Were the laws of thermodynamics broken on 9/11 in addition to the laws of physics?

Discussion in '9/11' started by Munkle, Feb 9, 2019.

  1. ToddWB

    ToddWB Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2018
    Messages:
    1,362
    Likes Received:
    821
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    To what end did our government.. or shadowy figures in our government fake this destruction? So we would allow Iraq's oil to be sold to the highest bidder.. China? The temperature obtained in the building where generated by a 'chimney effect". As evil as our government is at times.. as Pres. Trump has done an excellent job of exposing much of that through the incremental exposure of the "deep state"; I find blaming them very difficult unless someone can demonstrate where there was trillions of dollars of money exchange hands.
     
  2. ToddWB

    ToddWB Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2018
    Messages:
    1,362
    Likes Received:
    821
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And if the Islamofascist did not do it.. why did they not say so? Since it is undisputed they want to destroy our country.. one excellent way would have been to do their best to convince the American people that the US government was behind 9/11. They made no attempt , whatsoever, to do so.
     
  3. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,188
    Likes Received:
    1,123
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No one said they were. As an alleged "engineer", what do you suppose the girder that the FEMA investigator Astaneh claims he saw melting is made of? Why does he need to be a metallurgist to know a STEEL girder he claims he saw MELTING is made of STEEL?

    That's exactly what your post is.
     
  4. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,188
    Likes Received:
    1,123
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You do realize you are off topic, right? This topic is called "Were the laws of thermodynamics broken on 9/11 in addition to the laws of physics?", so it's strictly about the science with respect to 9/11 not your theories about alleged suspects. Please start your own thread on your discussion points if you are interested in such a discussion.
     
  5. ToddWB

    ToddWB Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2018
    Messages:
    1,362
    Likes Received:
    821
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Ok Bobby.. no, the laws of thermodynamics were not broken in the collapse. I'll further state that there is NOTHING that will convince you that it wasn't "blown up" by dark and sinister entities.
     
  6. kriman

    kriman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2018
    Messages:
    7,969
    Likes Received:
    2,224
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Eyewitness claims of events which took place 18 years ago, the worse possible evidence. Then on top of the fact that a controlled explosion would not have left any molten steel just makes it that much more unlikely.
     
  7. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,188
    Likes Received:
    1,123
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's correct as I stated in post #5. And also as stated, that's why NIST's conclusions are not valid.

    It doesn't matter what you think I'm convinced of or not or what I'm convinced of or not, what matters are the facts and that 9/11 was never legitimately officially investigated and that hopefully the special grand jury will agree that 9/11 requires a thorough forensic/scientific criminal investigation based on the evidence.

    Having said that, a correct assessment on my part is that there's no existing evidence that I'm aware of that will convince me that NIST conducted a legitimate investigation and that their conclusion, a hypothesis that the 3 towers gravitationally "collapsed" totally, naturally and in a matter of seconds through their own respective massive structure at free fall and near free fall acceleration as a result of planes, damage, fire or a combination has any basis in validity or reality.
     
  8. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,188
    Likes Received:
    1,123
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why do you insist on repeating that fallacy? Virtually all the eyewitness claims were made about 17 years ago, immediately after 9/11/2001. There is no statute of limitations for such a crime. Furthermore, there are far too many CORROBORATING eyewitness claims that have NEVER been investigated to discount, especially those supported by PHYSICAL EVIDENCE.

    The corroborating molten steel claims are just an additional factor that absolutely requires a thorough investigation. There are many, many issues about 9/11 that make no sense, especially those promoted by the 9/11 Commission, NIST and the Bush administration.
     
  9. kriman

    kriman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2018
    Messages:
    7,969
    Likes Received:
    2,224
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Because it is true.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.d45afd076b4d
     
  10. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,188
    Likes Received:
    1,123
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It seems to me you're trying your hardest to discredit multiple corroborating claims supported by physical evidence. In this case, you're trying to apply a study conducted of mostly individual eyewitness identification claims to multiple corroborating eyewitness claims (about 156 with respect to explosions and dozens with respect to molten steel). It's apples and oranges, the study is not applicable to such a large number of eyewitness claims, especially those supported by physical evidence. Regardless, nothing you posted has anything to do with the fact that none of these claims have been officially investigated and the lie that John Gross has never heard of these claims.

