More 9/11 talk


#1

Hehe. This one is kind of funny, in how obvious it is…

http://www.piratenews.org/thermite-thermate-wtc-steel400.jpg

I’ve one good, solid, corroborated and scientifically sound explanation for that core (cut on a 45 degree angle) in the background. Have you? :stuck_out_tongue:


#2

Ok, so if I can explain that one angle cut for you, will your “proof” of 9/11 conspiracy go away, or will you switch to something else?


#3

Well then your proof will have to contain evidence - hard evidence of thermate use in the demolitions. So I couldn’t reject it, could I? lol

There’s no other way to explain-away scientific evidence of thermate use, is there? :stuck_out_tongue:


#4

Nice crop on the photo, you don’t really get to see the context.

The original is here:

samhollenshead.com/eswtcslide/wtc05.html

and here’s a photo of the steelworkers making 45 degree cuts:

samhollenshead.com/eswtcslide/wtc03.html

They cut about 800 beams during the weeks after 9/11.

No conspiracy theory, just standard operating procedure for cutting steel.


#5

MiG MiG MiG… You’re not the first voice of dissent on this topic, nor the most well spoken, nor the most zealous, so if you’d actually like me to present my case, I will do so. But it’s slow, it’s meticulous, it’s comprehensive and takes time. I’d say a private thread should be created whilst I compiled this then invite others to discuss it. It’s too easily to be bombarded by hoardes of people in discussions like this.

Typically, I do so in groups, where I’m the speaker, I show documents, I show evidence, I show films (with permission, of course) then question/answer periods.

To do this on a public forum is just… usually futile, unfortunately.

But for sure, anyone is more than welcome, and privy to, what I know. :smile:


#6

This doesn’t explain-away evidence of thermate use at all three WtC’s.


#7

Wait a second, you said that was concrete proof.

I completely showed that it was concrete proof of how welders and steelworkers cut down the 800 beams or so after 9/11.  You want more photos of them doing so?

Now you just withdraw?

That’s the textbook definition of a conspiracy theory, isn’t it?

I content that those angles were cut by the welders after 9/11.  I have a bunch more photos of them at work if you want them. 

Prove me wrong.


#8

Stephen Jones discusses his findings, here:

video.google.com/videoplay?docid … even+jones

50-some minutes. :smile: Take a peek.

Then refute it. G’head. lol


#9

Wait, you said that photo was evidence of thermite, and I’ve proved that photo is evidence of really good work by welders.

You don’t accept that?


#10

And this is why it’s impossible to have a 9/11 talk with a “True Believer”

You present evidence of your theory.  That evidence is quashed.  You move on to something else.

Perfect example.


#11

You posted that photo as evidence.  You said it was obvious and funny. 

I posed that it was indeed evidence.  Of a great welding job.  I posted the original photo, and the photos taken by the same photographer on the same day, of the welders at work making that cut.

To me, that’s pretty easily debunked your photo.

Do you not agree? 

Or is your response to move on to something else rather than admit that photo is evidence of a good welding job?


#12

LOL MiG…

To be honest, you don’t sound too open… Truly. I’ve met those who genuinely want me to present this stuff, and it doesn’t sound like you. I may be reading into your postings wrong, though. :smile:

You’re doing the Fox thing: which is to bombard, make generalizations, make accusations and so forth.

If you’re actually interested - I’ll put in the time to inform. But the prerequisite is a person’s genuine interest. There’s plenty interested and plenty will hear it – but if you’re not truly interested, just say so.

I have no qualms investing time in this, if you truly want it. Not if you don’t, though.


#13

No. There’s a scientific explanation as to what that once molten steel is comprised of. :smile: If you want it, I’ll give it, but see my above post.

It does take time and is very meticulous because it’s such a vast topic. It’s not really a 1+1=2 scenario.


#14

So you don’t accept that the photo you posted was an example of the 800 or so cuts made by welders?

Even though I posted the photo by the same photographer of those very same welders making the cut?


#15

You certainly seemed to think it was in your first post.  Obvious and Funny is what you called it.

So here’s what you said, because you keep wanting to drift to somewhere else:

My explanation for the 45 degree angle is that the welders cut it at a 45 degree angle.  The same photographer who shot this photo actually took a photo of the welders making the cut.  The images are linked above.

Now you asked for an explanation, and that’s it.  You don’t accept it?


#16

Yea. One of those hindsight things. For sure. lol

Where something seems so ludicrous once you know. “How’d I miss that?”


#17

Here are some photos of the welders at work.  These photos (and yours) were all from September 15th and later.

[original attachment deleted after 2 years]


#18

I think you’re confused, perhaps I mistyped something.

What makes this photo damning isn’t, alone, the cut (altho the cut itself is certainly eyebrow raising), it’s the once molten steel. And not just the the once molten steel - the color, what it consists of and so forth.


#19

Well, I think I’ve proven beyond a doubt that the cuts were made by welders.

Case closed.

More photos of welders cutting at Ground Zero:

[original attachment deleted after 2 years]


#20

And truly, if you want this presented, I’ll do it.

But I don’t much care for wasting my time if they’re not truly interested.

If you are: Stop with the bombardments. Truly.

It’s more productive to do it in a strict:

You ask question > I answer fully.

… But please, be actually interested. As interested as you were when you got a computer for the first time and, presumably, wanted to learn about it.

A positive, keen interest.

This does not sound like that.  (Am I wrong?)