All men are mortal; Therefore, all men are Socrates.snowdog90 said:RWWilson said:Please give me summary of the plot. You can't because everyone would (and should) laugh at you.snowdog90 said:RWWilson said:
I challenge any 9/11 conspiracy "truther" to come up with a detailed, complete summary of the alleged plot -- not the bits and pieces, but the whole story, put together -- that would not make any fifth grader anywhere burst out in convulsive laughter.
You ask this because you have no answer for Barry Jennings. This is typical.
If I'm wrong, tell me what you think of Barry Jennings. Does his story support the official story? Is he a liar?
You answer mine amd I'll answer yours. Actually I already answered a couple pages ago. But you have no answer for Barry Jennings, so you treat me like a crazy lunatic.
Again, this is typical. This makes me really appreciate people like titan and Satellite who are willing to have a conversation, even if they think I'm a lunatic.
That's how 9/11 Truth lore works. The towers couldn't have fallen the way they did; there are no big plane parts in the Pentagon crash photos; therefore, all men are Socrates. That's basically the case against George W. Bush. A bunch of people heard explosions, an anchorman says the falling Towers remind him of a controlled demolition, therefore... George Bush committed the crime of the ages? Am I missing something?
This is the emotional, irrational response I expected. You are emotionally.tied to your belief in the official story. Many people are because it was so traumatic. I was for many years. Your deeply held emotion causes you to lash out at anything that challenges your core belief in the official story. Hence, you won't even hear the Barry Jennings story.
Barry Jennings was trapped in tower 7 by an explosion. This happened before the towers fell, before tower 7 was supposed to be damaged and on fire. The link is still above if you want to watch. If not, stay strong in your emotionally held beliefs.
CanyonAg77 said:AggiEE said:snowdog90 said:AggiEE said:
I've seen this video before, but I'm a business major. I assume you're an engineer, what do you conclude from watching this?
The video is obviously low quality but we can easily see very white/orange hot liquid metal with sparks being generated and flowing in significant amounts mere minutes before the tower collapses. It's visual characteristics are not consistent with aluminum, and it looks quite similar to thermite reactions.
Okay, that's damned impressive that they managed to wire thermite into the building in the days preceding 9/11, and then managed to crash the planes precisely where the thermite was placed. Not only that, but the wiring to the thermite was still intact.
Amazing.
Not days, but months the building was undergoing maintenance activities in precisely the areas you'd need to install thermite. Thermite would have been placed all over the building, but it just so happened that the crash zone may have allowed this particular piece to become visible. Certainly some of the thermite and corresponding control would have been compromised in the immediate impact zone, but not all.
That's the proper approach. It is the cure for being drawn into rabbit-holes. Don't get "wedded" to a position.snowdog90 said:Satellite of Love said:
Berry Jennings is a new name to me. I'll have to look into him.
Cool, thanks. Again, I appreciate the civility. I'm happy to be wrong, I'm really only interested in the truth.
I had never heard of this Barry Jennings bit either, or those other witnesses with such clear testimony about events blowing up below their level in WTC-7.
Bless your heart.
You just killed your own theory, and don't realize it.
You just killed your own theory, and don't realize it.
CanyonAg77 said:
Bless your heart.
You just killed your own theory, and don't realize it.
I have not. The crash and ensuing fires would be enough to cause the thermite in local areas of the impact zone to begin its reaction. Some would not be adversely impacted at the margins of the zone.
That fire sure looks hot enough. What is remarkable about steel melting from furious fires? It has happened plenty of times in battle. Which is not to deny that could be aluminum---its the certainty the fire couldn't have melted the steel that seems strange.Quote:
The claim that it is molten steel flowing from the tower. It doesn't make sense it goes against the other argument that fire wasn't hot enough to melt steel. More than likely it's molten aluminum pouring out from the impact zone.
RWWilson said:
I am still waiting for the first conspiracy theorist to come up with a detailed, complete summary of the alleged plot -- not the bits and pieces, but the whole story, put together -- that would not make any fifth grader anywhere burst out in convulsive laughter. I'm pleased to see that most of low IQ conspiracy theorists don't have an AgTag. It gives me hope Aggies are still of above-average intelligence.
I already gave an overview in this thread. Do you even read posts or are you just emotionally banging out posts in a state of rage without reading any responses?
Building 7 went down that day too. No planes hit it.
