BadComrade wrote:

honeyisfunny wrote:if you look at photos, the remaining steel columns from the centre of the WTC towers have very neat and clean 45 degree cuts through them

As I've said before, prove to me that those cuts weren't made after the buildings collapsed (like, during the "rescue mission" / removal of debris).

Prove to me the cuts were made after. Difficult, isn't it? But since your explanation fits the official version, I guess you don't have to offer proof.

bad comrade wrote:you say "columns", but I've only ever seen one photo, with one column in it. Conspiracy theorists love to take images like that and write their own explanations for them.

And conspiracy-phobes love to look at an image like that and accept any explanation except the likely one. You know why there aren't a dozen photos like the one we've seen of the cut column- it was a closed rescue scene. The last close-ups of Ground Zero that I know of were part of the footage of Pataki touring the site on I think 9/12 or 9/13. After that, the media was kept at a distance.

You tell me why this column was cut like that after the collapse. To serve what purpose? Why, with debris obviously surrounding the column, did someone climb over that mess with a cutting torch? What could have been there before the cut that impeded the rescue operation?

Germ War wrote:And to be fair, WTC7 was NOT hit by a plane, and it still fell. There were lots of documents and information in that building that benefitted a lot of people by having it fall.

bad comrade wrote:Yeah, but it was hit by a lot of debris from 220 floors worth of bulidings blowing apart not too far from where it stood. Did the government buy you a 6 pack of Corona?

More bullshit wrapped up in sneers."220 floors"? The south tower debris hit WTC7? You're claiming that? "Not too far"? Try 350 feet, with other buildings that didn't collapse in between WTC7 and the North Tower.



WTC6 and WTC5 survived. If the debris was ejected laterally over 100 yards to strike WTC7, what propelled it? Kind of conflicts with your dependence on all the kinetic energy of the caps to be occupied smashing the floors beneath them, doesn't it? What, did the north tower squirt heavy boulders 100 yards at the south face of WTC7? Remember the picture of 7's roof? See any debris up there? And why did huge boulders of tower act as projectiles toward WTC7, when the rest of the concrete slabs were being pulverized into powder, allegedly by that falling cap?

Doesn't add up quite like you thought, does it?

bad comrade wrote:Without those transponders on, it was impossible to tell which plane was the hijacked one. Not to mention, NORAD's radar doesn't scan -inside- the US, they project -outward- looking for incoming attacks, not attacks from within.

Uh huh. NORAD doesn't watch the airspace over D.C. Please. Bad things happen when you put all your trust in Popular Mechanics, BC.

Read this:

WASHINGTON - Air Force fighter jets were scrambled Monday to intercept a privately owned plane that flew too close to the White House, prompting Vice President Dick Cheney and President Bush 's chief of staff to be moved to a secure location.

The privately owned plane was detected flying in a southwest direction, coming down the Potomac River, when it entered restricted airspace, said Secret Service spokeswoman Jean Mitchell.

The fighters were scrambled from nearby Andrews Air Force in Maryland and they intercepted the plane, escorting it out of the area, she said.

Maj. Douglas Martin, spokesman for the North American Aerospace Defense Command, or NORAD, said it was determined that the plane did not represent a threat.

"From the NORAD perspective, he's not a threat, and that's the main thing for us," Martin said.

The plane apparently strayed within the Air Defense Identification Zone, roughly a 23-mile radius around Washington, according to Les Dorr, spokesman for the Federal Aviation Administration.

And:

In addition to the NORAD/FAA defenses, there is a special air defense perimiter around Washington, DC and the Capitol and White House. The area is called P-56, and while the center is a small space inside DC, it is clear from the article that the DC Air Defense Identification Zone extends to 50 miles outside DC to the west, and presumably at least as far in each direction. Unidentified craft entering this space set off alarms with what used to be called the National Capital Region Coordination Center (now?) located in Herndon, Virginia, which uses Internet-based air control display to identify potentially hostile targets.

bad comrade wrote:I don't even need to argue with Clocker Bob anymore... I think it's obvious to everyone here that he proves my point for me better than I ever could.

I prove that your points are flawed and dependent on propaganda.

BadComrade wrote:Have the letters rubbed off of the C and V keys on your keyboard because you use them 100 times more than the other keys?

This is funny.

