911 WTC 7 Silent Thermate Demolition, Debunkers Grab Your Ankles!

[deep_space]

Really? Panes use jet A fule because I say so.

Significant unknowns? Really? Islam and 9/11. Wow, I just don't know how to reply to that. What color is the sky in your world...?

Nobody has ever seen a 101 story building collapse. Physics is scary. Nobody knows what to think when those towers went down, but unknown physics and a couple of planes full of jet A fuel and planes crashed used by wacko Islamo nut jobs had everything to do with this...

BTW: that is 110 story skyscraper and even though it has never been done before, there are some fundamental physical laws to consider, and the total destruction of the towers is definitely the least likely out-come of all the available options.

Maybe to you "physics is scary" but to some of us who have made a career out of handling applied physics, its really not.

From a previous post by you "And Jet fuel burns much hotter." Allegedly in comparison to gasoline, Please tell me where you got this bit of information.

Look it up kidoo , how do I know? I have lived aviation all my life, it's a given, JET A, not gas from a car or a truck. You been a around airport, you smell the difference. I have flown, there is a difference in the octane rating. Plane pure and simple.

"look it up" Gasoline - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( scroll down to the table comparing different fuels )

 

[Capstone]

...The physics involved in the collapse of the twin towers, nobody knows and it's never been fully understood.

I love it! All the work done by the government's science lackeys and private sector boot-lickers, along with hundreds of years of experimental validation of Newtonian physics, ...whisked away like so much dust on the jacket of a long-forgotten book. I will say this, if it weren't for the fact that it's actually one of the more compelling arguments for the OCT I've seen to date, I wouldn't have bothered to respond.

I know, let's put it in the form of a syllogism, just to see how it looks:

P1) If the Laws of Physics are a bunch of hooey, nobody could draw any reliable conclusions from their application to observed phenomena.

P2) The Laws of Physics are a bunch of hooey.

Conclusion: Therefore, 19 coke-snorting, stripper-scrogging, devout Islamic fundamentalists hijacked 4 airliners, flew them at speeds documented by the NTSB that would have been impossible for the types of aircraft they were allegedly piloting, brought down 3 enormous skyscrapers in NYC with only 2 airplanes; and things like freefall, molten steel, and the unreacted but still active nano-engineered thermitic chips that were found in samples of WTC dust collected from 4 seperate locations...just don't matter.

Sound about right?

 

[Montrovant]

I get the feeling that if 'all the notable testimonial flip-flops' went in favor of your position, you'd hail them as evidence of what you consider the truth.

I can't speak to that "feeling", Monty. I can, however, assure you that I most certainly would not be hailing the testimonies of flip-floppers as evidence of anything but their lack of credibility. I've never been one to undermine my own intellectual honesty.

We're not talking about minor differences, which could be rationalized as natural lapses of memory ETC.; we're talking about complete reversals of previously documented accounts.

monte worships the governments version of events no matter how absurd they are.He worships the versions of what the media and our corrupt government institutions tell him over experts in their fields.lol

He would rather listen to what our corrupt government institutuions tell him about the version of the pentagon that a plane hit that building and did all those incredible manuvers in the air instead of the best expert pilots in the world what THEY have to say.what they have to say means nothing to him.

It means ZERO to him for example that the lady in the air traffic control tower said the air manuvers that were being done by the alleged airliner in the air were so incredible,she thought that it was a jet fighter since a jet fighter would be the only aircraft that could do all those incredible manuvers in the air that were done.not to mention the fact that the best pilots in the world have said THEY could not have pulled off those incredible feats of manuver in the air with a jet airliner that an ALLEGED airliner did.

somehow what that lady traffic controller said and what expert pilots from around the world have said,they are not credible people to him,only the LAMESTREAM media and our government are credible to him.

thats how you know that agents faun,gomer pyle ollie and dawshit-aka sayit,are all indeed paid goverment disinfo agents the fact they constantly come back here everyday for their constant ass beatings they get here everyday.no way would they come back here everyday and make up lies like they do here everyday without getting paid,no way would they do it for free,no way no how.

when you bring up those facts to monte,he is left only capable of doing this in reply.

thats why i dont waste my time with him anymore in the conspiracy section.Now the nonsense he talks in the sports section i can put up with and tolerate, but not in the conspiracy section.

