The Titanic sinking conspiracy theory

[ged]

Google searches are free.

Prompted by that insight, I just tried one for "blast furnace". Apparently 2,500 years ago the Chinese were melting steel in blast furnaces, using charcoal as the fuel.

...you could never literally melt steel with a fire burning standard office kit/furniture

Perhaps this isn't the right forum on which to make that sort of claim.

The average office desk could make some pretty good charcoal. I can see a lot of similarities between a blast furnace and a burning skyscraper.

 

[rik_uk3]

Vids like that are about as much use as convincing us, as the ones we post convince you.

Traces of thermite were found in the rubble. It's a news headline that it was. Not really something you can say did or didn't. Also the steel piling pic i posted is consistent with a thermite cut. Plus all the molten metal literally flowing from the WTC a minute before the collapse, is also indicative of thermite use.

Too much says it was used. Not really much to say it wasn't. How do you explain the collapse of WT7 Rik? Was that the result of an impact by a plane and the heat from the fires? Simple answer.....NO. Why was the collapse of WTC7 not even mentioned in the 9/11 commission reports?

Its all well and good thinking you can answer one of the points, but there is a hell of a lot more than one point to answer.

Here is the vid of the molten metal running out of the WTC

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=545886459853896774

Not really lol, dust particles in the air were found, but no means conclusive evidence that thermite was used. Look at the video (main one I linked) it explains exactly why the buildings collapsed the way they did Bill. Thermal imaging shows temperatures from the fires at about 1800f, steel softens enough to yeld then give way under the weight of the building at around 1400f, the fires caused by the planes impact were easily hot enough to bring the building down; which is exactly what they did.

 

[spandit]

I watched "Friend's" yesterday and the Twin Towers were both clearly standing... I think the whole of 9/11 is a myth fabricated as a viral marketing ploy for Porsche...

That said, finding evidence of Thermite (aluminium and iron oxide) in an old steel building that was hit by an aluminium aircraft is pretty damning...

 

[Huon]

I watched "Friend's" yesterday and the Twin Towers were both clearly standing... I think the whole of 9/11 is a myth fabricated as a viral marketing ploy for Porsche...

That said, finding evidence of Thermite (aluminium and iron oxide) in an old steel building that was hit by an aluminium aircraft is pretty damning...

I also saw them in a Spiderman trailer once. A little too much tension on those webs perhaps?

 

[HillBill]

You cant compare a blast furnace to the WTC. Nor an office desk to charcoal.

To make charcoal needs a very controlled, slow, low oxygen burn. That would not have happened in the WTC. As due to all the windows being blown out, there would have been a good amount of oxygen. So the office desk may make good charcoal, but not on its own in the WTC.

Simple fact is you cant melt steel by burning standard office furniture. Charcoal was created to produce hotter flames.

Are you suggesting that charcoal is made if you crash an aircraft into a building?

Prompted by that insight, I just tried one for "blast furnace". Apparently 2,500 years ago the Chinese were melting steel in blast furnaces, using charcoal as the fuel.



Perhaps this isn't the right forum on which to make that sort of claim.

The average office desk could make some pretty good charcoal. I can see a lot of similarities between a blast furnace and a burning skyscraper.

 

[HillBill]

The samples were taken from the rubble, not from dust particles in the air.

That video doesnt show EXACTLY why the building collpsed Rik. It gives an opinion as to why the buildings collapsed. What it doesnt explain is why molten metal was video'd pouring out of the WTC just before it fell. What it doesnt explain is why big pools of molten metal were found in the basements, still molten, 8 weeks after the event. Molten Rik, not softened.

Are you ignoring WT7 Rik?

Its all well and good thinking you can say how the WTC went down. But WT7 is a bit of problem for that theory isnt it mate. Which is why it was ignored in the 9/11 reports.

Why was it reported to have collapsed 20 minutes before it did Rik?

I did ask you this last time, but you seem to have missed that question, so its here again for you.

WTC7 puts the brakes on what your saying because you cant explain this. Its not going to go away if you ignore it. No ones going to buy the theory of the WTC collapse through fire, when this point gets ignored. Everyone who says the WTC went down through fire, never mention WTC7, WHY? i'll tell you why, because it puts serious doubt on that explanation.

Not really lol, dust particles in the air were found, but no means conclusive evidence that thermite was used. Look at the video (main one I linked) it explains exactly why the buildings collapsed the way they did Bill. Thermal imaging shows temperatures from the fires at about 1800f, steel softens enough to yeld then give way under the weight of the building at around 1400f, the fires caused by the planes impact were easily hot enough to bring the building down; which is exactly what they did.

 

[Huon]

The samples were taken from the rubble, not from dust particles in the air.

