Thread: Do you think 9/11 was staged?

Originally Posted by knight31

yeah I'm not claiming to know how it was done, what knowledge do you have of the towers construction or what it takes to bring it down? Other than you have to drill holes and run cord around. its not employees job to monitor engineers and they would hardly be doing it next to their office but within the walls of the cable system internally. Ofcourse I will assume it has been demolished rather than it fell down though. Have you seen the collapse its an explosive event its not accidentally falling down how would that even be possible?

My questions weren't really aimed at you - i don't expect you to be able to answer them - just thinking out loud, trying to put forth the relevant questions. There ARE people that could answer some of them - who knows, maybe a member of this site works on a demolition team?

I wasn't suggesting it was the job of employees to monitor engineers or anything like that - I was more thinking when the employees walked back into their offices the day after the powerdown, were things normal? Were there scraps of wire strewn all over the floors, or signs that something major had been done? Some people entered and then left before the buildings came down - I wonder if any of them ever mentioned seeing signs of weird tampering in the halls or offices?

Would it be enough to destroy just the central core? Id think to ensure a clean demolition they'd have to blow the outer walls too.

Yes, the collapse looked very much like controlled demolition. But I'm no expert - I'm a complete layman - hell a complete noob! I don't know what happens when such a tall building is struck by a large plane - I have never seen anything similar to compare it to, nor do I know anything about structural dynamics involved. So conceding to complete lack of relevant knowledge I'll refrain from making assumptions.

I did hear recently that scientists eventually figured out the steel didn't actually need to be liquefied - just stressed and heated enough to soften sufficiently. This could have been accomplished by vibrations from impact. Again, I don't know, just conjecturing.

Experts are stumped - I doubt a couple of complete neophytes talking on a message board are going to figure out anything they haven't.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Nanothermite was found in the debris. Nanothermite can be painted on the walls leaving no wiring, no drilled holes or any other trace. It does not become volatile until it dries.

Nanothermite. Hmmm... is it transparent? Does it have a strong odor? That must have left smells and visible traces that every employee would instantly notice when they walked into their rooms. Were any such reports made I wonder? (again just conjecturing - I don't expect you to answer Omnis).

How is nanothermite triggered? Would it still require wiring run all through the building? Or maybe it is enough just to blow the core to bring the whole building down, in which case this whole line of questioning about the state of the offices whn the employees walked in is irrelevant. Still I can't help but wonder out loud here.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

My questions weren't really aimed at you - i don't expect you to be able to answer them - just thinking out loud, trying to put forth the relevant questions. There ARE people that could answer some of them - who knows, maybe a member of this site works on a demolition team?

I wasn't suggesting it was the job of employees to monitor engineers or anything like that - I was more thinking when the employees walked back into their offices the day after the powerdown, were things normal? Were there scraps of wire strewn all over the floors, or signs that something major had been done? Some people entered and then left before the buildings came down - I wonder if any of them ever mentioned seeing signs of weird tampering in the halls or offices?

Would it be enough to destroy just the central core? Id think to ensure a clean demolition they'd have to blow the outer walls too.

Yes, the collapse looked very much like controlled demolition. But I'm no expert - I'm a complete layman - hell a complete noob! I don't know what happens when such a tall building is struck by a large plane - I have never seen anything similar to compare it to, nor do I know anything about structural dynamics involved. So conceding to complete lack of relevant knowledge I'll refrain from making assumptions.

I did hear recently that scientists eventually figured out the steel didn't actually need to be liquefied - just stressed and heated enough to soften sufficiently. This could have been accomplished by vibrations from impact. Again, I don't know, just conjecturing.

Experts are stumped - I doubt a couple of complete neophytes talking on a message board are going to figure out anything they haven't.



Nanothermite. Hmmm... is it transparent? Does it have a strong odor? That must have left smells and visible traces that every employee would instantly notice when they walked into their rooms. Were any such reports made I wonder? (again just conjecturing - I don't expect you to answer Omnis).

How is nanothermite triggered? Would it still require wiring run all through the building? Or maybe it is enough just to blow the core to bring the whole building down, in which case this whole line of questioning about the state of the offices whn the employees walked in is irrelevant. Still I can't help but wonder out loud here.