Yeah, I worship the government's version of events. You total nitwit.

Rather than just saying "nitwit", please tell your interpretation of the events as different from the official story.

If you haven't followed 9/11's posts to see how this is just the same tired spiel he throws around no matter the subject, perhaps you would be better off not inserting yourself into it.

As to how I think events were different from the official story, I don't. I'm certainly aware that the official story is incomplete in some details and that it may be wrong in places, but I, along with millions of others, watched as the planes flew into the towers live on television. I've seen various video clips, read statements from witnesses, etc. enough that I find the idea there were no planes, or the planes were something other than what we've all seen, to be pretty ludicrous.

So, planes flew into the towers. I've said before that the nature of the collapses, straight down into themselves, struck me as odd when it happened and still seems odd. However, as I saw no evidence of demolition at the time and have seen no compelling evidence of demolition since, I'm left with the options of either accepting what I saw and the official reports, or believing in some sort of secretive, massive conspiracy using possibly unknown technology to bring down the buildings.

As there are plenty of other instances in life in which something appears odd but clearly happened, I'm willing to go with the official report, in general.

I'm not opposed to questioning, but the trend among the CT posters on this site is not to question but to assume that some or all of the official report is lies, intentional fabrications to cover up a grand conspiracy by some international cabal that secretly controls the world, or something to that effect. 9/11IJ has a long history of finding conspiracy in everything (he's suddenly decided the NFL is part of a conspiracy because of a playcall he didn't like in the Super Bowl) and claiming that everyone who disagrees with him is ignoring the facts, then following that up by claiming to have put those posters on ignore and making fart jokes.

 

[deep_space]

I get the feeling that if 'all the notable testimonial flip-flops' went in favor of your position, you'd hail them as evidence of what you consider the truth.

I can't speak to that "feeling", Monty. I can, however, assure you that I most certainly would not be hailing the testimonies of flip-floppers as evidence of anything but their lack of credibility. I've never been one to undermine my own intellectual honesty.

We're not talking about minor differences, which could be rationalized as natural lapses of memory ETC.; we're talking about complete reversals of previously documented accounts.

monte worships the governments version of events no matter how absurd they are.He worships the versions of what the media and our corrupt government institutions tell him over experts in their fields.lol

He would rather listen to what our corrupt government institutuions tell him about the version of the pentagon that a plane hit that building and did all those incredible manuvers in the air instead of the best expert pilots in the world what THEY have to say.what they have to say means nothing to him.

It means ZERO to him for example that the lady in the air traffic control tower said the air manuvers that were being done by the alleged airliner in the air were so incredible,she thought that it was a jet fighter since a jet fighter would be the only aircraft that could do all those incredible manuvers in the air that were done.not to mention the fact that the best pilots in the world have said THEY could not have pulled off those incredible feats of manuver in the air with a jet airliner that an ALLEGED airliner did.

somehow what that lady traffic controller said and what expert pilots from around the world have said,they are not credible people to him,only the LAMESTREAM media and our government are credible to him.

thats how you know that agents faun,gomer pyle ollie and dawshit-aka sayit,are all indeed paid goverment disinfo agents the fact they constantly come back here everyday for their constant ass beatings they get here everyday.no way would they come back here everyday and make up lies like they do here everyday without getting paid,no way would they do it for free,no way no how.

when you bring up those facts to monte,he is left only capable of doing this in reply.

thats why i dont waste my time with him anymore in the conspiracy section.Now the nonsense he talks in the sports section i can put up with and tolerate, but not in the conspiracy section.

Yeah, I worship the government's version of events. You total nitwit.

Rather than just saying "nitwit", please tell your interpretation of the events as different from the official story.

If you haven't followed 9/11's posts to see how this is just the same tired spiel he throws around no matter the subject, perhaps you would be better off not inserting yourself into it.