That video doesnt show EXACTLY why the building collpsed Rik. It gives an opinion as to why the buildings collapsed. What it doesnt explain is why molten metal was video'd pouring out of the WTC just before it fell. What it doesnt explain is why big pools of molten metal were found in the basements, still molten, 8 weeks after the event. Molten Rik, not softened.

Are you ignoring WT7 Rik?

Its all well and good thinking you can say how the WTC went down. But WT7 is a bit of problem for that theory isnt it mate. Which is why it was ignored in the 9/11 reports.

Why was it reported to have collapsed 20 minutes before it did Rik?

I did ask you this last time, but you seem to have missed that question, so its here again for you.

WTC7 puts the brakes on what your saying because you cant explain this. Its not going to go away if you ignore it. No ones going to buy the theory of the WTC collapse through fire, when this point gets ignored. Everyone who says the WTC went down through fire, never mention WTC7, WHY? i'll tell you why, because it puts serious doubt on that explanation.

Strictly speaking Rik doesn't need to explain how anything fell down. This whole thread is based on multiple conspiracy theories that you guys are trying to convince us are all linked and are a more credible explanation for various events than the official versions. To do that you have to prove your theories but there is no need for Rik or anyone else to give a complete explanation of what happened.

 

[rik_uk3]

I'm not ignoring it, as I think you know I'm a believer in the UFO cover up and love looking at conspiricies but after looking at the evidence there is nothing there to suggest that the collapse was anything else other than the direct results of the planes flying into them. A lot of the 'evidence' to the contrary is from lets say not solid or IMO trustworty sources. Too many people making money convincing other people there was more to the tragic events of 911.

Tell me about WTC7.

 

[ZEbbEDY]

it was elvis

 

[Trunks]

IMHO after much research the twin towers collapsed due to the crash. WT7 however was demolished. If you search my last link you will find a transcript where an order was given to "bring it down". Look at the pics, in the rubble, the outer walls are latest ontop of the rubble, classic demolition...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Trunks]

it was elvis

Can't have been, he was working in tesco in Leeds at the time


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[HillBill]

So why was it demolished?

When it was the LEAST damaged out of all the buildings in the WTC complex? Yet the others, weren't?

IMHO after much research the twin towers collapsed due to the crash. WT7 however was demolished. If you search my last link you will find a transcript where an order was given to "bring it down". Look at the pics, in the rubble, the outer walls are latest ontop of the rubble, classic demolition...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[HillBill]

Strictly speaking, Its none of us who have questions to answer. Its the US government. We only have questions. We don't have all the answers.

Did you know they spent a hell of a lot more money investigating Bill Clintons cigar exploits that they did 9/11

I don't care what any man says. Something stinks about the official 9/11 story. I don't know exactly what it is thats being hidden. But something is.

Strictly speaking Rik doesn't need to explain how anything fell down. This whole thread is based on multiple conspiracy theories that you guys are trying to convince us are all linked and are a more credible explanation for various events than the official versions. To do that you have to prove your theories but there is no need for Rik or anyone else to give a complete explanation of what happened.

 

[HillBill]

So the government is a solid trustworthy source Rik? After you just said you are a believer in the UFO "cover ups"?

All the official story comes from the government or government bodies. Solid and trustworthy? As far from it as anything can be IMO

I can't explain WTC7, wish i could. But the official story doesnt explain it either. In fact it completely ignores it. Its these little things that make the whole thing appear a farce.

I'm not ignoring it, as I think you know I'm a believer in the UFO cover up and love looking at conspiricies but after looking at the evidence there is nothing there to suggest that the collapse was anything else other than the direct results of the planes flying into them. A lot of the 'evidence' to the contrary is from lets say not solid or IMO trustworty sources. Too many people making money convincing other people there was more to the tragic events of 911.

Tell me about WTC7.

 

[santaman2000]

You cant compare a blast furnace to the WTC. Nor an office desk to charcoal.

To make charcoal needs a very controlled, slow, low oxygen burn. That would not have happened in the WTC. As due to all the windows being blown out, there would have been a good amount of oxygen. So the office desk may make good charcoal, but not on its own in the WTC.

Simple fact is you cant melt steel by burning standard office furniture...

Perhaps. But remember a scyscraper isn't just an office building; it's a small city unto itself. It contains offices (particularly a scyscraper that is a financial hub as was the WTC) but it also contains reaurants, bars, cinemas, day care centers for the occupants/employees to leave their children while they work, residential apartments, convenience stores, etc. Most restaurants over here cook with gas so said gas likely was piped into the bldg. or stored there in quantity tanks. Most large buildings (ALL scyscrapers) have emergency power generators powered by oil or diesel. I seriously doubt that there was a lack of fuel for an intensely hot fire. And yes a structure that goes straight up (the same way heat does) is likely to multiply the heat from a fire; especially as you said the windows were blown out so that it could draw in a more than sufficient draft.

