Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Why some people think 9/11 was an inside job

Options
145791020

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭Cheerful S


     Nanothermite is known to produce UV light when it reacts. Therefore, the presence of the purple light in the video is strong evidence that a reaction occurring there.

    It would be helpful if you could explain why the fire would radiate purple, debunkers will ignore it. See the colors of the fire next to it (red and yellow)

    Of course, the debunkers probably didn't even watch the full video to see that the purple light went off numerous times and then melting occurred of whatever material was in that location next.  



  • Registered Users Posts: 17,850 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Okay, show "nanothermite" destroying any building, and obviously at multiple stories per second



  • Registered Users Posts: 25,232 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    There's nothing at all about nano thermite glowing purple in your link.

    Emitting UV light is not the same as glowing purple.

    You are still contradicting your previous statements that the nanothermite was explosive.

    There's nothing to explain until you actually show that nanothermite emits purple light when it's used to demolish buildings.

    Until you show this, it's just another example of you grasping at some new thing you've decided you see in a video and changing your reality to try and use it to prove a theory.


    Maybe it's not light from the thermite. Maybe it's light reflecting off that giant mirror tou claimed was in the wreckage.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭Cheerful S


    A hot fire has never ever collapsed a tall steel-framed building in the way NIST outlines, so this argument is foolish. Name another building around the world that collapsed in freefall due to fire alone. If no other examples exist across the world, it's nonsense to believe all three buildings just fell to fire alone.

    NIST mentions it as a fact in their own Q&A that buildings of this type don't collapse due to fire.

    https://www.nist.gov/pao/questions-and-answers-about-nist-wtc-7-investigation

    Do you understand what fire known instance means?

    Clearly, all the available evidence does not support NIST's conclusion that fires were the only contributing factor to the collapse of the Twin Towers. The use of nano-thermite, for example, is not bunk when you see molten iron droplets in the falling debris clouds, the melted steel talked about by FEMA, and the eyewitness accounts of liquid steel in the rubble. We also melted red/yellow steel leaking through open windows before the collapse. There are also now strange purple haze lights flashing in the area where the fires and melting are taking place. The use of nano-thermite is further supported by the fact that scientists have discovered its presence in the dust from the collapse ( supported by other finds)

    There is zero evidence supporting the claim that the collapse was caused by some straining and buckling of the steel. You wouldn't be finding Swiss hole steel if the steel only lost its strength anyway. Losing strength only means the steel bends; it doesn't melt down ( sense). Clearly, FEMA found evidence that chemicals were attacking steel, what you know nanothermite would do the exact same thing reported herein that report. The only difference is that the FEMA report had no actual source material to confirm why it was happening. Years later, we now know why it happened.



  • Registered Users Posts: 25,232 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Nanothermite has never ever collapsed a tall steel-framed building in the way you describe (or ever), so this argument is false. Name another building around the world that collapsed in freefall due to nanothermite. If no other examples exist across the world, it's nonsense to believe all three buildings just fell to nanothermite.


    You keep claiming that nanothermite has all these properties, but never actually back any of it up.


    We also know that nanothermite can't have been there because there was no byproducts of a thermite reaction found. Your study proved this.


    Also your claim that your NIST link says "this type don't collapse due to fire." Is not accurate.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 17,850 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Right, using your logic "nanothermite" has never demolished a skyscraper, ergo it can't have happened.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭Cheerful S


    If nanothermite isn't causing all those anomalies, then what is? I have never seen any reports of office fires melting steel, have you? I have seen steel can bend and change shape in high temp fires but melting is not normal.



  • Registered Users Posts: 25,232 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    You've not shown anything at all to suggest that nanothermite could cause any of these "anomalies." (Half of which aren't actually anomalies anyway.)

    You're simply making up what nanothermite can do on the spot.


    We've never seen reports of nanothermite melting steel into flowing rivers. Never seen it being used in skyscraper demolitions. Never seen it glowing purple before exploding. No reports of it exploding ssilently or somehow not giving off the byproducts of a thermite reaction.

    so again by upur own argument it can't be thermite.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭Cheerful S


     The molten material dripping from the corner of the south tower obviously had something to do with the full collapse that took place twenty seconds later. There has been no official investigation into this molten material, which is shameful.