As to how I think events were different from the official story, I don't. I'm certainly aware that the official story is incomplete in some details and that it may be wrong in places, but I, along with millions of others, watched as the planes flew into the towers live on television. I've seen various video clips, read statements from witnesses, etc. enough that I find the idea there were no planes, or the planes were something other than what we've all seen, to be pretty ludicrous.

So, planes flew into the towers. I've said before that the nature of the collapses, straight down into themselves, struck me as odd when it happened and still seems odd. However, as I saw no evidence of demolition at the time and have seen no compelling evidence of demolition since, I'm left with the options of either accepting what I saw and the official reports, or believing in some sort of secretive, massive conspiracy using possibly unknown technology to bring down the buildings.

As there are plenty of other instances in life in which something appears odd but clearly happened, I'm willing to go with the official report, in general.

I'm not opposed to questioning, but the trend among the CT posters on this site is not to question but to assume that some or all of the official report is lies, intentional fabrications to cover up a grand conspiracy by some international cabal that secretly controls the world, or something to that effect. 9/11IJ has a long history of finding conspiracy in everything (he's suddenly decided the NFL is part of a conspiracy because of a playcall he didn't like in the Super Bowl) and claiming that everyone who disagrees with him is ignoring the facts, then following that up by claiming to have put those posters on ignore and making fart jokes.

Thank you for your opinion, so you agree with the official account of what allegedly happened. are you willing to revise your position if you were shown facts that prove the official story is a crock?

 

[Montrovant]

I can't speak to that "feeling", Monty. I can, however, assure you that I most certainly would not be hailing the testimonies of flip-floppers as evidence of anything but their lack of credibility. I've never been one to undermine my own intellectual honesty.

We're not talking about minor differences, which could be rationalized as natural lapses of memory ETC.; we're talking about complete reversals of previously documented accounts.

monte worships the governments version of events no matter how absurd they are.He worships the versions of what the media and our corrupt government institutions tell him over experts in their fields.lol

He would rather listen to what our corrupt government institutuions tell him about the version of the pentagon that a plane hit that building and did all those incredible manuvers in the air instead of the best expert pilots in the world what THEY have to say.what they have to say means nothing to him.

It means ZERO to him for example that the lady in the air traffic control tower said the air manuvers that were being done by the alleged airliner in the air were so incredible,she thought that it was a jet fighter since a jet fighter would be the only aircraft that could do all those incredible manuvers in the air that were done.not to mention the fact that the best pilots in the world have said THEY could not have pulled off those incredible feats of manuver in the air with a jet airliner that an ALLEGED airliner did.

somehow what that lady traffic controller said and what expert pilots from around the world have said,they are not credible people to him,only the LAMESTREAM media and our government are credible to him.

thats how you know that agents faun,gomer pyle ollie and dawshit-aka sayit,are all indeed paid goverment disinfo agents the fact they constantly come back here everyday for their constant ass beatings they get here everyday.no way would they come back here everyday and make up lies like they do here everyday without getting paid,no way would they do it for free,no way no how.

when you bring up those facts to monte,he is left only capable of doing this in reply.

thats why i dont waste my time with him anymore in the conspiracy section.Now the nonsense he talks in the sports section i can put up with and tolerate, but not in the conspiracy section.

Yeah, I worship the government's version of events. You total nitwit.

Rather than just saying "nitwit", please tell your interpretation of the events as different from the official story.

If you haven't followed 9/11's posts to see how this is just the same tired spiel he throws around no matter the subject, perhaps you would be better off not inserting yourself into it.

As to how I think events were different from the official story, I don't. I'm certainly aware that the official story is incomplete in some details and that it may be wrong in places, but I, along with millions of others, watched as the planes flew into the towers live on television. I've seen various video clips, read statements from witnesses, etc. enough that I find the idea there were no planes, or the planes were something other than what we've all seen, to be pretty ludicrous.

So, planes flew into the towers. I've said before that the nature of the collapses, straight down into themselves, struck me as odd when it happened and still seems odd. However, as I saw no evidence of demolition at the time and have seen no compelling evidence of demolition since, I'm left with the options of either accepting what I saw and the official reports, or believing in some sort of secretive, massive conspiracy using possibly unknown technology to bring down the buildings.

