Colpy the info on the cockpit door was not in the hands of the public until a few months ago. Just how has it been debunked, other than posts like your that would be more like a cheerleader than actual contributor.
911 take 911
- Thread starter MHz
- Start date
I didn't say anything about him seeing anything, I said the 10 explosions he heard happened over a period of time. Just like the article stated. The fall of the tower was too fast for there to be 'separate explosions', let alone being able to count 10 of them.
Have you watched the vid where the puffs of smoke are coming out of the corner joints (where there is no glass because it is a support structure) yet the glass window right beside (same floor) stays in place? A force that is moving steel but leaving glass alone. lol
lol How many times is the topic debunked by the words unconfirmed source? That means everybody should also toss out every reference to 911, Afghanistan and Iraq (for starters) that was promoted as the truth by the media and came from (somebody unnamed) .
in other words....there was no explosions.So why even mention them?
You really need to read the whole thing,not just cherry pick what you want,thats called quote mining.
you seem to be pretty good at it.
Tell me why you keep leaving the rest of his quote out? Cant handle the truth or do you like misleading people?
We realized later after talking and finding out that it was the floors collapsing to where the plane had hit.
I'll catch you every time at it to mostly because of i've read every single bit of this stuff many times,post the whole quotes or your credibility is going downhill fast.
Guess i'll just keep posting the WHOLE quote after your attempts to mislead people by not posting the whole quote.
Your whole post is pretty well moot and means nothing without this.
We realized later after talking and finding out that it was the floors collapsing to where the plane had hit.
Last edited:
Because that part is speculation, as the text says he heard explosions, that means he could not identify the cause by sight. Just what and who did they talk to and what did they talk about that made them conclude it was floors pancaking? At that stage it would have been 1 continuous sound.
I posted the whole quote, there were 10 explosive sounds over a period of time, the identification came after, that is what 'later' means.
No comment on the explosions in the corners,
I posted the whole quote, there were 10 explosive sounds over a period of time, the identification came after, that is what 'later' means.
No comment on the explosions in the corners,
It was an inside job, an Israeli security firm had the airports. The best way to thwart security is to be security. The same firm allowed the underware bomber on the plane with no passport, it was an inside job.
So any loud noise is an explosion then?
Your speculating too.
Heres the rest of what he said. I don't know if that means anything. I mean, I equate it to the building cowing down and pushing things down, it could have been electrical explosions, it could have been whatever."
“When we got to about 50 ft from the South Tower, we heard the most eerie sound that you would ever hear. A high-pitched noise and a popping noise made everyone stop. We all looked up. At the point, it all let go. The way I see it, it had to be the rivets. The building let go, there was an explosion and the whole top leaned toward us and started coming down.
The person saying it was an explosion also says bodies hitting the floor sound like explosions. I'm sure they do. I'm sure an acre of concrete floor crashing down onto another acre of concrete floor also sounds like an explosion.
I saw a body coming down, hit a lamppost and explode
William Rodriguez worked on the basement level of the north tower and was in the building when the first plane struck his building.
"We heard a loud rumble, then all of a sudden we heard another rumble like someone moving a whole lot of furniture," Rodriguez said. "And then the elevator opened and a man came into our office and all of his skin was off."
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/new.york.terror/
Here he is describing something very different than an explosion. The change in his story came after he became a media star and plaintiff."We heard a loud rumble, then all of a sudden we heard another rumble like someone moving a whole lot of furniture," Rodriguez said. "And then the elevator opened and a man came into our office and all of his skin was off."
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/new.york.terror/
Mark Roberts does an in-depth investigation into William's claims and history.
http://911stories.googlepages.com/home
Last edited:
As loud as the collapse was, it sounded nothing like an actual controlled demolition...
There was no trace of explosive material found anywhere in the debri and a lot of the people involved in the cleanup were very experienced in cleaning up controlled demolitions,so far not one of them saw any evidence of explosives in the rubble pile.
YouTube - 9/11 Debunked: Controlled Demolition Not Possible
There was no trace of explosive material found anywhere in the debri and a lot of the people involved in the cleanup were very experienced in cleaning up controlled demolitions,so far not one of them saw any evidence of explosives in the rubble pile.
YouTube - 9/11 Debunked: Controlled Demolition Not Possible
These 911 threads are all the same as the religion threads. People believe in weird conspiracies just as they believe in god(s), and for the same reason: when something bad happens, the human psyche needs to be able to point the finger at something.