It seems to be very exotic, very expensive and very unnoticeable. It is triggered by a high degree of flame. If you've ever made a thermite, they basically take a jet lighter to light. I'm assuming a similar temperature is required for nanothermite. For the building to be a controlled demolition, wiring and such would have to be required. However, the pancake effect of the falls suggest they didn't bother wiring a demolition, just limited the nanothermite to the lower levels and let the heat work its way down.

Oh yeah, I saw that episode of Mythbusters!! Badass stuff!! I hate the way my mind flipflops on this issue as I sift through different accounts and theories. There seems to be great evidence, though inconclusive, for both possibilities.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Oh yeah, I saw that episode of Mythbusters!! Badass stuff!! I hate the way my mind flipflops on this issue as I sift through different accounts and theories. There seems to be great evidence, though inconclusive, for both possibilities.

That's what I notice, too. Any asshole can debunk loose change and claim therefore 9/11 had to be muslim extremists acting alone, but just because not all the questions lead to suspicious answers doesn't mean none of them do.

JFK on the other hand, I'm not on the fence about. Fucker got plugged by the CIA.

The problem I find with many conspiracy theories is, the people who LOOK for evidence look for evidence that supports their own theory. If the evidence doesn't match up, they keep changing the theory of what happened until evidence does match up.

Why aren't we looking for more evidence that it wasn't a false-flag, say, the letter that Bin Laden wrote, the physics of a falling building that ISN'T demolished purposely, the phone calls that weren't suspicious, but actually completely in line with the "story" that we've been told? There is a ton of evidence on both sides.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Nanothermite was found in the debris. Nanothermite can be painted on the walls leaving no wiring, no drilled holes or any other trace. It does not become volatile until it dries.

"Nanothermite", huh? Making it sound fancy to fool the people that don't know shit about chemistry? Thermite is a mixture of iron oxide and a reducing agent, usually aluminum. I don't suppose you might find iron oxide dust in a collapsing building? Hmm...

Also, thermite is not used for demolition. It's sometimes used to cut metal, but not to bring down buildings. Furthermore, the "Truthers" claim to have seen explosions, which would not occur during a thermite reaction, which is not explosive.

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

The problem I find with many conspiracy theories is, the people who LOOK for evidence look for evidence that supports their own theory. If the evidence doesn't match up, they keep changing the theory of what happened until evidence does match up.

Why aren't we looking for more evidence that it wasn't a false-flag, say, the letter that Bin Laden wrote, the physics of a falling building that ISN'T demolished purposely, the phone calls that weren't suspicious, but actually completely in line with the "story" that we've been told? There is a ton of evidence on both sides.

Because the people that ought to be reinforcing this evidence are too busy acting like it's unnecessary to do so. But I agree, filtering is a terrible trend among conspiracy theorists. And apparently debunkers as well (see blow)

Originally Posted by cmind

"Nanothermite", huh? Making it sound fancy to fool the people that don't know shit about chemistry? Thermite is a mixture of iron oxide and a reducing agent, usually aluminum. I don't suppose you might find iron oxide dust in a collapsing building? Hmm...

Also, thermite is not used for demolition. It's sometimes used to cut metal, but not to bring down buildings. Furthermore, the "Truthers" claim to have seen explosions, which would not occur during a thermite reaction, which is not explosive.

-_- I know, I've made thermite. Christ dude open a book. I'm not making anything sound fancy, nanothermite is a refined form made in a laboratory.

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

The problem I find with many conspiracy theories is, the people who LOOK for evidence look for evidence that supports their own theory. If the evidence doesn't match up, they keep changing the theory of what happened until evidence does match up.

You're right, people do this all the time. When they look for info, they unconsciously filter it so it corroborates their belief. It is very hard to have no belief and just say "I don't know."

My mind says "I don't know what happened on 9/11," yet I instinctually gravitate towards false flag. I am aware of this, yet a bias has been planted nonetheless. I notice that I won't spend as much time reading counter arguments or evidence than I would ones that support the bias.

Of course this goes for both sides. This thread isn't so bad, but look at how violently people will chew into those who question the events. Their labeled as "truthers" and morons because they have some questions or a different viewpoint. And many in the other camp call the people who believe in the normal story brainwashed.

Your ego is made out of opinions and beliefs about yourself, others, and the world. So when your beliefs are questioned, on one level it feels like you yourself are being attacked. Many people respond with annoyance and aggression when they hear viewpoints contrary to their own - its a psychological defense mechanism.