As there are plenty of other instances in life in which something appears odd but clearly happened, I'm willing to go with the official report, in general.

I'm not opposed to questioning, but the trend among the CT posters on this site is not to question but to assume that some or all of the official report is lies, intentional fabrications to cover up a grand conspiracy by some international cabal that secretly controls the world, or something to that effect. 9/11IJ has a long history of finding conspiracy in everything (he's suddenly decided the NFL is part of a conspiracy because of a playcall he didn't like in the Super Bowl) and claiming that everyone who disagrees with him is ignoring the facts, then following that up by claiming to have put those posters on ignore and making fart jokes.

Thank you for your opinion, so you agree with the official account of what allegedly happened. are you willing to revise your position if you were shown facts that prove the official story is a crock?

Assuming they actually proved such a thing, of course. To date, no such thing has been proven that I've seen, and I find it extremely unlikely this far past the event that some new facts will emerge to change things, particularly in the conspiracy theory section of a message board.

 

[deep_space]

Assuming they actually proved such a thing, of course.

and therein lies the crux of the matter, people have produced proof that constitutes ( at least to me + others I know.... ) proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the events of 9/11/2001 were most definitely NOT as reported in the media, or the NIST "reports" on the subject.

I understand that there are some people with HUGE expectations as to the level of proof to be provided, however, when the evidence supporting the official story is shown to be so very thin, that is the alleged recovery of X% of "FLT93" but all that is available is pix of a huge bin of rubble.
And the very fact that three skyscrapers were totally destroyed on that day.

 

[SAYIT]

Assuming they actually proved such a thing, of course.

and therein lies the crux of the matter, people have produced proof that constitutes ( at least to me + others I know.... ) proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the events of 9/11/2001 were most definitely NOT as reported in the media, or the NIST "reports" on the subject.

I understand that there are some people with HUGE expectations as to the level of proof to be provided, however, when the evidence supporting the official story is shown to be so very thin, that is the alleged recovery of X% of "FLT93" but all that is available is pix of a huge bin of rubble.
And the very fact that three skyscrapers were totally destroyed on that day.

Well, let's deal with that. Most of us have a prob with the destruction of 9/11. Specifically what prob do you have with it?

 

[KokomoJojo]

As to how I think events were different from the official story, I don't. I'm certainly aware that the official story is incomplete in some details and that it may be wrong in places, but I, along with millions of others, watched as the planes flew into the towers live on television. I've seen various video clips, read statements from witnesses, etc. enough that I find the idea there were no planes, or the planes were something other than what we've all seen, to be pretty ludicrous.

Thats right you saw it on TV so you know its twu!

 

[SAYIT]

As to how I think events were different from the official story, I don't. I'm certainly aware that the official story is incomplete in some details and that it may be wrong in places, but I, along with millions of others, watched as the planes flew into the towers live on television. I've seen various video clips, read statements from witnesses, etc. enough that I find the idea there were no planes, or the planes were something other than what we've all seen, to be pretty ludicrous.

Thats right you saw it on TV so you know its twu!

And then there were all those peeps - some who recorded it - who saw it live without the aid of TV but yanno KooKoo, maybe you're right. Maybe there were no planes on 9/11 and maybe there were no WTC skyscrapers and maybe no one died that day and maybe there's no al-Qaeda and maybe...

 

[KokomoJojo]

As to how I think events were different from the official story, I don't. I'm certainly aware that the official story is incomplete in some details and that it may be wrong in places, but I, along with millions of others, watched as the planes flew into the towers live on television. I've seen various video clips, read statements from witnesses, etc. enough that I find the idea there were no planes, or the planes were something other than what we've all seen, to be pretty ludicrous.

Thats right you saw it on TV so you know its twu!

And then there were all those peeps - some who recorded it - who saw it live without the aid of TV but yanno KooKoo, maybe you're right. Maybe there were no planes on 9/11 and maybe there were no WTC skyscrapers and maybe no one died that day and maybe there's no al-Qaeda and maybe...

then there were all those peeps and reporters who saw only an explosion.
Stay calm dont pop your cork now.