So in reality, the 911 conspiracy people are simply believers in a different religion.
If it helps you sleep better at night, keep right on believing.
So in reality, the 911 conspiracy people are simply believers in a different religion.
If it helps you sleep better at night, keep right on believing.
Perhaps they appear that way because you post the very same words in both threads. Haiti is what something looks like when it is 'bad'. 911 was a crime and so far the only ones doing the paying are the civilians of Afghanistan and Iraq.
You might want to read up a tad on thermite and what it is and is used for.
This will get you started.
Note how much thermite is used. The pot is about a liter, but how much thermite is that?
Stoichiometric thermite requires 2 moles of Al per 1 mole of Fe2O3
2Al + Fe2O3 = Al2O3 + 2Fe
2 moles of Al weigh 54 g
1 mole of Fe2O3 weighs 160 g
density of Al=2.64 g/cc
density of Fe2O3=5.24 g/cc
54 grams of Al is equivalent to 20.5 cc of Al.
160g of Fe2O3 is equivalent to 30.5 cc of Fe2O3
Therefore, 51 cc of fully dense powder of 20.5 cc Al and 30.5 cc Fe2O3 weighs (54+160) g = 214 g.
A volume of 1000 cc would weigh (1000/51)*214 = 4.2 kg
For a powder packing density of 50%, the powder would weigh:
0.5*4.2 kg = 2.1 kg = 4.8 lb
That much just to burn a small hole in a small car engine. I bet it's even an aluminum block but lets say it isn't. How much do you think it would take to burn a massive core column? Then add enough to burn for 6 weeks! You see where we're going. You'd need tons. 2Al + Fe2O3 = Al2O3 + 2Fe
2 moles of Al weigh 54 g
1 mole of Fe2O3 weighs 160 g
density of Al=2.64 g/cc
density of Fe2O3=5.24 g/cc
54 grams of Al is equivalent to 20.5 cc of Al.
160g of Fe2O3 is equivalent to 30.5 cc of Fe2O3
Therefore, 51 cc of fully dense powder of 20.5 cc Al and 30.5 cc Fe2O3 weighs (54+160) g = 214 g.
A volume of 1000 cc would weigh (1000/51)*214 = 4.2 kg
For a powder packing density of 50%, the powder would weigh:
0.5*4.2 kg = 2.1 kg = 4.8 lb
Here's a Debunking911 Fun Fact!
How much mass would be required to produce molten iron from thermite equal to the same volume of molten aluminum droplets shown flowing from the south tower window:
A mole of Fe weighs 54 g. For every mole of Fe produced by thermite, one mole of Al and 0.5 mole of Fe2O3 is needed.
2Al + Fe2O3 = Al2O3 + 2Fe
One mole of Al weighs 27 g. 0.5 mole of Fe2O3 weighs 80 g.
Therefore, (27 + 80) g = 107 g of Al and Fe2O3 is needed to produce 54 g of Fe.
That means the mass of the reactants to that of Fe produced is a ratio of 107/54 = 2. The mass of thermite reactants (Al, Fe2O3) is twice that of the molten iron produced.
Comparing the weight of molten aluminum droplets compared with iron:
Iron is 7.9 g/cc. Aluminum is 2.64 g/cc. Fe is denser than Al by a factor of 3. For the same volume of droplets, Fe would have three times the mass as Al.
To produce the iron from thermite requires a reactant mass that is a factor of 2 more than the iron produced. Also, Fe is 3 times as dense as Al. So, it would take 2*3 = 6 times as much mass to produce the same volume of molten iron droplets from thermite compared with molten aluminum droplets.
Example:
Assume 3000 lbs of aluminum fell from the towers. If it had been molten iron produced by thermite, then 6*3000 = 18,000 lbs of thermite reactants would have been required to produce that same volume of falling mass.
Suppose 10 tons of molten aluminum fell from the south tower, about 1/8th of that available from the airplane. If it had been molten iron produced from thermite, 60 tons of thermite reactants would have to have been stored in Fuji Bank to produce the same volume spilling out of the south tower. The section of floor would have to hold all of that plus the aircraft. *Amount of aluminum can be ascertained by counting the droplets and measuring their size compared to the known size of the window. It's not easy to get a good number on this. It's based on the number of slugs seen in video stills, their size relative to the window width which was about 22 inches, and the density of aluminum, assuming this was aluminum.