You gave a vague explanation that our government was responsible. You did not give any reason or a summary of the plot - the whole story. You know why? Because if you did, little children would laugh at you for being a gullible moron. Let me fill in your blanks so you can see yourself.snowdog90 said:RWWilson said:
I am still waiting for the first conspiracy theorist to come up with a detailed, complete summary of the alleged plot -- not the bits and pieces, but the whole story, put together -- that would not make any fifth grader anywhere burst out in convulsive laughter. I'm pleased to see that most of low IQ conspiracy theorists don't have an AgTag. It gives me hope Aggies are still of above-average intelligence.
I already gave an overview in this thread. Do you even read posts or are you just emotionally banging out posts in a state of rage without reading any responses?
Just imagine how this planning session between Bush, Rummy and Cheney must have gone:
BUSH: So, what's the plan again?
CHENEY: Well, we need to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. So what we've decided to do is crash a whole bunch of remote-controlled planes into Wall Street and the Pentagon, say they're real hijacked commercial planes, and blame it on the towelheads; then we'll just blow up the buildings ourselves to make sure they actually fall down.
RUMSFELD: Right! And we'll make sure that some of the hijackers are agents of Saddam Hussein! That way we'll have no problem getting the public to buy the invasion.
CHENEY: No, Don, we won't.
RUMSFELD: We won't?
CHENEY: No, that's too obvious. We'll make the hijackers al-Qaeda and then just imply a connection to Iraq.
RUMSFELD: But if we're just making up the whole thing, why not just put Saddam's fingerprints on the attack?
CHENEY: (sighing) It just has to be this way, Don. Ups the ante, as it were. This way, we're not insulated if things go wrong in Iraq. Gives us incentive to get the invasion right the first time around.
BUSH: I'm a total idiot who can barely read, so I'll buy that. But I've got a question. Why do we need to crash planes into the Towers at all? Since everyone knows terrorists already tried to blow up that building complex from the ground up once, why don't we just blow it up like we plan to anyway, and blame the bombs on the terrorists?
RUMSFELD: Mr. President, you don't understand. It's much better to sneak into the buildings ourselves in the days before the attacks, plant the bombs, and then make it look like it was exploding planes that brought the buildings down. That way, we involve more people in the plot, stand a much greater chance of being exposed, and needlessly complicate everything!
CHENEY: Of course, just toppling the Twin Towers will never be enough. No one would give us the war mandate we need if we just blow up the Towers. Clearly, we also need to shoot a missile at a small corner of the Pentagon to create a mightily underpublicized additional symbol of international terrorism -- and then, obviously, we need to fake a plane crash in the middle of ****ing nowhere somewhere in rural Pennsylvania.
RUMSFELD: Yeah, it goes without saying that the level of public outrage will not be sufficient without that crash in the middle of ****ing nowhere.
CHENEY: And the Pentagon crash -- we'll have to do it in broad daylight and say it was a plane, even though it'll really be a cruise missile.
BUSH: Wait, why do we have to use a missile?
CHENEY: Because it's much easier to shoot a missile and say it was a plane. It's not easy to steer a real passenger plane into the Pentagon. Planes are hard to come by.
BUSH: But aren't we using two planes for the Twin Towers?
CHENEY: Mr. President, you're missing the point. With the Pentagon, we use a missile, and say it was a plane.
BUSH: Right, but I'm saying, why don't we just use a plane and say it was a plane? We'll be doing that with the Twin Towers, right?
CHENEY: Right, but in this case, we use a missile. (Throws hands up in frustration) Don, can you help me out here?
RUMSFELD: Mr. President, in Washington, we use a missile because it's sneakier that way. Using an actual plane would be too obvious, even though we'll be doing just that in New York.
BUSH: Oh, okay.
RUMSFELD: The other good thing about saying that it was a passenger jet is that that way, we have to invent a few hundred fictional victims and account for a nonexistent missing crew and plane. It's always better when you leave more cover story to invent, more legwork to do, and more possible holes to investigate. Doubt, legwork, and possible exposure -- you can't pull off any good conspiracy without them.
BUSH: You guys are brilliant! Because if there's one thing about Americans -- they won't let a president go to war without a damn good reason. How could we ever get the media, the corporate world, and our military to endorse an invasion of a secular Iraqi state unless we faked an attack against New York at the hands of a bunch of Saudi religious radicals? Why, they'd never buy it. Look at how hard it was to get us into Vietnam, Iraq the last time, Kosovo?