 

[Montrovant]

As to how I think events were different from the official story, I don't. I'm certainly aware that the official story is incomplete in some details and that it may be wrong in places, but I, along with millions of others, watched as the planes flew into the towers live on television. I've seen various video clips, read statements from witnesses, etc. enough that I find the idea there were no planes, or the planes were something other than what we've all seen, to be pretty ludicrous.

Thats right you saw it on TV so you know its twu!

And then there were all those peeps - some who recorded it - who saw it live without the aid of TV but yanno KooKoo, maybe you're right. Maybe there were no planes on 9/11 and maybe there were no WTC skyscrapers and maybe no one died that day and maybe there's no al-Qaeda and maybe...

then there were all those peeps and reporters who saw only an explosion.
Stay calm dont pop your cork now.

If some people saw planes fly into the towers, and some people did not, why do you assume there were no planes? Would it not seem more reasonable to think that some people only viewed it from the opposite side of the tower when a plane hit and therefore only saw the explosion it caused, rather than that many, many people are just lying about what they saw for no discernible reason?

 

[KokomoJojo]

As to how I think events were different from the official story, I don't. I'm certainly aware that the official story is incomplete in some details and that it may be wrong in places, but I, along with millions of others, watched as the planes flew into the towers live on television. I've seen various video clips, read statements from witnesses, etc. enough that I find the idea there were no planes, or the planes were something other than what we've all seen, to be pretty ludicrous.

Thats right you saw it on TV so you know its twu!

And then there were all those peeps - some who recorded it - who saw it live without the aid of TV but yanno KooKoo, maybe you're right. Maybe there were no planes on 9/11 and maybe there were no WTC skyscrapers and maybe no one died that day and maybe there's no al-Qaeda and maybe...

then there were all those peeps and reporters who saw only an explosion.
Stay calm dont pop your cork now.

If some people saw planes fly into the towers, and some people did not, why do you assume there were no planes? Would it not seem more reasonable to think that some people only viewed it from the opposite side of the tower when a plane hit and therefore only saw the explosion it caused, rather than that many, many people are just lying about what they saw for no discernible reason?

no its not reasonable unless I wanted to call them a liar since they said they neither saw nor heard a plane, and no they were not on the opposite side of the building. Seems to me no one heard a plane. further more its easy to see they were blew up and the plane cgi'd over the top.

 

[SAYIT]

As to how I think events were different from the official story, I don't. I'm certainly aware that the official story is incomplete in some details and that it may be wrong in places, but I, along with millions of others, watched as the planes flew into the towers live on television. I've seen various video clips, read statements from witnesses, etc. enough that I find the idea there were no planes, or the planes were something other than what we've all seen, to be pretty ludicrous.

Thats right you saw it on TV so you know its twu!

And then there were all those peeps - some who recorded it - who saw it live without the aid of TV but yanno KooKoo, maybe you're right. Maybe there were no planes on 9/11 and maybe there were no WTC skyscrapers and maybe no one died that day and maybe there's no al-Qaeda and maybe...

then there were all those peeps and reporters who saw only an explosion.
Stay calm dont pop your cork now.

If some people saw planes fly into the towers, and some people did not, why do you assume there were no planes? Would it not seem more reasonable to think that some people only viewed it from the opposite side of the tower when a plane hit and therefore only saw the explosion it caused, rather than that many, many people are just lying about what they saw for no discernible reason?

no its not reasonable unless I wanted to call them a liar since they said they neither saw nor heard a plane, and no they were not on the opposite side of the building. Seems to me no one heard a plane. further more its easy to see they were blew up and the plane cgi'd over the top.

And there you have it. No matter how hard Cappy tries to pretend the 9/11 "Truther" Movement was a sincere and serious search for the truth [ ], fellow "Truthers" like KooKoo and Spammy and HandJob keep proving that was never the case.