9/11 is especially emotionally charged because Americans feel as if their country was attacked. They have the culprit, Al Qaeda, and saying their own government did it pisses them off. It would be as if a family member was murdered and the police said they found the killer. But then some other people come along and tell the family that they have the wrong guy, and it was actually their own cousin who did it. The family wouldn't want to hear it, and they would be angry at these people for such accusations.

I have the same mindset as those who say "they don't really know." I cannot tell you if the government did it, or if it was actually Bin Laden. I'm leaning Bin Laden lately because until recently I hadn't seen his open letter, but I'm sure I'll see evidence the other way soon enough.

Truthers aren't bad people, they want the truth. But people who believe it was Bin Laden aren't bad either. We just have differing opinions.

Some of the people in the truth movement are completely out of control to the point of harassing victims of terrorist attacks and calling them actors working for the secret police while they're trying to recover from trauma. No matter which side is actually, factually correct extremists have tainted every inch in reach of this tragedy with poison.

Warning: haven't read the thread.

The question I would like anyone who believes the official story to answer is, why does the official 9/11 report deny the presence of molten steel at ground zero, despite the fact that their are hundreds of credible eye witness reports (including former mayor of New York, Rudy Guliani) of molten steel from directly after the buildings came down and for several weeks afterwards? There is no explanation in the report as to how the molten steel could have been there because they deny it existed in the first place.

Rudy Guliani knows enough about metallurgy to distinguish molten steel from molten aluminium by sight?

This is a very cool story. I think I'll read it a few more times for the lulz.

Maybe you should stop being a troll and actually contribute to the thread, Xei.

> "The question I would like anyone who believes the official story to answer is:"
> Receive answer
> "Troll"

Awesome thread.

The mayor may not be qualified to make such an observations, but there are many others.

The president of a controlled demolition company, Mark Loizeaux, observed molten steel "at the bottom of the elevator shafts of the main towers."

That being said, I never really saw the significance of molten steel to begin with. Was it just that fire can't melt steel?

And furthermore, apparently molten aluminum is silver when there are other light sources (daylight,) and only glows red in a darkened environment, as it produces a very low level light in and of itself.

So were these observations made in daylight or low light conditions?

There is always this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-Cn5...eature=related but with all the material inside those office buildings who knows what we are seeing coming out.

Originally Posted by Xei

> "The question I would like anyone who believes the official story to answer is:"
> Receive answer
> "Troll"

Awesome thread.

For me it seems more like

Question
Strawman
Question rephrased
Personal attack
Question given up on
Self-declared winner

Originally Posted by Xei

Rudy Guliani knows enough about metallurgy to distinguish molten steel from molten aluminium by sight?

Maybe someone who knows enough about black body radiation can tell us what the temperature aircraft grade aluminum would have to be at to glow like this?





That's what contributing means.

Spoiler for Yawn:

Several times over the last year I have been asked to comment on a photo of one of the Trade Center Towers. The photo shows a molten flow from one of the windows. The flow falls down along the building. It appears orange and turns to a gray color as it cools.

The questions usually want me to address "Is this photo a fake?" and "Is the flow steel or aluminum?" "Is this situation possible?"

First, I will address the temperature range, then the color of the flow.

I am working in imperial units and temperature in degrees F [To convert to C use this link]

Metals lose about 50% of their strength at 60% of their melting temperature. This is common knowledge and may be found in any undergraduate text regarding "Fracture and Deformation of Materials."

If the approximate melting temperature of steel is 2750 F the the material would be plastic at 1650 F. Even assuming a safety factor of 3, you would expect the bolts or other structural members to deform and fail near this temperature, especially with the additional weight if a jet air liner. I would assume that the live load calculations did not include the typical office equipment and an airliner plus a factor of 3. THEREFORE I assume that the flow is not steel and that the temperature of the steel members at the time of the photo is less than 1650 F.

Assuming that the flow would be molten aluminum from the airliner and the color of molten aluminum is silver then why is the flow orange?

The color of pure molten aluminum is silver, It has an emissivity of .12. Steel has an emissivity of .4 and appears orange in the temperature range of molten aluminum.

The emissivity of aluminum oxide is .44 and also appears orange in the melting temperature range of molten aluminum.