    Why do you have such an intense need to try to discredit these uninvestigated claims as opposed to demanding that they be INVESTIGATED? No one is asking YOU to investigate them so there's no demand on your part to do anything. Others, especially the families of 9/11 victims absolutely want these claims and many more investigated. The good news is that none of your denial posts have any relevance to the real world so no grand jury is going to ignore or dismiss the claims because they might believe they're all unreliable. In fact, the study confirms that many juries have convicted innocent people based mostly on singular eyewitness claims.

    A legitimate forensic criminal investigation can either confirm the eyewitness claims or deem them illegitimate. Dismissing or ignoring them (with respect to officials) without investigating them is a crime in itself called a coverup.
     
  11. cjnewson88

    cjnewson88 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    38
    First of all, the idea that William Rodriguez witnessed "explosions" in the basement "prior" to the aircraft impacts is laughable. Aside from the fact he has flipped his story multiple times over the past 17 years, being in the basement he would have no idea when the airliner impact.

    We also know that burning jet fuel entered the service elevators and made it down to the basements, as well as the lobby and several other floors. We know this because dozens of people reported seeing fire and smelling kerosene on multiple floors following the aircraft impacts, not only this but people in the basements and lobby were burned by this as well as it exploded out of the elevators. William once said that this is what cause the "explosion" he saw before he then flipped his story.

    We also know that a massive hit to the top of a structure is going to translate a lot of torsion to its base. In the same way that if an aircraft hits its wingtip on something the majority of the damage occurs at the wing root because that's where the fulcrum point is. So a massive impact at the top of the building can cause damage at the base (such as broken windows, marble panels falling off walls, even cracks in walls and floors).

    But finally the idea of basement bombs is ridiculous. The buildings collapsed from the impact zones. They fell top down. What purpose would putting bombs in the basement serve? In fact some of the lower structure survived the collapse of the building. In one of the towers there was a lower stairwell with about a dozen people inside that survived the collapse and were rescued after. So not only is there zero evidence of basement bombs, but it also makes absolutely zero sense except to grossly and needlessly over complicated the conspiracy.

    Secondly, you have one person who said they saw melting girders. That's it. There is no evidence of molten steel. No pictures, no video. You don't even know if this eye witness is exaggerating what he saw (as eye witnesses often do). He may have saw red hot steel and referred to it as "melting", heck some people will see red or white hot metal and say it's melting even though it is quite clearly still in a solid state.

    The fact is you have zero evidence of molten steel. It is likely there may have been some molten metal which some saw, but to claim it was steel is baseless.

    And once again, there is no controlled demolition in history that has left behind molten metal. So this does not back up your conspiracy theory at all.
     
    ToddWB likes this.
  12. cjnewson88

    cjnewson88 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Nonsense. These are from the Plasco building which burned down in Iran:



     
  13. l4zarus

    l4zarus Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Not sure on the date(when) Willie decided he'd heard bombs, but it might have made sense if he was massaging his story to fit Steven Jones "research". There was a time CD was all new, and what was going to blow the "Inside Job" open, etc, etc and everyone wanted to jump on the bandwagon.

    Then Steven Jones got outed as a loon who believed Jesus came to America, his thermite turned to thermate, and wasn't he pushing chemtrails or something? Whatever it was, troothers gave up on pitching it to the mainstream, and Willie moved on.
     
