9-11 was an inside job.

It's becoming more and more clear to me as this thread continues that dog is just trying to get a rise out of people.  He just wants someone to talk to him.

He's not a victim of the brainwashing, but a victim... of loneliness.

Well geez guys, with arguments like that, why even watch the rest of the video? Wait, so that we can see how stupid these 9/11 conspiracy YouTube videos are? Sounds like a good reason to me.

Continued --

3:30 -- this guy says the "highest temperature" was in the east corner at 1,377F was recorded. That's not the same thing. The temperature there could have been far higher than 1,377 degrees -- that's just what was recorded. I bet there were far higher temperatures than that amount that were not recorded. In fact, even truthers would have to agree with me on that from the mere fact that if it was a controlled demolition, the temps would have had to have been higher to melt the steel. So is the issue then (a) that the steel melted at all, or (b) that the steel melted we agree, but its why did the steel melt, and only the controlled demolition can reach those temperatures?

4:01 -- this guy says that they are measuring the molten medal temperatures because there were no surface office fires? Where is that some established fact? And what does he mean when he says "office fires"? Like fires of pens and paper and shit? Or is he saying that to distinguish between "building fires"?

6:24 -- I agree with the NIST director. Just because something on the internet says so and so was an eyewitness, those quotes about molten metal all the way through earlier were just mere snippets of what was said. Those blurbs are the most likely to be taken wholly out of context. Or just because it says there was molten metal of some kind doesn't mean its immediately melted steel or that there was even molten metal AT ALL there.

Oh, and molten medal =/= melted steel. 

Just because you are educated doesn't mean you can't be fooled by silly shit. Case in point #1: paddy.

Oh, and this was a very interesting comment from that stupid YouTube video that I find to be applicable:

"Let be clear about something for one thing there is not overwhelming evidence of molten steel, secondly and most importantly the allegations of molten steel being found days or weeks later only would prove it is NOT thermite or demolitions, why? Because thermite is a fast burning incendiary and demolitions explode not melt, the only thing that would be able to keep metal in? a molten state would have to be a consistent heat source and no type of thermite or demolition does that"

You morons need to realize that even if the government came out and admitted to guilt your puny minds would find a way to still deny the truth.

Yes, I live in Canada.  I haven't a clue about the Arab boxcar conspiracy.  Did they drive some trains into the buildings?

ughhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

NIST Q&A

Why didn’t the NIST investigation consider reports of molten steel in the wreckage from the WTC towers?

NIST investigators

and experts from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)

and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEONY)—

who inspected the WTC steel at the WTC site and the salvage yards—

found no evidence that would support the melting of steel in a jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers prior to collapse.

The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing.

Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed.



 Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing.

NIST Investigation


analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage

 performed laboratory tests,

created sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.

NIST Investigation

three-year investigation

Some 200 technical experts

including about 85 career NIST experts

and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia




reviewed tens of thousands of documents,

interviewed more than 1,000 people,

reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage

and 7,000 photographs,

BMA

Anyone who watches the buildings collapse and then concludes it was not a result of demolition is a fucking invalid.

It was the result of poor engineering.  The building wasn't designed to sustain that impact and thus collapsed.

Until proven otherwise by a CREDIBLE SOURCE, that's what I'll believe.

Quote Originally Posted by dogunder:

Anyone who watches the buildings collapse and then concludes it was not a result of demolition is a fucking invalid.

The 13 experts of the NIST Investigation would if there had been a conspiracy produced a fraudulant report

Apparently, then, such distinguished Americans as these NIST experts got together in some smoky back room and all of them agreed, for some ungodly reason, to do the most dishonourable deed imaginable-give organized crime, the CIA, the military-industrial complex, or whoever was behind the 9/11, a free pass in the murder of citizens of United States.

And in the process, not only risk destroying everything they had worked for-their reputation and legacy to their families-but expose themselves to prosecution for the crime of accessory after the fact to murder. Ask yourself this: would any of these investigators, for instance, risk being remembered as an accessory after the fact to the murder of this nation's citizens, one who disgraced himself his country.




The mere asking of the question demonstrates the absurdity of the thought.

The mere asking of the question demonstrates the absurdity of the thought.


Indeed, why would any of the members of the NIST and their staff stake their good reputation on a report they prepared which they knew to be fraudulent?