Let troofer rebuttals of the latest scientific explanation of the collapse begin....

Discussion in 'Conspiracy Theories' started by Bern80, Sep 22, 2011.

  1. Bern80
    Offline

    Bern80 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,094
    Thanks Received:
    720
    Trophy Points:
    138
    Ratings:
    +726
  2. eots
    Offline

    eots no fly list

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2007
    Messages:
    28,995
    Thanks Received:
    2,034
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    IN TH HEARTS AND MINDS OF FREE MEN
    Ratings:
    +2,606
    so even more people dispute the NIST investigation and findings
     
  3. eots
    Offline

    eots no fly list

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2007
    Messages:
    28,995
    Thanks Received:
    2,034
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    IN TH HEARTS AND MINDS OF FREE MEN
    Ratings:
    +2,606
    and what about building 7 where did the aluminium come from to cause this


    [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A]wtc 7 collapse - YouTube[/ame]
     
  4. Bern80
    Offline

    Bern80 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,094
    Thanks Received:
    720
    Trophy Points:
    138
    Ratings:
    +726
    We aren't talking about building 7 right now eots (though I'm on record as saying there is a degree of logic to the idea that 7 was demolished). We're talking about the two main towers that all you troofers insist came down through a controlled demolition. Here you are given an explanation of how a fairly common chemical reacton could have caused explosions and molten metal. I'm simply waiting for the latest troofer excuse to insist this was still an inside job.
     
  5. eots
    Offline

    eots no fly list

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2007
    Messages:
    28,995
    Thanks Received:
    2,034
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    IN TH HEARTS AND MINDS OF FREE MEN
    Ratings:
    +2,606
    so they are saying years of research and the super computer models of NIST complete fabrications....goood then an independent investigation should be connived immediately
     
  6. eots
    Offline

    eots no fly list

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2007
    Messages:
    28,995
    Thanks Received:
    2,034
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    IN TH HEARTS AND MINDS OF FREE MEN
    Ratings:
    +2,606
    James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), has called for an independent review of NIST’s investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11.

    Dr. Quintiere made his plea during his presentation, “Questions on the WTC Investigations” at the 2007 World Fire Safety Conference. “I wish that there would be a peer review of this,” he said, referring to the NIST investigation. “I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they’ve done; both structurally and from a fire point of view.”

    “I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable,” explained Dr. Quintiere. “Let's look at real alternatives that might have been the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Towers and how that relates to the official cause and what's the significance of one cause versus another.”Dr. Quintiere, one of the world’s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, also encouraged his audience of fellow researchers and engineers to scientifically re-examine the WTC collapses. “I hope to convince you to perhaps become 'Conspiracy Theorists', but in a proper way,” he said.

    In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding.


    OpEdNews - Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation
     
  7. Mr. Jones
    Offline

    Mr. Jones Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2009
    Messages:
    2,501
    Thanks Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    USA
    Ratings:
    +161
    If this was possible then why didn't the NIST didn't even try to come up with any explanation like this, especially since as you say it "is a fairly common chemical reaction", Given NISTs expertise and all, you'd think this would have rode right off of Sunders lips when he was asked about explosions. Instead explosions were denied, and now they aren't, but supposedly accounted for with another highly improbable event, that still doesn't take into consideration the buildings collapses through the pathe of MOST RESISTANCE in seconds!
    But here's some comments I found concerning this latest attempt to further confuse and BS those suffering cognitive dissonance.

    The reaction he is talking about is one in which hot aluminum will "steal" oxygen from water, leaving hydrogen gas. There are two problems with this theory, of course.

    The first is the hydrogen gas is very light and floats upward even faster than helium. The ruins of the World Trade Towers were "porous" and as the smoke trails prove, there was a strong wind from the side. This means that hydrogen could not collect together anywhere in any amounts enough to cause an explosion, certainly not down in the basements, where some explosions were reported.

    Second, even under the most ideal of circumstances of perfect mixture of hydrogen and oxygen, impossible in the natural atmosphere and under those conditions, hydrogen may burn fast but does not detonate. Recall the destruction of the Hindenburg. Huge fire, no "bang."

    So this latest official "explanation" is a desperate attempt to reconcile eyewitness reports and video recordings of explosions (like the one that initiates the collapse of building 7) with the rapidly collapsing official story.

    In any event, this new 'aluminum' theory does NOT address all the evidence for a conspiracy. The aluminum theory does not explain how the United States Secret Service knew it was safe to leave George Bush sitting at that school reading about goats, with an airport just four miles away, nor does it explain how the BBC reported the collapse of building 7 twenty six minutes before it actually happened.

    Finally, given that aluminum is a rather common building material, why have we not seen such water and aluminum explosions before or since 9-11?
    -M. Rivero

    The headline seems to suggest that the conspiracies are over-due for a 'squashing', yet this theory assumes visible aspects of the demise of the buildings that has been spoken of by 'truthers' and denied by others as absurd for a long time. So one day the explosions are in the imagination of truthers, and now they are present, yet accounted for by a 'no bombs' theory. This theory, by the way, is not that simple. We have to assume that the aluminum was in ample and fairly even amounts all the way to the bottom.

    Especially harder to reconcile since the elevator shafts were staggered, and not all of them reached the bottom. So first they want you believe that "jet fuel" made its way 1/4 mile down to the bottom, and now this "chemical reaction"? Absurd..:cuckoo:

    Nobody with a brain is buying government-backed propaganda like this anymore...

    BTW...A chemical reaction with water caused the explosions??
    Sprinklers? What sprinklers?:
    “As maintenance and electrical workers talked to each other on their dedicated radio channel, one man trapped in a stairwell on the 103rd floor of the north tower called repeatedly for help.
    "Open the stairway door," he called. The radio picked up his labored breathing, and he reported smoke rising. "People stuck in the stairway, open up the goddamn doors." Later he burst out, "Where's the f------ sprinkler system?"
    Source: USA Today “Just-released transcripts give voice to the horror” 8-28-2003
     
    Last edited: Sep 23, 2011
  8. Toro
    Offline

    Toro Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2005
    Messages:
    50,786
    Thanks Received:
    11,059
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    The Big Bend via Riderville
    Ratings:
    +25,123
    How can this be, when a plane didn't even crash into the towers that day?


    In fact, I'm beginning to think it never really happened. All this 10th anniversary stuff is just a government ploy to make you think it happened.
     
  9. eots
    Offline

    eots no fly list

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2007
    Messages:
    28,995
    Thanks Received:
    2,034
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    IN TH HEARTS AND MINDS OF FREE MEN
    Ratings:
    +2,606
    I think people like you are an irrelevant distraction from finding any truth
     
  10. Mr. Jones
    Offline

    Mr. Jones Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2009
    Messages:
    2,501
    Thanks Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    USA
    Ratings:
    +161
    Do you have proof of planes NOT hitting the towers that day, because there is proof they did.
    One of the reasons people don't believe the explanation of the collapses is the rapid onset of collapse initiation, and the rapid time it progressed in through the path of most resistance.
     

Share This Page