 

[n0spam4me]

Major problem I have with the whole fiasco, is the fact that it is obvious any airliner flying into a skyscraper would have to experience a huge jolt upon contact with the wall. This jolt would be sufficient to break up the aircraft, and considering the fact that the alleged hit by "FLT175" happened at a 12.5 deg off perpendicular to the wall, no airframe ever flown could withstand the forces involved.
Just to make an example here and to be VERY generous with the estimations lets say that the airliner looses 1/8th of its velocity in the first 15 meters of penetration, that is >60g and as such the 5 ton jet engines will stress their mounts by 300 tons, and for that 15 meters of travel, it would take 0.06 sec. so there is plenty of time for the engines to break off and in breaking off, they would most certainly tumble, and as a rotating object striking the WTC wall with only the KE of the jet engine, there is NO WAY either jet engine would have penetrated the WTC wall.
The whole bit about "FLT11", "FLT175", & "FLT77 having penetrated walls and disappeared inside the building(s) is a total FARCE, its FRAUD!

 

[Capstone]

Assuming they actually proved such a thing, of course. To date, no such thing has been proven that I've seen, and I find it extremely unlikely this far past the event that some new facts will emerge to change things, particularly in the conspiracy theory section of a message board.

The agreed upon period of freefall that's been observed and charted by experts from both sides of the debate (including NIST) is proof positive that the official explanation requires the suspension of faith in the laws of physics. The second law of motion (f = ma) dictates that the acceleration of a falling object is governed by its mass and the resultant force(s) acting on it. When the acceleration is equal to that of gravity, the resultant force is demonstrably only the force of gravity. Since the third law tells us that interacting falling objects would exert equal and opposite forces between them, thereby decreasing the acceleration of their fall, we can say with certainty that Building 7's outer shell experienced zero resistance (which is very different from "negligible support") from more than 8 floors worth of internal AND external materials. What's more, in order to account for the symmetry of the observed collapse, those 8 floors would had to have been removed in a manner that cannot be explained by any of the natural forces at work in a 'fire-induced progressive collapse'. The only physically possible explanation for the complete removal of an 8-story portion from the highly symmetrical path of descent of the upper 39 floors...is a precisely timed/controlled demolition. Since this body of empirical evidence alone totally falsifies a major piece of the official explanation and strongly suggests that Building 7 was rigged in advance of 9/11/01, the remainder of the NEOCT should be cast into serious doubt in the minds of all reasonable people.

All the squabbling over other aspects of the available evidence aside, Monty, if you believe in the veracity of some of the best-established fundamental principles in physics, you cannot also believe in the veracity of the NEOCT. This alone should be ample cause for the rejection (not just the "questioning") of the latter, at least for those who don't incorrigibly cling to their officially authorized fantasy worlds.

 

[Faun]

You're a fucking nut. The fact that you defend your hallucinations with such furor reveals that as well as revealing a common psychosis which appears common among you twoofers -- the need the twist reality into your distorted world view to accommodate the conspiracy you've married....

Projecting much?

Speaking of perfect examples of twisted realities...

...Here's a perfect example. In your world, aluminum can't glow when heated enough. ...

Again, it's not a matter of incandescence; it's a matter of color, more specifically that which may or may not be attainable under very specific conditions (E.G. pouring down 80-some stories in both open air and broad daylight). Now pay close attention, Faun: I don't deny that molten aluminum can glow, nor do I deny that it can apparently do so with red hot intensity under certain conditions. What I deny is that those conditions could have been present as whatever we saw was pouring out into the open air outside of the south tower on 9/11/01.

...You must believe that and defend that at all costs (even at the cost of your sanity) because your goal is to remain faithful to your idiotic notion that the molten metal seen pouring out of the tower cannot possibly be aluminum. Even when shown an example of molten aluminum glowing red hot, your instincts kick in, block all abilities at sound reasoning and logic, and spit forth a string of empty and worthless denials. All key, mind you, to being the quintessential twoofer (i.e., batshit crazy). ...