Density of metals
The weight of a gallon of aluminum is about 22.5 pounds. A hundred of these would already be 2250 lbs. A gallon size is not unlike the size of the slugs that were pouring out the window. Look at them relative to the window size. They look small at first, but when you realize how big the towers were, the slugs were fairly large. It must have been in the thousands of pounds.
Some of the video stills show what look like 50 to 100 slugs in just one frame.
The thermite wouldn't have only needed to make a clean cut like the photo above, it would have also needed to cut sideways. Not an easy feat for thermite. You see, it's a powder which burns chaotically. Maybe with some device but no working device has been proven to me to work to cut a vertical column. You can direct it with a canister but that method wouldn't work to cut a column. The canister only makes a small hole. Nano-thermite has been talked about but its uses fall far short of cutting these massive columns. It's in its research stage. They include possible uses for welding molecular devices and possible use as a heat signature flare decoy. Then there is a patent of a device which has been brought up but as of yet, there is no evidence the idea went any further. Does it even work? Even if it did, they are "Ganged" together to make the cut. You would still need these boxes all over the columns. Once again the answer to this from the "scholars" is "rationalized technology". They need this technology to exist so it exists. There is some secret super thermite which can be placed in a canister which can survive 1,100 degree C so the primary charge doesn't go off. "Gee debunking, you're so dumb."
Update:
Steven Jones:
Actually, the metal-cutting device employing thermite is well known and documented; see the paper by Robert Moore published three months ago (January 2007) in the Journal of 9/11 Studies:
Furthermore, there is a demonstration of a “device employing thermite” cutting through a metal rod, here.
Yet another absurd comparison from Jones. A small metal rod is NOT the same as a large column. See how large that canister is compared to that small metal rod? The canister in that video, while being enough to cut the vertical rod, will only cut a small hole into a vertical WTC column. (Something I said long ago. See bold text above) For the towers columns to have been cut by a similar device you would need much larger canisters wrapped around the buildings at this scale. Absurd! If Jones wants to salvage what credibility he thinks he has left, he MUST show us a working device which uses thermite and cuts a sizable hollow column. It MUST also be small enough to do the job yet hide from the average World Trade Center worker. Anything less is an attempt to deceive the public. Furthermore, there is a demonstration of a “device employing thermite” cutting through a metal rod, here.
Perhaps they look that way because people like you have to believe in some mythology, and also feel the need to become evangelists, just like a JW goes door to door, preaching to people who don't believe the snake oil you're peddling, trying to convince people that you are the route to the truth.
If it helps you sleep better, feel free to believe that 911 was a conspiracy developed by Obama to let Bush bring in unpopular security rules that would ultimately lead to Obama's chance to win an election and bring his version of socialism to the US.
Still quote mining,wonder why the pertinent part of the quote is allways left out.
Alex Jones, professional conspiracy theorist radio host, has said Jones found evidence of thermite. This isn't true. What Jones found was something which would have been in the debris pile anyway. Sulfur...
WTC Thermite
Sulfur
In Steven Jones' PDF "Answers to Objections and Questions", to support his claim for Sol-gels/Thermite he states:
http://www.newsday.com/news/health/ny-hsair0911,0,471193.story?coll=ny-homepage-right-area
You find out Mr. Jones edits out the VERY next line which states
Alex Jones, professional conspiracy theorist radio host, has said Jones found evidence of thermite. This isn't true. What Jones found was something which would have been in the debris pile anyway. Sulfur...
WTC Thermite
Sulfur
In Steven Jones' PDF "Answers to Objections and Questions", to support his claim for Sol-gels/Thermite he states:
"One molecule, described by the EPA's Erik Swartz, was present at levels "that dwarfed all others": 1,3-diphenylpropane. "We've never observed it in any sampling we've ever done,"
However when you look at the link he uses
http://www.newsday.com/news/health/ny-hsair0911,0,471193.story?coll=ny-homepage-right-area
You find out Mr. Jones edits out the VERY next line which states
"He said it was most likely produced by the plastic of tens of thousands of burning computers."
Apparently, Jones felt this was not important enough for his readers to know.