  14. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,188
    Likes Received:
    1,123
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's very interesting even though the video does NOT actually show molten running pools of steel as claimed by 9/11 eyewitnesses, but thanks for sharing I never knew that. So IF that was steel it shared the same characteristics as the destruction of the 3 WTC buildings which AE911 researchers also claim was a controlled demolition. Although I don't see any reference to the metal at the Plasco fire being identified as steel. And IF this was truly a building that collapsed strictly as a result of fire AND IF that was molten steel, it would mean that the temperatures reached at least 2,500°F which never happens in a typical office fire. In fact the Cardington test which was a simulation of a loaded office fire claims that the highest temperatures reached by the unprotected steel beams were 1,700°F in 3 separate tests, far exceeding the traditional maximum temperatures in such fires which is about 1,100°F. So what in your opinion accounted for such extreme temperatures (IF that was molten steel)?

    Also, do you have a link to any other high rise steel frame building that burned and left molten pools of steel (or eyewitness claims of such an event)?
     
  15. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,188
    Likes Received:
    1,123
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't have any conspiracy theory to "back up". None of the above personal opinion of yours changes the FACT that there are many documented eyewitness claims of explosions and molten steel, all of which absolutely require investigating. It isn't going to go away anytime soon. So it doesn't matter what you believe or what you think is true or not, no one in the real world who matters will be asking your opinion. But I'm quite sure they will be asking the eyewitnesses, the expert witnesses and anyone else who matters (hopefully those responsible at NIST and perhaps the 9/11 Commission). That wouldn't be you or me. Then once they've examined the overwhelming evidence (and much more of it to come) and interviewed whoever they decide to interview, they will arrive at their own conclusion ... without your "help". For me the evidence is as stated in the petition, overwhelming. Perhaps for you it's all garbage to be be explained away as you see fit, easily dismissed and not worth investigating but for me it's EVIDENCE, an awful lot of it and it's just the tip of the iceberg. And guess what, for the grand jury and the law (not to mention the rule of law), it's also EVIDENCE.
     
  16. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    6,797
    Likes Received:
    2,389
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The only theory that explains molten iron for 3 months is the nuclear theory.

    That is part of the reason why so many claim there was no molten iron, despite all the statements, pictures and radioactivity.
     
  17. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,146
    Likes Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    48
    and Nukeboy is in the house with inane claims without sources ... are you going to run with your usual excuse for no source material? ... just curious ...
     
  18. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,816
    Likes Received:
    164
    Trophy Points:
    63
    In all the serious sources I've checked out such as these...

    Explosives Technician - Loader - AE911Truth.org


    ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS FOR 911 TRUTH (full unreleased version)


    Architects & Engineers - Solving the Mystery of WTC 7 - AE911Truth.org


    September 11 -- The New Pearl Harbor (FULL)



    ...I've never seen the "Nuke" theory mentioned. I've always thought it was started by some public-relations firm that was hired by the government to make the truth movement look incompetent.

    provocateurs,shills and disinfo agents


    http://www.whale.to/b/sweeney.html
    (excerpt)
    -----------------------------------------
    4) Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength.
    -----------------------------------------


    Post some sources so we can see if they're serious. You're not making the truth movement look very good right now.
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  19. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    6,797
    Likes Received:
    2,389
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thanks for that Scott. I've seen several of those, and I fully support AE911Truth. I greatly admire Gage and all the others.

    That said, they try to stay inoffensive and the truth is that mentioning the nuclear theory is highly politically incorrect, even within the truth movement. It is just a bridge too far for most people.

    IMO, both thermite and conventional explosives were employed, along with nuclear devices of some sort, including some planted under the towers for their eventual destruction, as suggested by the Russian Khalezov. A Google search for nuclear demolition turns up many discussions.

    For me the most convincing was the work done by Jeff Prager years ago. He also publishes there many of the FEMA pictures taken by Kurt Sonnenfeld the FEMA photographer who quickly became persona non grata within the government. He lives happily but in exile in South America, rather like Snowden. A few of his pictures were published early on even by MSM, but many were quickly retracted because they showed very well how, whatever happened there, it was NOT the result of office fires and gravity as the official story holds.

    The strangely burned vehicles had always puzzled me, from the start. Nuke is the only thing that explains that. There is much more.
     
