September 11, 2001 (long read)

Yeah "dude" great rebuttle there.  You certainly put me in my place.  How bout engaging in the debate instead of going off course to try and prove that I "dont have a degree". 

Softening?  What does that have to do with what we're talking about?

I've mentioned somewhere in the first couple pages that the 9/11 commission found "massive amounts of melted still underneath the WTC rubble".  The steel was so hot that it continued to burn for weeks after the attacks on the 11th.  I thought this was where your steel arguement was coming from.

Now explain to me how steel could get over 2750 degrees just by the single added excellerant of diesel fuel?

1. 9/11 was an "inside job".....no way to ever prove it unless its classified info that wont be released 100yrs later.

2. War is BIG business for those few elites and their underlings.

3. Fear and Misinformation is used to control the masses.

4. Global Population Control is being used so our natural resources arent depleted.

5. Terrorism is a tool used to take away our human rights and freedom.

6. "In Gold Oil Drugs we Trust"

which one of these statements are true?

Find me ONE qualified engineer that says it was controlled demoliction.  ONE.

You can't cheat physics.

Duke education

The amount of spilling molten metal suggests a pool of molten iron was in that area of the building. While some have suggested that the molten metal was aluminum, this is easily disproved by the fact that molten aluminum appears silver-gray in daylight. The only possible explanation is that the white-hot metal gushing from the South Tower was molten iron and had been produced by a very large amount of thermite.

___________________

Another B.S. statement.  Aluminum can turn that color if it includes other organic compounds like furniture, carpet, etc.  Thse quacks just ignore evidence that doesn't fit there conception of how things could have happened. 

"Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface."

 https://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

If you prefer common sense explanations of why certain things happened.

Please show me in the 9/11 commission report where they said they found large amounts of molten steel at the site. 

Furthermore, a very large quantity of thermite (a mixture of powdered or granular aluminum metal and powdered iron oxide that burns at extremely high temperatures when ignited) or another incendiary compound would have had to be placed on at least the number of columns damaged by the aircraft impact and weakened by the subsequent fires to bring down a tower. Thermite burns slowly relative to explosive materials and can require several minutes in contact with a massive steel section to heat it to a temperature that would result in substantial weakening. Separate from the WTC towers investigation, NIST researchers estimated that at least 0.13 pounds of thermite would be required to heat each pound of a steel section to approximately 700 degrees Celsius (the temperature at which steel weakens substantially). Therefore, while a thermite reaction can cut through large steel columns, many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building. This makes it an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition.

______________________

Yeah, I'm sure they could have planted the many thousands of pounds of thermite (which would need to have been applied directly to the steel beams) without anyone noticing anything.

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A). 

As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:

“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”

In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.

From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.

____________

You can't cheat physics people. 

spiff-

You can't combat these loons with facts. 

Addressing your points:

1.)  I actually agree that I probably completely semi-contradicted myself here, now that I read it back. Let me explain what I really meant, and what I should have said..

The Bilderbergs do not deny their existance.  I still don't think I said this (as a matter of fact, I did not), but by saying "they operate in complete secracy", I can see how you interpreted it that way. 

The exent of their ONGOINGS are what is secret.  You can actually read on their website where each meeting will take place, and the members who were invited to those meetings.  Their website is: https://bilderbergmeetings.org/index.php

I'm rather sure that's their official website, although I do not have the book in front of me to verify.  I'll update this later with the real website, assuming that one is fake.

2.)  Okay, are they murderers or are they not? Here's where I was going with that..

I believe the orchastration of the 9/11 events, although people were "mindlessly murdered" as I put it before, was for a very distinct purpose.  This purpose took priority over the lives of thousands of civilians, much like the war in Iraq was said to be for "National Security". Thousands and thousands of troops died in Iraq.  Is it to say that these troops were murdered intentionally by the U.S. Military?  No.  But we knew there would be casualties, right?  Of course. 

The Bilderbergs felt that the deaths on 9/11 were necessary for the "greater good" of the planet in the long term. Would they chase and try to kill an author for telling lies?  There's no need to do that.  No one is going to believe him anyway, and that's very obvious by the tone of this thread.  I would say maybe 1 in every 10 people will actually believe Daniel Estulin, and the Bilderberg's know this.  Why try to kill the guy when you have hardly any chance of being implicated anyway?

3.)  I think I answered this in #2 above ^^

4.)  The Bilderberg's never tried to kill Estulin.  Daniel had many undercover friends.   Spies, former CIA operatives, MI5 agents, etc etc.  I don't believe for 1 second that the Bilderbergs made attempts on Estulin's life.  I DO believe however that whoever Estulin was meeting with subjected him to the "cross fire" by attempting to give him classified information about certain things. 

Would the U.S. government attempt to kill a CIA agent that was a Russian spy?  Sure they would.  Would they also target the person who was supposed to be recieving this classified information?  I believe the answer is yes.  And this person was Daniel Estulin.

5.)  These are questions that I unfortunately cannot answer, although I wish I could.  How the CIA, MI5, and other secret service organizations obtain information and operate are completely unknown to me.

Estulin could be making up everything for all I know.  But if you read the book, there are far too many coincidences to be fabricated, in my opinion.

Quote Originally Posted by HutchEmAll:

Has a Master's Degree yet can't understand when every reputable ENGINEER said the fire was hot enough to soften the steel allowing the building to collapse. 

Every reputable engineer, or just the ones you've found?  I can find about 6 in the next 45 seconds, if you want me to. 

Or we can do this:  For every "reputable engineer you find, I'll find one that contradicts your points.  I bet we'll each find 50 before we start having trouble. 

Accept the challenge?

Can a mod please put this thread out of it's misery.

I didn't think you'd quit so easily.  I'm disappointed!

I saw it Spitfire, I appreciate your words.  I was never actually asking for arguements, just thoughts on other people's views, and that's what you gave