Quote of the day
posted at 9:30 pm on January 3, 2009 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
“So far none of the hijackers’ families have come forward to request the remains. Khaled Abou El Fadl, a law professor at UCLA and an authority on Islamic law, says he would be surprised if they did: ‘I’ve heard many times in the Muslim community that to claim and bury a body of one of the hijackers is to admit or accept that it was indeed those hijackers who committed 9/11.’”
You must be logged in to post a comment.

















Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »
Well you know at first there were a lot of crackpots and it was laughable so that’s where I left it and I was onboard with Bush and behind the troops and all. But after Bush went Socialist and the GOP sold out I happened upon an interview with Bowtie Boy Tucker Carlson about a BYU professor and some work he has been doing on why the towers fell and was prepared to be as big an asshat as pleaseandthankyou (as I had always been). Tucker shut him down without a fair hearing to put it mildly and my recent experience with the media durring the election caused me to want to at least hear what the guy had to say so I swallowed hard and looked up him up on the internet and found some questions that I could not answer. So now I seek the answers. I fully anticipated being set upon by the Kos types but hey, I enjoy a good flame war as much as the next guy. My questions are in a previous post and I would love any links or leads or what have you that will enlighten me. But I am a critical thinker and I will ask these questions without reserve and accept the answers no matter where they lead. I drink no mans koolaid.
ronsfi on January 4, 2009 at 8:49 AM
Oh well they are moding my comments. I’m not even swearing. What ever.
ronsfi on January 4, 2009 at 8:52 AM
Hey Guys,
Iron, out of the ground, melts at around 1510 degrees C (2750°F).
Steel often melts at around 1370 degrees C (2500°F).
Aluminum has a melting point between 1050 to 1150 degrees Fahrenheit.
Aircraft are mostly made of aluminum.
A large aircraft crashed into both towers 1 and 2 of the WTC. Intense fires occurred in both buildings which had steel supports attaching the floors to the frame.
Gosh could there have been a connection? Could intense fire weaken steel and melt Aluminum?
What do you think?
kanda on January 4, 2009 at 8:53 AM
Yeah but they address that though. You see Steel doesn’t glow yellow at that low temp and Aluminum looks like mercury when melted at even high temps. It could not have been aluminum. Kerosene burns at 575 degrees.
ronsfi on January 4, 2009 at 8:57 AM
My thoughts are that there was pretty high wind blowing up there. Maybe that acted as a “bellows”? Dunno. Wanna.
ronsfi on January 4, 2009 at 8:59 AM
The building was on FIRE. And there IS video of the plane hitting the Pentagon.
SoulGlo on January 4, 2009 at 9:01 AM
The reports that ronsfi referred to seemed to indicate molten iron/steel, not aluminium. I would have thought that the two would be distinguishable. That is why I asked ronsfi the question about the heat given off by kerosene, burning at normal atmospheric pressure. Correct me if I’m wrong, but that amount of heat shouldn’t be able to turn iron/steel into molten metal.
OldEnglish on January 4, 2009 at 9:03 AM
Leaving aside the immediate problem in Gaza, aside from our stable alliance with Israel, regarding the USA and Middle East, Iranian aggression is the problem to address.
Having a US alliance with Iraq as with Turkey enables a better resistance to Iranian subterfuge, whether that comes via Hamas, Taliban, or any Iranian trained and funded terrorists around the globe.
Without deposing Saddam Hussein, we would have absolutely the opposite of cooperation from Iraq and consequently from Libya.
Those most informed on the subject point out the “greatest” threat that Pakistan poses to the world, being a nuclear enabled volatile region overwhelmed by Iranian terrorists via the independent mountain tribes.
Israel needs her own sovereignty without being subjugated to organized or disorganized bomb attacks from Gaza or any other neighbor.
Obama’s initial response defended Israel’s “rights” to defend herself. Now, reportedly, he is silent on the subject. But what else is there really to say other than that Israel has the right to defend herself?
Sarkozy was attempting to defuse the situation and re-establish a cease fire. (So was Israel.) His dismay is understandable, as he does not hide the ensuing complications that an armed response triggers from international Islamofascists, many of whom live in France. Sarkozy plays the devil’s advocate without supporting terrorism beyond TOLERATION. But the convolution of a double or triple negative is a counter-productive and self-defeating waste of energy and effort. And as Israel proved by gifting Gaza to the Palestinians, no good deed is left unpunished by the like. Nonetheless, to Sarkozy’s credit, someone had to appear open-minded, and conservatively, this represents the epitome of French diplomacy.
maverick muse on January 4, 2009 at 9:05 AM
Well you know at first there were a lot of crackpots and it was laughable so that’s where I left it and I was onboard with Bush and behind the troops and all. But after Bush went Socialist and the GOP sold out I happened upon an interview with Bowtie Boy Tucker Carlson about a BYU professor and some work he has been doing on why the towers fell and was prepared to be as big a doodoohead as pleaseandthankyou (as I had always been). Tucker shut him down without a fair hearing to put it mildly, which bothered me, and my recent experience with the media during the election caused me to want to at least hear what the guy had to say so I swallowed hard and looked up him up on the interwebs and found some questions that I could not answer. So now I seek the answers. I fully anticipated being set upon by the Kos types but hey, I enjoy a good flame war as much as the next guy. My questions are in a previous post and I would love any links or leads or what have you that will enlighten me. But I am a critical thinker and I will ask these questions without reserve and accept the answers no matter where they lead. I drink no mans koolaid.