  20. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,188
    Likes Received:
    1,123
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm not a proponent of the nuclear theory but I would never dismiss any theory without a full investigation. Having said that, my focus is not on any one particular theory other than the official 9/11 conspiracy theory. And a major portion of that theory is the unsupported and impossible theory of the "collapse" of the 3 WTC towers on 9/11. There is not one single iota of chance that the 3 towers gravitationally "collapsed" at free fall and near free fall acceleration in their entirety with no observable hesitation through their respective massive structures due to planes, damage, fire or a combination. Not to mention that NIST's hypothesis for WTC7 has been proven to be contrived and for the twin towers non-existent by NIST's own admission. So if that didn't happen and there's no official explanation that makes any sense, there aren't too many other possibilities for how they were fully destroyed. And any other most likely explanation was never investigated by NIST or any other official entity because any other explanation was deliberately avoided under false pretenses. As such deductive reasoning leads to only one other most likely explanation, that they could not have been fully destroyed as a natural consequence of the events of 9/11.
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  21. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    6,797
    Likes Received:
    2,389
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Taking into consideration the medical profiles of the "First Responders", and the facts point even more to some sort of nuclear event(s) that day.

    Everybody agrees that NIST fails, and even USGS surveys found traces of nuclear events. Of course they never talk about that on TV, and I know why.

    I do not blame Richard Gage for avoiding the nuclear discussion at all, but too many facts are explained by the nuclear theory. Jetfuel and office fires cannot explain the data gathered by the Delta Group and others. Those inconvenient facts are swept under the rug for a reason.
     
  22. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,188
    Likes Received:
    1,123
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The point is that any theory, nuclear or conventional, amounts to an intentional destruction as opposed to a natural destruction. So one should take it one logical step at a time and not jump into theories before one can ascertain by what means it was done.

    1. First prove NIST's hypothesis is not valid. This was already done for WTC7 and awaiting additional expert confirmation. For the twin towers, NIST's hypothesis is restricted to "collapse" initiation and not beyond that. And that was also already done (proven invalid).

    2. Second, look for any reasonable expert hypothesis that might support NIST's contention that these were natural "collapses". There isn't any to my knowledge.

    3. Third, since the above NIST hypotheses have already proven to be invalid, show how the majority of the characteristics strongly point to some kind of planned destruction. That has also been done but not yet confirmed.

    4. Confirm #3 to the fullest extent possible. The process is underway (see special grand jury investigation but it isn't limited to that alone).

    5. Once confirmed, begin the process of investigating all possibilities other than natural.

    Then it can be determined what are the most likely causes, conventional or unconventional, including thermite/thermate, nuclear, other or combinations. And once the most likely cause is determined, investigate who might be the most likely suspects and go from there (i.e. conduct a comprehensive forensic/criminal investigation).
     
  23. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    6,797
    Likes Received:
    2,389
    Trophy Points:
    113
    All that's true Bob, but like Bob Dylan, I don't need a weatherman to tell me which way the wind is blowing, and I don't need Scott Pelley or Dick Cheney to tell me that the official story is not valid.

    I'm not a detective, but I've always enjoyed mystery movies, from McCloud to Columbo to Holmes. My analysis is towards "what actually happened".

    What actually happened at WTC was clearly not what was represented to have happened, and so the question becomes even more compelling for me.

    As unpleasant as it is to contemplate, there are many facts and much evidence confirming some sort of nuclear event(s) there.
     
  24. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,188
    Likes Received:
    1,123
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I can't disagree with what you're saying. Many who don't buy the OCT have their own theory about what may have happened and I have my own set of possibilities. It's just that my mindset has been trained as a software analyst to take things logically one step at a time. That's something neither the 9/11 Commission or NIST did. Zelikow decided the general outcome of the 9/11 Commission Report before the 9/11 Commission even got started and NIST decided that all 3 buildings gravitationally "collapsed" naturally as a result of the events of 9/11 and worked for years trying to come up with a reasonable explanation for their preconceived scenario. Legitimate investigations don't work that way.
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  25. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,698
    Likes Received:
    356
    Trophy Points:
    83
    willful negligence, they have the obligation to properly investigate.
     

Share This Page