CHENEY: Like pulling teeth!
RUMSFELD: Well, I'm sold on the idea. Let's call the Joint Chiefs, the FAA, the New York and Washington DC fire departments, Rudy Giuliani, all three networks, the families of a thousand fictional airline victims, MI-5, the FBI, FEMA, the NYPD, Larry Eagleburger, Osama bin Laden, Noam Chomsky and the fifty thousand other people we'll need to pull this off. There isn't a moment to lose!
BUSH: Don't forget to call all of those Wall Street hotshots who donated $100 million to our last campaign. They'll be thrilled to know that we'll be targeting them for execution as part of our thousand-tentacled modern-day bonehead Reichstag scheme! After all, if we're going to make martyrs -- why not make them out of our campaign paymasters? ****, didn't the Merrill Lynch guys say they needed a refurbishing in their New York offices?
RUMSFELD: Oh, they'll get a refurbishing, all right. Just in time for the "Big Wedding"!
ALL THREE: (cackling) Mwah-hah-hah!
You get the idea. None of this stuff makes any sense at all. If you just need an excuse to assume authoritarian powers, why fake a plane crash in Shanksville? What the hell does that accomplish? If you're using bombs, why fake a hijacking, why use remote-control planes? If the entire government apparatus is in on the scam, then why bother going to all this murderous trouble at all -- only to go to war a year later with a country no one even bothered to falsely blame for the attacks? You won't see any of this explored in 9/11 Truth lore, because the "conspiracy" they're describing is impossible everywhere outside a Zucker brothers movie -- unbelievably stupid in its conception, pointlessly baroque and excessive in its particulars, but flawless in its execution, with no concrete evidence left behind and tens of thousands keeping their roles a secret forever.
We are to imagine that not one of Bush's zillions of murderous confederates would slip and leave real incriminating evidence anywhere along the way, forcing us to deduce this massive crime via things like the shaking of a documentary filmmaker's tripod before the Towers' collapse (aha, see that shaking -- it must have been a bomb planted by the president and his ten thousand allies!). Richard Nixon was a hundred times smarter than Bush, and he couldn't prevent leaks and cries of anguished pseudo-conscience from sprouting among a dozen intimately involved conspirators -- but under the 9/11 conspiracy theory, even the lowest FBI agent used to seal off the crime scene never squeaks. It's absurd. You are absurd. You should be ashamed of yourself for being ... well ... a gullible moron.
Just opinion but WTC-2 buckles at exactly the region where the banking plane struck. In many ways it was a more immediately fatal blow than the head-on ram of WTC-1. This because it "bit out" a bit of the corner and started a fire in the area's levels.
Those vertical flashes that do look like charges going off are certainly interesting, but the buckling at that time and point imo to easily can create internal phenomena that might have created those flashes or even sparks. Its not conclusive, just what see.
I remain with no doubts WTC-1 and WTC-2 were rammed by Islamists and set afire and destroyed by forces resulting from that.
Focus is on WTC-7, not even struck by the enemy.
WTC 7 was a 47 story office building with like 600,000 SF of space. So the number of people in there when the planes hit has to be several thousands. Only one single dude heard the building "exploding" after the plane crashes?
Then the building survived for 9 more hours after the initial explosions? Were they blowing one column at a time starting immediately when the terrorists hit the towers?
Then the building survived for 9 more hours after the initial explosions? Were they blowing one column at a time starting immediately when the terrorists hit the towers?
Tony Franklins Other Shoe
Joined:
May 6, 2014
Posts:
31,061
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Wait, so the building was prepped to go down AND a plane was supposed to crash into it? They applied thermite all over the building not knowing where this terrorist was going to guide the plane? Then how much thermite would we be talking about?AggiEE said:CanyonAg77 said:
Bless your heart.
You just killed your own theory, and don't realize it.
I have not. The crash and ensuing fires would be enough to cause the thermite in local areas of the impact zone to begin its reaction. Some would not be adversely impacted at the margins of the zone.
Or have I completely missed your summary?
Person Not Capable of Pregnancy
Quote:
WTC 7 was a 47 story office building with like 600,000 SF of space. So the number of people in there when the planes hit has to be several thousands. Only one single dude heard the building "exploding" after the plane crashes?
No, read that article he linked. There are other witnesses, and the building was ordered evacuated. There was even a Guiliani meeting in progress that was cancelled.