BadComrade wrote:

honeyisfunny wrote:if you look at photos, the remaining steel columns from the centre of the WTC towers have very neat and clean 45 degree cuts through them

As I've said before, prove to me that those cuts weren't made after the buildings collapsed (like, during the "rescue mission" / removal of debris). you say "columns", but I've only ever seen one photo, with one column in it. Conspiracy theorists love to take images like that and write their own explanations for them. Anyone who's seen the pic you're talking about will probably agree that there is a cut in a beam, right? Explosives don't "cut". What cuts? Not thermite (which is what the conspiracy claims made those perfect 45 degree cuts). OH, I know what makes a cut like that! Cutting torches! Plasma cutters!

The reason this intrigues me so much comes from having seen a documentary completely unrelated to 911 on TV here in the UK that showed how demolitions were carried out on tower blocks. The explosive they used (I don't know if it's thermite or not, hence my questioning rather than lecturing) throughout the building was in the form of very long cabling. At the important structural points in the building they wrapped a length of this cabling around the beams. Internal cameras captured the demolition and the cabling around the beam simply blew up and tore through the beam across the point where it was attached.
I completely agree that the photo of the 45 degree sheared beam could have been taken after some of the clear up took place though...

BadComrade wrote:

honeyisfunny wrote:5. WTC7 ... contained FBI files

Oh, I see... The illuminati (or CIA, or FBI, etc.) ran out of money funding this huge operation to take down the towers, to the point where they couldn't afford paper shredders, or like, some gasoline and a match, so they used some leftover explosives to bring the building down (which wouldn't destroy the papers.... do you remember seeing intact papers floating around EVERYWHERE on that day???). Give me a break. If the government wants "files" gone, they're gonna get rid of them. Don't tell me that it would be "weird" seeing tons of files leaving the building or something like that, because you know, they'd just "shut the security system off on the weekend" and have people haul them out to dispose of them.

I didn't see any intact paperwork because I wasn't there, I was watching it on TV like most of us. I do know they found the passports of the hijackers...but not the black box from either plane.
I agree though, it seems like the least effective way to remove files. And like I said, this isn't about overwhelming evidence in thousands of places, it's about picking the larger pieces out and examining them without the assumption that every piece of evidence and therefore theory about said evidence is linked.

BadComrade wrote:

honeyisfunny wrote:Has anyone ever floated a theory that perhaps the government did have prior knowledge but they had no way of stopping it?

Tons of people have. Realistically, that's the worst case scenario.

Have tons of people said this theory? I know everyone talks of the US being behind it but it always seems to carry a more sinister air of it being deliberate and in their best interests. I'm not saying I believe anything at the moment but it strikes me that having the ability to drop a building into its foundations would be a good safety measure if you knew someone was going to try and knock it over. You can see in photos (including one in the debunking website Greg linked) that the top 1/4 of the second tower actually toppled slightly to one side right before it collapsed. Imagine that falling on Manhattan rather than the tower dropping straight to the ground.

BadComrade wrote: I'm sure over the years to come, urban legends will pop up about someone who "knew, but didn't report it", just like the urban legend that states 2 radar operators knew about pearl harbor and did "nothing to stop it", etc etc etc. I know a girl that worked for an FBI think tank when 9/11 happened. She was in a government owned plane, in the air, before the first plane hit the tower. According to her, her pilots were told to land their plane BEFORE the first plane hit the tower. She also claimed that taunts were faxed to fax numbers somewhere within the FBI, numbers that 99% of the people who work for the FBI didn't even know existed. I tend to believe her, since she isn't the type of person to lie about anything. She's one of the most intelligent people I've ever met, she got a full scholarship to college, etc etc.

Surely this is a piece of evidence like I was referring to? One which, when put on it's own merits and not viewed as being proof of anything, can be seen as strange and worthy of further investigation?

clocker bob wrote:You're wrong. Thermite can be made into shaped charges, and you can tie them like a belt around steel. If it was only a powder, it would be hard to weld with it, wouldn't it?

BadComrade wrote:It's so funny to watch you talk about shit you know nothing about.
A "charge" is an explosive (a quantity of explosive to be set off at one time, by definition).