Meanwhile, you must continue to misinterpret, distort, and mischaracterize your opponents' statements and views (albeit maybe sometimes subconsciously, as a defense mechanism to safeguard your cherished delusions?), even after the "evidence" you've provided has been exposed as suspect at best. Almost as if the tendency to distort rather than address opposing views were an instinctive behavior commonly triggered with the 'life or death' level of urgency that seems so key to the deep-seated motivations of the quintessential "debwunker" you are (I.E. hopelessly self-deluded on a pathological scale).

...sorry twoofer, your lock step denials fail to alter that video. The molten aluminum seen it is most certainly glowing...

Nor does the accusation of a denial I never made alter the fact that the video was clearly either filmed under intensely reddish-orange lighting (for whatever reasons) or later tampered with by someone with an agenda (possibly the uploader).

In any event, the color on the glowing aluminum that was poured into the molds (I'm talking about that barely perceptible hint of orange from which your entire argument dangles like the last remaining baby tooth in the mouth of a disillusioned 13 year-old) can easily be explained by reflectivity or manipulative deception.

Polly, want a cracker?

What, imitation isn't the sincerest form of flattery?

Sorry, I was just trying to be complimentary................

Your denials of denying the molten aluminum glowed from being heated are noted, but for the benefit of the casual read who might not have seen your denial .... of the molten aluminum seen glowing in that video, you attributed it not to being heated, but to ....

"Had you watched the video, you should have perceived the tint of the lighting apparently shining down on the molds...and that, even though the poured aluminum vaguely reflected that light, it still appeared more silvery-white than orange."​

Only after being bashed over the head a couple of times did you finally acknowledge the molten aluminium did glow from heat, but even that came after your ridiculous notion that someone tinkered with the tint of the video itself.

But even after acknowledging that molten aluminum can indeed glow from heat, you then deny the possibility of it being the material seen falling from the tower.

About the only consistency among you brain-dead Twoofers is insanity.

 

[Faun]

As to how I think events were different from the official story, I don't. I'm certainly aware that the official story is incomplete in some details and that it may be wrong in places, but I, along with millions of others, watched as the planes flew into the towers live on television. I've seen various video clips, read statements from witnesses, etc. enough that I find the idea there were no planes, or the planes were something other than what we've all seen, to be pretty ludicrous.

Thats right you saw it on TV so you know its twu!

And then there were all those peeps - some who recorded it - who saw it live without the aid of TV but yanno KooKoo, maybe you're right. Maybe there were no planes on 9/11 and maybe there were no WTC skyscrapers and maybe no one died that day and maybe there's no al-Qaeda and maybe...

then there were all those peeps and reporters who saw only an explosion.
Stay calm dont pop your cork now.

Not seeing a plane is not proof there was no plane. There are many reasons that can occur. Many of the people who said that were not at a vantage point to see the plane as they were inside one of the towers and only heard and saw the explosion (which they accurately described sounding like a bomb). Many others were on the east side of the tower while many others may not have been looking up at that moment. Whatever the reasons for not seeing a plane, while absence of evidence is not evidence, there are many witnesses who said they saw a plane fly into the building.

And of course, there are dozens upon dozens of personal videos of it from people from all around the city. Not one single person has ever complained their video had the plane added.

 

[Capstone]

Your denials of denying the molten aluminum glowed from being heated are noted, but for the benefit of the casual read who might not have seen your denial .... of the molten aluminum seen glowing in that video, you attributed it not to being heated, but to ....

"Had you watched the video, you should have perceived the tint of the lighting apparently shining down on the molds...and that, even though the poured aluminum vaguely reflected that light, it still appeared more silvery-white than orange."​

Only after being bashed over the head a couple of times did you finally acknowledge the molten aluminium did glow from heat, but even that came after your ridiculous notion that someone tinkered with the tint of the video itself. ...

Well, for the benefit of those with capacities for reading comprehension either equal to or weaker than yours...

tint
/tint/
noun
1. a shade or variety of color. ...

...pointing out that the poured/setting aluminum was apparently reflecting the bizarre "tint" (read: color) of the lighting (which was clearly visible in various places throughout that video) was in no way a denial of the fact that molten aluminum can "glow".