    There is still molten material there ( first screenshot) at the South tower corner that is not yet obscured by the dust cloud, even when viewed from a long distance away. The molten pool is actually massive.

    The melting of the building materials, steel, and everything else inside the building caused an imbalance of weight, which was the main cause of the collapse. There is no logic to the official explanation that the cause of collapse was fire alone.

    If fire is melting the building, then you should be investigating that. 



  • Registered Users Posts: 12,663 ✭✭✭✭The Nal




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 17,850 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Here's your logic:

    The skyscrapers can't have fallen due to fire because that's never happened before

    Therefore:

    The skyscrapers can't have fallen due to nanothermite because that's never happened before

    Do you genuinely not see the contradiction there..



  • Registered Users Posts: 25,232 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    But thermite can't produce any of these effects. You're not able to show that it's capable of producing such amounts of molten metal.

    And again, the study you posted, proved that there was no thermite, hench the point is moot.

    You often see things in photos and videos that are not there and are completely nonsensical.

    Like your previous claim that "UV light" means a purple glow.

    Or when you claimed there was a giant mirror in the wreckage.

    The pictures you are posting are probably not molten metal.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭Cheerful S


    Big difference.

    The wrong question is being asked here.

    Is there any evidence that the building was attacked with nanothermite?

    The WTC cloud that covered Manhattan contained tons of molten iron to the extent that even official studies call it a signature event during the collapse. Molten iron is a byproduct of thermatic reaction. What is largely ignored here by the debunkers group is how you would separate carbon and Iron from steel to form molten Iron. Debunkers ignore the quantities and percentage of molten iron discussed in the R J Lee study.

    The presence of molten material in all the videos indicates that the building was exposed to extremely high temperatures, which is consistent with the use of nano-thermite.The molten material is not consistent with carbon office building fire

    What did NIST say in one video about molten material? Nobody they know told them about molten material. No eyewitness ever mentioned that. Anyone who has done even a small bit of research knows this claim is false. There are countless videos online of firefighters and clean-up crews saying they found this molten liquid in the rubble. How hard did they look for evidence?

    One of the things that is most puzzling is an official steel study by FEMA, which revealed that the steel from the WTC towers had melted like Swiss cheese. A chemical attack was suspected of attacking this steel within the building, which had a mysterious sulfur component to it. FEMA even mentioned that this unique chemical attack could have occurred before the building collapsed. I find it odd that nanothermite actually works by chemical attack. Another mystery ignored by NIST

    How they placed this material inside the building, is not my job, up to the FBI to investigate that. I don't think it would have required the knocking down of walls and stuff for weeks.

    Clearly, another study provides strong evidence to explain the anomalies, indicating that there was indeed red/gray nano-thermite present in the dust. In combination with all the other stuff we see, it makes perfect sense what this study is saying. Unfortunately, biases on what they think happened here get in the way of finding out the truth. 

    Why it happened like this for the first time in history is explained when you look at the hard facts of molten iron, and molten material leaking from, the building. Something caused all that, and it wasn't just fire. 



  • Registered Users Posts: 12,663 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    Is there any evidence that the building was attacked with nanothermite?


    None if you cant explain how they could've rigged the building.



  • Registered Users Posts: 25,232 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    You're just side steping the point because you're unable to address it without torpedoing the tired old truther argument you're clinging to.

    And no, there's no evidence at all for thermite. You're just inventing things about it and claiming that evidence.

    You've proven that there was no thermite present.


    You're also not being truthful again. The study you posted to prove the existence of the iron mircospheres in the first place stated that they were formed by melting, not oxidation. Therefore they weren't a byproduct of a thermite reaction.

    It also showed that the other by product was not found at all.

    The author of the study stated that the buildings were brought down by fire. You believe he is part of the conspiracy.

    You have never addressed these issues. You just ignore them are keep repeating your false claim about the study.