I didn't say explosive charge, you wad. Incendiary charge. Cutter charge. Thermite cutter charge. Like this:

Thermites are a group of pyrotechnics mixtures in which a reactive metal reduces oxygen from a metallic oxide. This produces a lot of heat, slag and pure metal. The most common themite is ferroaluminum thermite, made from aluminum (reactive metal) and iron oxide (metal oxide). When it burns it produces aluminum oxide (slag) and pure iron.
Thermite is usually used to cut or weld metal.

An explosion is the process of a solid rapidly converting to a gas.

Great. Our respective dictionaries are in agreement. What that has to do with cutter charges, I don't know.

So anyway: When ignited, thermite doesn't do anything rapidly, therefore it doesn't "explode".

As I said.

The heat that is generated by thermite is from the aluminum joining the oxygen in the iron oxide. So, even if you were to compress thermite powder in to "shapes", and then tie them around a beam "like a belt" and then ignite them, the only thing that would happen would be that the thermite would turn in to molten iron, and run down the side of the beam.

You are so tiresome. From a recent US patent for a thermite charge:

[0001] This application claims the benefits of U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/659,677 filed Mar. 8, 2005.

[0002] The entire contents of the provisional application are incorporated herein by reference.

FIELD OF THE INVENTION

[0003] The invention relates to thermite charges that are useful for cutting materials including metals, masonry, reinforced concrete, rock, and the like. The invention allows more expeditious and safer material removal, including entry into structures, and structural demolition.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

[0004] Thermite reactions are well characterized and have been used for a variety of applications, including demilitarization of expended ordnance, quick repair welding of railroad tracks, and cutting applications using lances or burning bars. The thermite reaction is an exothermic reaction that can produce temperatures of more than 4,000.degree. F. These temperatures are well above the melting point of most metals. Boosting the rate of the thermite reaction by flowing a stream of oxygen through the materials can raise the reaction temperature from the normal 4,000.degree. F. to the range of 10,000.degree. F. to 16,000.degree. F. Boosting the temperature to this level greatly reduces the time associated with cutting through a material. In addition, directing the burning particles and gases into a jet through a nozzle allows improved removal of molten metal and deeper penetration into the material.

Being compressed won't make it explode. Nothing will, because it doesn't burn fast enough.

Read the above paragraph carefully for the section that describes how thermite behaves when fed compressed oxygen.

Did you watch the videos that I linked to, the ones that show thermite in action?

Yes, you've posted them previously. I was happy to see them again, because they're as useless to this discussion as your reliance on the PBS special or the PM article often is.

It's not "hard to weld with" at all.

Where did I say it was hard to weld with thermite? I said it was easy to cut or weld with thermite.

Now, to throw you and your people a bone: If someone placed molds around the beam"s" (that photo with the fireman in the foreground is STILL the only photo you people have ever shown, which only shows ONE BEAM, as I stated before), and ignited the thermite, it's possible (maybe) that the thermite could melt through the beam"s". I'm not sure what temperature it takes to melt through iron beams like that, but I'm sure you do.

Don't you think you should know the necessary temperature? That seems like a prerequisite for making the argument that your hydrocarbon fires weakened the structure of the towers as much as you claim.

If 2200 degrees can melt through the beams

Can't. You'd need a minimum of 4000 F to cut quickly.

then maybe you should post my "mold" theory to all your conspiracy theory sites, and correct their definition of thermite while you're at it.

Or you could, cowboy.

I don't know who that was that posted the phrase "cutter charge like thermite" on whatever "explosives website" you're talking about, but I have a feeling he's talking about something called "det cord", which burns so fast, it's explosive. It's a long cord that burns at like, a mile a second. You can wrap some around an old oak tree, light it, and it'll cut right through the trunk of the tree.

Maybe you should find a discussion on the explosives websites and invite yourself in. I'm talking about something more sophisticated than simple det cord.

Oh, and yes, I know what a particle beam weapon is. Apparently you've never seen the Val Kilmer movie Real Genius? It shares a similar scenario with your camp's

Not my camp. I only made note of the variety of theories out there. I don't back them all. I made that reference to particle beams because you seem to want to talk about lasers striking the towers, for some reason.

Have the letters rubbed off of the C and V keys on your keyboard because you use them 100 times more than the other keys?

I always know when you're losing these arguments, because the personal attacks on Bob increase. BY the way, I'm curious why you seem so eager to discuss the laser tags you think you saw on the towers; are you harboring suspicions that the planes that struck the towers may not have been 11 and 175?