Where do you point when something bad happens? The conspiracy to invade Iraq is well understood and defined as conspiracy at the highest levels and there is no other plausable explanation. It is also understood that no invasion of Iraq would be possible without an initiating event. So if you do not believe the invasion of Iraq was in fact a product of conspiracy you must have religious reasons not to. So knowing your dislike of association with conspiracy thinking I am forced to think that you are "coinsidence theorist" and you must excuse the solid linear events surrounding 911 as pure coinsidense. I wonder, but not much, which side of this argument is bolstered by religion. Certainly not the side defined by logic.
Last edited:
What does thermite have to do with ground zero?
Hmmm,could it be the plasma cutters they used to cut the steel columns during clean up?;-)
Kudos to an Italian debunker over seas who put an iron slab to the test.
If you still need convincing that the angled cut was done by workers cleaning up ground zero then please read his excellent page on the subject.
11 Settembre: Real-world tests cut through steel, shatter thermite "evidence"
He also explains the method used in cutting steel in ground zero.
http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/02/technical-widening-about-thermal.html
Jones continues to defend the indefensible. In a reply to Screw Loose Change Blog, Jones defends this deception by quote and photo mining while pointing out the obvious.
Jones writes:
Had he been just an average internet poster I would let this go as gross ignorance of how the scientific method works, but not a professor. I am left to draw no other conclusion than Steven Jones is purposely deceiving his flock or he has a serious mental disease. What other conclusion can a one draw?
Listen to "Demo Dave" Griffin and his crew talk about ground zero and evidence of pancaking.
Sloppy research or purposeful deception by the "scholars"? The evidence for one is growing...
Thanks to Shagster, ScottS and David B. Benson for their research.
Hmmm,could it be the plasma cutters they used to cut the steel columns during clean up?;-)
Kudos to an Italian debunker over seas who put an iron slab to the test.
11 Settembre: Real-world tests cut through steel, shatter thermite "evidence"
He also explains the method used in cutting steel in ground zero.
http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/02/technical-widening-about-thermal.html
Jones continues to defend the indefensible. In a reply to Screw Loose Change Blog, Jones defends this deception by quote and photo mining while pointing out the obvious.
Jones writes:
The angle-cut beam in the first photo above has been the subject of much discussion. Recently, a first-responder has stated that he saw this particular cut-column (it is rather remarkable in appearance) when he arrived at the GZ scene on 9/11/2001. We are seeking a written statement from him to this effect to hopefully settle this issue. An analysis of the slag seen clinging to the inside and the outside (both) of this angle-cut column would also do much to answer questions about what did the cutting. I think you will agree that in the second photo, the worker is using an oxyacetylene torch to cut the steel.
INCREDIBLE! His argument for using the top photo as evidence seems to be that he has no evidence it's made without thermite... Incredibly, he argues that the photo of the iron worker cutting the column I uncovered is all the evidence he needs for THAT column and that column only. With his absurd logic he is at the same time suggesting that because there is no photo of the iron worker cutting the iron in his original photo, the original photo is evidence of thermite! To put it plainly, if it walk and talks like a duck that doesn't mean it isn't thermite. He doesn't even have a source for the quote from the alleged first responder saying the photo was taken on 9/11, never mind evidence that he was actually there. Because we all know, if there is no photo on the internet then he wasn't there using Jones' logic. And yet this passes Kevin Ryan's peer review! (Editor of "scholars for 9/11 studies.") I say again, INCREDIBLE!
Had he been just an average internet poster I would let this go as gross ignorance of how the scientific method works, but not a professor. I am left to draw no other conclusion than Steven Jones is purposely deceiving his flock or he has a serious mental disease. What other conclusion can a one draw?
Listen to "Demo Dave" Griffin and his crew talk about ground zero and evidence of pancaking.
"For it being two hundred and ten story buildings, the pile wasn't an enormous pile. We were expecting it to be - I think a lot of the guys were expecting it to be a lot more. I cut away a section of the wall - my gang cut into a section of the wall and we - we counted 14 floors compressed into 8 feet."
He also points to perimeter columns with angled cuts which he says his men cut.
"You can see where they made the cuts along - [Dave points to columns with angled cuts] right above - that's the bow tie connection they're cutting at about 3 to 5 foot above the bow tie connection before it starts in to the forming of the candle stick. They've got three candles left to cut."
Sloppy research or purposeful deception by the "scholars"? The evidence for one is growing...
Thanks to Shagster, ScottS and David B. Benson for their research.
We've read pages and pages of what this site says or that site says. Do you have YOUR OWN version of what happened? One can't really claim to have debunked a thing without having thoughts all their own.