  • Registered Users Posts: 431 ✭✭Become Death


    The reason I am skeptical about the official story is the fact that the passports of the hijackers were apparently found in the rubble.

    Its also another reason why I am not totally skeptical because it would be so bloody obviously a set up to pretend to find them.

    I don't think any generation alive at the moment will ever be totally convinced about all of the details about what exactly what happened that day.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭Cheerful S


    What was the number of people interviewed about the molten steel? NIST's investigation is not serious. Claim people who are actually there have never mentioned anything like this. This video actually shows the investigation is cover-up job.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,345 ✭✭✭Hoop66


    "Nanothermite is known to produce UV light when it reacts. Therefore, the presence of the purple light in the video is strong evidence that a reaction occurring there."


    Once again demonstrating how limited your scientific knowledge is. Is this why you are so easily convinced by conspiracy grifters?



  • Registered Users Posts: 12,663 ✭✭✭✭The Nal




  • Registered Users Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭Cheerful S


    The video is very relevant because it shows there was no investigation into the cause of the towers' collapse. New York firefighters were stunned by what they saw, even agreeing on video.

    It is also very relevant to the nanothermite discussion, as nanothermite, when ignited, releases heat and energy capable of melting steel.

    By interviewing eyewitnesses and taking down what they say, investigators can get an accurate account of what happened on that day.. Clear that NIST never covered any of the basics here. I have the NIST video to prove it.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 17,850 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe




  • Registered Users Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭Cheerful S


    Have a strong laugh at the 50-second mark of the video. The NIST 9/11 studies are overseen by John Gross. Watch him deny it. He is then debunked in the video by eyewitness videos



  • Registered Users Posts: 82,254 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Some people could have gone off to University and got a masters in engineering and science in the time I've witnessed them recirculate over the same bunk conspiracy theories over and over and over here.


    "Such a waste." - The Cosmic Owl.



  • Registered Users Posts: 17,850 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Passports of passengers were also found. Perishable items survived the impacts at all four sites and were recovered including identity cards, cash, tickets, even a paper itinerary was found.

    The passport of one of the hijackers was found on the street after the impacts.

    It's not mystery what happened that day. Some individuals come across facts they can't believe (or understand), like personal effects surviving the impacts, and then decide it must have been some sort of conspiracy.



  • Registered Users Posts: 12,663 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    I asked you how "they" rigged the building with nanothermite.

    You've got the cart before the horse.



  • Registered Users Posts: 17,850 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    It was molten metal or red hot red metal

    Some have mistaken this for molten liquid steel, very different.

    To underscore this misunderstanding the video shows a picture of molten metal being picked up by a machine.



  • Registered Users Posts: 431 ✭✭Become Death


    I found it a little odd. If you didn't, thats ok



  • Registered Users Posts: 12,663 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    You can see the front of the plane explode out the other side of the building. Terrorist pilot sat in the front of the plane. Its very possible.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭Cheerful S


    FEMA's limited WTC Steel investigation found evidence of a phenomenon known as 'eutectic formation', where iron melts at a temperature lower than the melting point of steel.

    The eutectic liquid was primarily liquid iron. Those who claim to have seen molten steel at Ground Zero might be right about that.

    THERE ARE SO MANY SILLY GAMES PLAYED HERE THAT LIQUID IRON WAS NOT there AT GROUND ZERO

    Then maybe you should contact FEMA? Think it's all molten metal, whatever that means in buildings primarily made of steel




    Whatever the case, all these facts prove that melting ( short gif of it) led to the collapse of the South Tower. When the leak started to ease off, twenty seconds later, the entire building collapsed. Anyway, I have to get off.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 25,232 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Firstly, you are once again misrepresenting a study you don't understand. We've gone around in circles with you about the "molten iron" many times. You just ignore points you are not able to address.

    Even leaving this aside, we still have the issue that you are just making up the idea that nanothermite can produce these effects.

    It can't. You can't show that it can.

    And notice how yet again, you're moving away from all of your previous points because the arguments against them were too difficult to deal with.



Advertisement