Thanks for helping to revive this thread, Chris.

BadComrade wrote: For instance, if you type "shaped charge" in to google, you'll get this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaped_charge

Enough semantics. I am not an explosives expert. I think "charge" is not an erroneous term form what I'm describing. I'm describing a concentrated application of thermite into a controlled region of steel, ignited by an electronic charge. If the use of 'charge' to describe a substance ignited by a charge is inaccurate, then forget it, because you and I both know what I mean: thermite cutting steel is the operative issue.

clocker bob wrote:Yes, you've posted them previously. I was happy to see them again, because they're as useless to this discussion as your reliance on the PBS special or the PM article often is.

Uh, how are they "useless"? They PROVE that thermite doesn't "explode".

I know. I've always said ( I hope ) that the reason there weren't the exact same explosive noises that can be heard on other controlled demolitions prior to the tower collapses is because the thermite was not exploding, it was an incendiary charge, and it was cutting, not 'blowing up'. There were explosives in the buildings, but I'm not classifying thermite as one of them.

You are saying your use of the word "charge" didn't mean an explosive one? You can't "shape" thermite. You can DIRECT THE FLOW of the molten metal, but you can't SHAPE it. Ask anyone in the demolition industry what a "shaped charge" is, and they'll tell you it's an explosive.

More semantics. I'm not talking about the columns being shaped, I'm talking about the thermite being 'wrapped' around the columns at 45 degree angles- that is a 'shape', isn't it?

clocker bob wrote:Where did I say it was hard to weld with thermite?

Right here:

clocker bob wrote:You're wrong. Thermite can be made into shaped charges, and you can tie them like a belt around steel. If it was only a powder, it would be hard to weld with it, wouldn't it?

Operative word is 'If'. If it was only a powder ( as you described it to be ), it would be hard to weld with it, wouldn't it? I'm responding to your description of thermite with a rhetorical question.

I just said that out of all the things I've seen your people offer up as "evidence", that one is the most compelling.

They are not my people. I'm not Abraham.

To be totally honest with you, I'd LOVE for your people to prove that 9/11 was an "inside job".

Oh, you are a dirty liar. Here's the crucial difference between us: I say that I am biased towards the conspiracist position when I judge the evidence. I make no bones about it. YOU, on the other hand, you claim to be 'objective', when you are in fact similarly biased towards the official version. You claim to be in the middle, a blind arbiter. I don't lie like that.

OK, so you've proven that it was an inside job.... and what? What's changed?

NOTHING.

What are you talking about? You know we're about a mile down the road of a ten mile journey. Right now, the polls show we're making progress, but as you correctly point out, suspicion has not translated into action. If you've been reading my posts, you'll know that I'm the most pessimistic person about a revolt against the shadow government that you will find. I don't expect to change America with this shit. Americans have chosen *not to know* about so many things, why should I have faith in them on this?

I do this for one supreme reason: so that when I walk out of this life, I can look back and say that I chose not to lie to myself.

Why don't you guys like, do something about it?

We're still spinning the wheel against long odds. 9/11=Inside Job is not going back into the bottle. It's in the air. People in this movement don't leave it- once you're in, you don't return to belief in the official myth. We will either have another banking collapse and a depression in this country, or we won't. If we do, that is the window of opportunity for people to rise up; only from pain will come change.

BadComrade wrote:How many miles down JFK Blvd. or Martin Luther King Drive are we?

Not as far as we would be if the left gatekeepers like Chomsky and Cockburn hadn't conspired with the corporate media to burn at the stake anyone who challenged the Warren commission or the Ray conviction. JFK wasn't perfect, but Stone and Garrison were closer to the truth than the WC, and if the fake left hadn't swarmed like the paid-off pussies that they are, a new dialogue should have resulted from that film. Conspiracy-phobes have used peer pressure to make people reluctant to express their suspicions in public, but inside people's minds, many doubts live. Defeatism and fear of conflict is tough to overcome- why risk being branded a nut for your conspiracy theories? I thrive on it, but then, I'm one in a million, an American hero.

That last sentence was just to tweak my enemies- I don't really believe that.

I just read all this thread, holy crap this was a strange day D: .

I found "In Plane Sight" a bit more interesting.