The emissivity of plate glass is .937 It begins to soften at 1000 F and flows around 1350 F. Silica has an emissivity of .8

Copper oxide also has an emissivity of .8. however I will assume that their effect is negligible.

Aluminum oxidizes readily in the foundry under ideal melting conditions. Large surface area relative to thickness, turbulence, the presence of water or oil greatly increases the oxidation of aluminum. A jet airliner is made of thin aluminum sheet and most probably suffered considerable oxidation especially in contact with an open flame and being in contact with jet fuel. If you don't believe this, try melting a few soda cans over coals or open flame. If you are lucky you will end up with only 50% aluminum oxide. However, the cans may completely burn up.

The specific gravity of aluminum is 2.7. The specific gravity of aluminum oxide (Al2O3-3H2O) is 2.42 the specific gravity of Si = 2.40 and Glass is 2.65 these are all very similar and likely to be entrained in a molten aluminum flow. Don't believe it? lightly stir the dross into molten aluminum. The surface tension is so high is is almost impossible to separate them.

THEREFORE assuming that the flow consist of molten aluminum and considerable oxides, and assuming that the windows in the trade center were plate glass and also in a plastic state and that they were also likely entrained in the molten aluminum. I would expect the flow to appear to be orange in color. Especially since both the entrained materials have emissivities equal to or more than twice that of iron.

Also since dross cools to a gray color and glass with impurities also turns dark. I would expect that the flow would darken upon cooling.

I would also suggest that not only is the photo possible, but entirely likely.

Summary: The flow is not steel because the structural steel would fail well below the melting temperature. The flow is likely to be a mixture of aluminum, aluminum oxides, molten glass and coals of whatever trash the aluminum flowed over as it reached the open window. Such a flow would appear orange and cool to a dark color.

Stephen D. Chastain

Guess how I got this info. Clue: it wasn't via a rare gift. Clue: you can do it too. Not sure why you didn't.

Originally Posted by Xei

Not sure why you didn't.

Because it would be nice to see you not be an ass for once. I find it shameful that someone who makes a reasonable inquiry has to get responses like yours. Someone who has their credibility on the line who's going to go out of their way to be specific about the molten material they saw is naturally going to raise some eyebrows. Someone who's seen molten aluminum before is going to ask questions about "the glowing stuff" coming out of the side of the building. The least you could do is be a decent human being and point them in the right direction for knowledge's sake. I'd think you of all people would want to help others find the correct information without turning them off to your approach.

I enjoy it more when you take the humanistic approach and help others in a positive manner. I like the friendly Xei more. :/

I just thought the original question was so humorously ill-conceived (and it was phrased like it was such a clincher) that it merited a humorous response. I should point out that I know nothing of metallurgy; it just took a modicum of critical thought to see the glaring flaw, and Xaq is perfectly capable of this.

O.K if I get the gist of that molten aluminum will oxidize when mixed with other materials, causing it to glow.

That can explain the picture of the window. Would that account for the "rivers of molten steel" reported at ground zero? The original aluminum was from the aircraft itself, however if they were still encountering large amounts of it weeks after the event, which would require another source. Is aluminum a major component in building skyscrapers?

And invader is right, sarcastic responses don't help prove your point. People will take you more seriously if you come off as sincere and helpful. If you believe theories of controlled demolition are false, you can present counter evidence without belittling people who asked legitimate questions.

I'm more interested about the rescue operations to towers before they collapsed. Here they haven't broadcasted much about what happened in that presice date. What floors they got into, who they found there? How that day went there. Because it seems to reflect throught time as somekind of a rift. My fellow crazious have long come to this theory. Almost all movies involving planes seems to be part of diversing realities crossing over that day. Also those made before the actual date. To open the mystery I would like to know some publicly acceptle things upon things that might seem trivial.

I'm only half serious. And I would find some dark humour if this get's moved beyond dreaming, but I'm also half serious and not trolling

EDIT: not trolling

The original question was not about one picture; it was about the long list of accounts of molten metal that persisted for weeks after the buildings came down.

9-11 Research: Molten Metal

Are all of these sightings airplane aluminum and glass? What about the steel beams with dripping molten ends? The commission report states that the fires in the building or subsequent wreckage were never hot enough to melt steel. Do you think these beams with molten ends were dipped in aluminum?