The reason I've consistently specified the color aspect of the incandescence is because that is the aspect that's relevant to the issue at hand, namely the color of the molten material seen pouring out of the South Tower on 9/11/01.

...But even after acknowledging that molten aluminum can indeed glow from heat, you then deny the possibility of it being the material seen falling from the tower. ...

What I denied is that the conditions required for molten aluminum to attain the proper color...could have been met as it poured down 80-some stories in the open air and broad daylight after having been melted at the temperatures reportedly reached inside WTC2 -- a fact that's been perfectly consistent with my unwavering focus on color all along.

...About the only consistency among you brain-dead Twoofers is insanity.

And about the only thing you've consistently demonstrated in our somewhat limited interaction on this board is your virtual lack of worthiness to be taken seriously...by anyone. By all means though, keep up the good work.

 

[Faun]

Your denials of denying the molten aluminum glowed from being heated are noted, but for the benefit of the casual read who might not have seen your denial .... of the molten aluminum seen glowing in that video, you attributed it not to being heated, but to ....

"Had you watched the video, you should have perceived the tint of the lighting apparently shining down on the molds...and that, even though the poured aluminum vaguely reflected that light, it still appeared more silvery-white than orange."​

Only after being bashed over the head a couple of times did you finally acknowledge the molten aluminium did glow from heat, but even that came after your ridiculous notion that someone tinkered with the tint of the video itself. ...

Well, for the benefit of those with capacities for reading comprehension either equal to or weaker than yours...

tint
/tint/
noun
1. a shade or variety of color. ...

...pointing out that the poured/setting aluminum was apparently reflecting the bizarre "tint" (read: color) of the lighting (which was clearly visible in various places throughout that video) was in no way a denial of the fact that molten aluminum can "glow".

The reason I've consistently specified the color aspect of the incandescence is because that is the aspect that's relevant to the issue at hand, namely the color of the molten material seen pouring out of the South Tower on 9/11/01.

...But even after acknowledging that molten aluminum can indeed glow from heat, you then deny the possibility of it being the material seen falling from the tower. ...

What I denied is that the conditions required for molten aluminum to attain the proper color...could have been met as it poured down 80-some stories in the open air and broad daylight after having been melted at the temperatures reportedly reached inside WTC2 -- a fact that's been perfectly consistent with my unwavering focus on color all along.

...About the only consistency among you brain-dead Twoofers is insanity.

And about the only thing you've consistently demonstrated in our somewhat limited interaction on this board is your virtual lack of worthiness to be taken seriously...by anyone. By all means though, keep up the good work.

Watching your denials shift from first attributing the glowing to reflecting the glow from the crucible to your shifting to the "bizarre tint," possibly by intentional "tampering" of the video, has been almost as amusing as watching you deny you initially denied molten aluminum can glow when sufficiently heated. A state for molten aluminum which you called spurious. So you had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, but you've now proved 4 separate opinions on the matter; ranging from spurious, to reflecting the glow from the crucible, to possible tampering, to finally admitting molten aluminum actually can glow ... but not the right color.

You're so intent on clinging to your conspiracy idiocy, you have no choice but to shift your fluid positions like the tide as they are exposed as the delusions all rational people recognize them to be.

 

[Capstone]

The molten aluminum in the video may well have been reflecting the color emanating from within the crucible, as well as that coming from the ambient lighting after it was poured into the molds. Pointing out both possibilities isn't tantamount to "switch[ing]" a thing.

As for my use of the word "spurious", it was partially in reference to the fact that the video embedded by Daws in post #766 made no mention of the distinction between the colors attainable (by whatever means) during the melting process vs. those that could be exhibited as molten aluminum is poured down 80+ stories through the open air in broad daylight. It had nothing to do with the glowing aspect of incandescence...and everything to do with the color aspect, as have all the relevant statements I've made since.

Too bad for you all my posts are still there for any and all newcomers to the thread to go back and read for themselves.

What is amusing though, speaking of the ol' switcheroo, is how you started out talking about both aspects of incandescence ("glowing orange") and then suddenly dropped the color aspect after only two posts.