None of them can give a summary of the plot because when they start down that road they start to realize how dumb they sound.Tony Franklins Other Shoe said:Wait, so the building was prepped to go down AND a plane was supposed to crash into it? They applied thermite all over the building not knowing where this terrorist was going to guide the plane? Then how much thermite would we be talking about?AggiEE said:CanyonAg77 said:
Bless your heart.
You just killed your own theory, and don't realize it.
I have not. The crash and ensuing fires would be enough to cause the thermite in local areas of the impact zone to begin its reaction. Some would not be adversely impacted at the margins of the zone.
Or have I completely missed your summary?
titan said:Quote:
WTC 7 was a 47 story office building with like 600,000 SF of space. So the number of people in there when the planes hit has to be several thousands. Only one single dude heard the building "exploding" after the plane crashes?
No, read that article he linked. There are other witnesses, and the building was ordered evacuated. There was even a Guiliani meeting in progress that was cancelled.
And the part where these "explosions" are 9 hours before the building collapses? What about that question?
Dp
Read the post introducing it and the content yourself and see what you think? See if it answers any of that for you.JJxvi said:titan said:Quote:
WTC 7 was a 47 story office building with like 600,000 SF of space. So the number of people in there when the planes hit has to be several thousands. Only one single dude heard the building "exploding" after the plane crashes?
No, read that article he linked. There are other witnesses, and the building was ordered evacuated. There was even a Guiliani meeting in progress that was cancelled.
And the part where these "explosions" are 9 hours before the building collapses? What about that question?
https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3321185/replies/63056638
I had not heard of all this aspect this way before now, and are still grokking it. Have no answers.
JJxvi said:
WTC 7 was a 47 story office building with like 600,000 SF of space. So the number of people in there when the planes hit has to be several thousands. Only one single dude heard the building "exploding" after the plane crashes?
Then the building survived for 9 more hours after the initial explosions? Were they blowing one column at a time starting immediately when the terrorists hit the towers?
Barry Jennings' story is had to dispute. He was videoe'd yelling out an 8th floor stairwell window, then, hours later, he was videoe'd after being rescued. He says the building was mostly evacuated and the power was off. This is before the towers fell.
He was trapped by an explosion that went off below the 6th floor.
Many people reported hearing explosions all day. I've seen video of explosions recorded that day though I'm having trouble finding them now.
As for how this is possible, when the building was wired (if it was), exactly why they did it, I don't know. I try to focus on what is known and draw conclusions from that.
Based on Barry Jennings' story, something was happening in tower 7 way before it was supposed to. The official story has to be called into question based on this.
People of normal intelligence reading 9-11 "conspiracy theorists".snowdog90 said:JJxvi said:
WTC 7 was a 47 story office building with like 600,000 SF of space. So the number of people in there when the planes hit has to be several thousands. Only one single dude heard the building "exploding" after the plane crashes?
Then the building survived for 9 more hours after the initial explosions? Were they blowing one column at a time starting immediately when the terrorists hit the towers?
Barry Jennings' story is had to dispute. He was videoe'd yelling out an 8th floor stairwell window, then, hours later, he was videoe'd after being rescued. He says the building was mostly evacuated and the power was off. This is before the towers fell.
He was trapped by an explosion that went off below the 6th floor.
Many people reported hearing explosions all day. I've seen video of explosions recorded that day though I'm having trouble finding them now.
As for how this is possible, when the building was wired (if it was), exactly why they did it, I don't know. I try to focus on what is known and draw conclusions from that.
Based on Barry Jennings' story, something was happening in tower 7 way before it was supposed to. The official story has to be called into question based on this.
Congrats to the OP for resurrecting the Q thread.
torrid said:
Congrats to the OP for resurrecting the Q thread.
It was getting a little boring around here!
plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
Not really debunked…
This is there first comment:
Just so you know they make a similar claim on the faqs of their website:
https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/faqs/353-faq-12-what-is-ae911truth-s-assessment-of-the-directed-energy-weapon-dew-hypothesis
But that's a misrepresentation of the RJ Lee report…
The bottom line of RJ Lee letter…
"The formation of iron and other type spheres at temperatures obtainable by the combustion of petroleum or coal based fuels is not a new or unique process. These spheres are the same as iron and alumino-silicate spheres in the well-studied fly ash formed from contaminants in coal as it is burned in furnaces."
Up front they are misattributing the RJ Lee report.