 

[Trunks]

So why was it demolished?

When it was the LEAST damaged out of all the buildings in the WTC complex? Yet the others, weren't?

I wish I knew that
WT7 did have offices for the FBI, CIA etc in it though.
maybe they wanted to destroy the evidence they knew about the attacks in advance & it was stored in that building?
Maybe the gold stolen from WT1&2 was hidden under WT7 and they demolished it to recover later- all to pay off the 1trillion $ Rumsfeld had announced the US govt had "lost". He announced this the day before 911 happened. That news got buried in the post 911 coverage.
Of course I'm clutching at straws - I guess we'll never know...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[wattsy]

So what if the structure of the WTC, had been rigged with thermite? The fire caused by the aircraft would be enough to ignite wouldn't it? What would happen if the steel on the floors hit, was all cut with thermite. Would it drop a few floors then carry on dropping? In that way the collapse would start from the top.

thermite isn't a cutting compound its an incendiary. someone posted a link to a video on this thread where they do an experiment using 3 kg of thermite on a regular girder (not one you'd use as a supporting column for a 110 storey building). it didn't even burn through it. the amounts needed to burn through hundreds of supporting girders to bring down a building that size would run into tens of tonnes its completely infeasible. there's no way any group of people could get access to the building for enough time to do this. they'd have to sneak tonnes of thermite, wiring, hot burning fuses, power tools, gas torches (to pre-cut the columns) all through metal detectors and security (it wasn't the first attack on the WTC security was tight). then they'd have to tear down interior walls to get access to the columns, cut them, rig them with tonnes of thermite, wire them all up, then rebuild the interior walls, repaint, clean up and get out all before being noticed, and then hope that none of the thousands of people who worked there noticed anything in the meantime. completely impossible

 

[HillBill]

Ok, so lets go with that.

Why didn't any previous fires in the WTC cause similar effects? I know the planes hit them, and this will have made a difference, but still. All the generator fuel will be stored in the basement, there were no visible gas explosions.

Also all the steel in the WTC was fireproofed.

Perhaps. But remember a scyscraper isn't just an office building; it's a small city unto itself. It contains offices (particularly a scyscraper that is a financial hub as was the WTC) but it also contains reaurants, bars, cinemas, day care centers for the occupants/employees to leave their children while they work, residential apartments, convenience stores, etc. Most restaurants over here cook with gas so said gas likely was piped into the bldg. or stored there in quantity tanks. Most large buildings (ALL scyscrapers) have emergency power generators powered by oil or diesel. I seriously doubt that there was a lack of fuel for an intensely hot fire. And yes a structure that goes straight up (the same way heat does) is likely to multiply the heat from a fire; especially as you said the windows were blown out so that it could draw in a more than sufficient draft.

 

[HillBill]

Did they contain the reaction on their thermite tests? If they didn't then it wouldn't burn through.

No way any group could get access to the building? i can't decide if you are joking or not. It would be very difficult if the gov weren't involved. But if they were, then it would be VERY easy to achieve.

Thermite doesnt need wiring up, it just needs heat to trigger the reaction. The plane crashing and burning would have ignited it had it been there.

Also if it was an inside job, it could have been carried out under the guise of maintenance very very easily and no one would have batted an eyelid.

All your points work on the assumption that it wasn't an inside job. All are moot if it was.

People just don't notice things under there noses, if they don't expect it.

thermite isn't a cutting compound its an incendiary. someone posted a link to a video on this thread where they do an experiment using 3 kg of thermite on a regular girder (not one you'd use as a supporting column for a 110 storey building). it didn't even burn through it. the amounts needed to burn through hundreds of supporting girders to bring down a building that size would run into tens of tonnes its completely infeasible. there's no way any group of people could get access to the building for enough time to do this. they'd have to sneak tonnes of thermite, wiring, hot burning fuses, power tools, gas torches (to pre-cut the columns) all through metal detectors and security (it wasn't the first attack on the WTC security was tight). then they'd have to tear down interior walls to get access to the columns, cut them, rig them with tonnes of thermite, wire them all up, then rebuild the interior walls, repaint, clean up and get out all before being noticed, and then hope that none of the thousands of people who worked there noticed anything in the meantime. completely impossible

 

[spandit]

Also all the steel in the WTC was fireproofed.

Do you have any comprehension of how much kinetic energy an airliner travelling at speed would have imparted as it hit? A bit of fire retardant foam sprayed onto the steel was never designed to withstand that sort of blast.

A rough calculation (100 tonnes moving at 330kts) gives an answer of about 1.5GJ. That's about 1/3 tonne of TNT exploding - that's a big bang