On the 1st item about the abundance of microspheres is only due to thermite…well that isn't a fact either.
This report comes from work on the building at 130 Liberty St. This was a building damaged by the collapse with a large gash in it. See this thread for images:
Between 9/11 and 2003 when the samples were taken, cleanup of the structure was obviously done. To remove beams they would have to cut them with torches. Said process while cutting out the steel creates a lot of micro spheres. So the assertion that ONLY explanation could be thermite isn't true.
If anyone was curious about the follow up:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/ae911s-response-to-mick-wests-iron-microspheres-talk.11261/#post-240693
This is there first comment:
Quote:
Chris Sarns:
This is a sarcastic, oversimplified, straw man argument, which is countered with the following points:
1. There is no other explanation besides thermite for the abundance of iron microspheres in the WTC dust.
2. The iron spheres are not the only evidence of thermite in the WTC dust. They are simply supporting evidence. Much additional evidence of extreme temperatures, unaccounted for in the WTC official story, is documented in the paper "Extremely High Temperatures During the World Trade Center Destruction."
3. And in "Ground Zero Part 1, Part 2, Part 3" of 9/11: Explosive Evidence Experts Speak Out.
Just so you know they make a similar claim on the faqs of their website:
https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/faqs/353-faq-12-what-is-ae911truth-s-assessment-of-the-directed-energy-weapon-dew-hypothesis
Quote:
Once-Molten Iron Microspheres Found in the Dust
Substantial quantities of once-molten iron spheres, up to 150 times the background level of iron in dust from other buildings in the area, were found and documented by the US Geological Survey (USGS) and The RJ Lee Group. RJ Lee found the microspheres in amounts up to 6% inside the skyscraper across the street from WTC 2. Other scientists estimate a total of 10 tons to 100 tons of microspheres altogether throughout Lower Manhattan. These spheres were so plentiful that RJ Lee used them as a "signature component" of the WTC Dust, and the EPA discussed their use as signature markers. RJ Lee notes that the microspheres were "created during the event," that is, they were not created by welding operations during the cleanup of Ground Zero. The once-molten state of these microspheres indicates that they were created by temperatures hot enough to melt iron. Office fires and jet fuel fires, which do not produce such high temperatures, could not possibly have produced them.
But that's a misrepresentation of the RJ Lee report…
Quote:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-iron-microspheres-in-9-11-wtc-dust-as-evidence-for-thermite.2523/
The bottom line of RJ Lee letter…
"The formation of iron and other type spheres at temperatures obtainable by the combustion of petroleum or coal based fuels is not a new or unique process. These spheres are the same as iron and alumino-silicate spheres in the well-studied fly ash formed from contaminants in coal as it is burned in furnaces."
Up front they are misattributing the RJ Lee report.
On the 1st item about the abundance of microspheres is only due to thermite…well that isn't a fact either.
This report comes from work on the building at 130 Liberty St. This was a building damaged by the collapse with a large gash in it. See this thread for images:
Quote:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/the-quantity-of-iron-microsphere-at-wtc-ground-zero-after-9-11.9540/#post-219642
Between 9/11 and 2003 when the samples were taken, cleanup of the structure was obviously done. To remove beams they would have to cut them with torches. Said process while cutting out the steel creates a lot of micro spheres. So the assertion that ONLY explanation could be thermite isn't true.
If anyone was curious about the follow up:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/ae911s-response-to-mick-wests-iron-microspheres-talk.11261/#post-240693
boom, head shot/gif
Let's see the pro conspiracy theorists reply to this.
Let's see the pro conspiracy theorists reply to this.
plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
New World Ag said:
boom, head shot/gif
Let's see the pro conspiracy theorists reply to this.
You can't really "headshot" people who keep shooting themselves in the face. I'd be happy to see one of the truthers come up with a detailed, complete summary of the alleged plot -- not the bits and pieces, but the whole story, put together -- that makes any sense.
Featured Stories
See All
Ags host Buckeyes with an early-season Quad 1 opportunity at stake
by Olin Buchanan
Players to Watch: No. 15 Texas A&M vs. New Mexico State
by Olin Buchanan
8:22
15h ago
1.6k
34:11
10h ago
690
Reed Report: Preparing for Friday's marquee showdown vs. Ohio State
by Luke Evangelist
Bid on Legacy Club tickets to Saturday's Texas A&M vs. NMSU game!
by Texas Aggies United