ronsfi on January 4, 2009 at 9:06 AM
Really? Got a link I missed it somehow?
ronsfi on January 4, 2009 at 9:08 AM
When the planes crashed into the towers, it started all the carpets, any furniture, cubical walls.. lots of things covered in fabric and glue and foam (petroleum by-product) so it’s not just the kerosene burning inside..
not to mention that you don’t need to melt the steel.. just get it hot enough to lose any of the temper that it has. Add in the fact that the Twin Towers construction was that the skin/outside of the building was the support for it..
not to mention all the weight on top of the crash site. pure pressure pulling that down.
Weaken enough of the support of one side and that would be all you need.. that side would give away and start to fall.. weakening the other side..
DaveC on January 4, 2009 at 9:14 AM
So where did all the molten metal come from? Also the trade centers were built around a massive central steel core. If the floor supports pancaked why did the central core disintegrate entirely as well? How did that work? Why is it not addressed in the commission report? Also WTC 7 was not hit by a plane. It was 47 stories tall. That’s a big building. I want more info. How do we go from no steel framed buildings collapsing from fire to three in one day? I just want to know how it happened. What is science? We need better answers then the truthers have. Don’t we?
ronsfi on January 4, 2009 at 9:21 AM
http://hotair.com/archives/2006/05/16/breaking-video-of-plane-hitting-pentagon-on-911-to-be-released-at-1-pm/
SoulGlo on January 4, 2009 at 9:22 AM
I don’t think that is in question. What is in question is the report of molten iron/steel blobs found in the basement – still glowing.
What was the heat source for that – if the report is accurate?
OldEnglish on January 4, 2009 at 9:23 AM
That is a complete fabrication. The trade center towers were unique in that the exterior of the building was its main support. Look into it.
otcconan on January 4, 2009 at 9:27 AM
Yeah I saw that. I believe a plane hit the Pentagon but that video is weak. An old lady gets mugged in an elevator and we have the entire event in color. Plane slams into the Pentagon which must be covered in hundreds of cameras and we have…some reporter assuring us that in his expert opinion that is a nose cone? I couldn’t tell and I don’t trust his sorry bumbum. What is the deal here? I mean come on. There must be better video.
ronsfi on January 4, 2009 at 9:32 AM
Not just in the basement it was flowing out of the building before the collapse.
ronsfi on January 4, 2009 at 9:33 AM
Truthers,
Kanda’s figures above may relate to melting metals into absolute molten liquid form. But bear in mind that it takes much less in order to destabilize the solid state of metals.
Steel at over 600 degrees F., and aluminum over 400 degrees, already begin losing structural integrity.
Given a fire burning at 860 F. degrees, the steel has lost over 90% of its strength; so how good is the structural integrity at that point?!
maverick muse on January 4, 2009 at 9:36 AM
Just ignore the Truther.
Krydor on January 4, 2009 at 9:37 AM
A nice filler for Purina Pig Chow I’m thinking.
conservnut on January 4, 2009 at 9:40 AM
I believe that the loss of structural integrity in the framework close to the flames is not in doubt. Molten steel is another matter.
OldEnglish on January 4, 2009 at 9:42 AM
All true but where did the molten metal come from?
ronsfi on January 4, 2009 at 9:43 AM
Ronsfi.
Well I guess if you don’t know anything about it and you tend to distrust your government you are easily swayed into thinking the truther theories are possible. I find it incredible that anyone could watch the videos, hear from those who were there, and look at those who lost loved ones, can come to any conclusion other than what the facts present in chapter 2. The full report is very educational indeed FEMA report. It will educate you to the evidence and what facts it supports. I’m not trying to say you are ignorant of the facts but those who feed you truther BS either are or are lying to you. Read the report…get the facts, then come back and tell us what you think. I am sure you’ll agree the Truthers are just a bunch of wackos…like those who think Elvis is still alive based on their “evidence”.
kanda on January 4, 2009 at 9:43 AM
I was going through my stock of photos of the WTC and Pentagon from prior to and during the attack, and what do you think I found? Curiously out-of-place monkey tracks!
Don’t believe me?
Monkey tracks at the WTC
Immolate on January 4, 2009 at 9:44 AM
ronsfi on January 4, 2009 at 9:06 AM
I’ve never tried a link before but this site is a civil engineering site and the article I linked to gives a possible explanation as to why the towers collapsed.
I’m a chemist, not an engineer but the explanation sounds plausable.
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml
Ernest on January 4, 2009 at 9:44 AM
So a thousand government arsonists, per tower, rigged thermite explosives, blasting caps and hundreds of miles of detonating cable throughout the 100 plus stories of the World Trade Center, behind the walls mind you, and succeeded in doing so without the cleaning ladies noticing, or the small CITY of people who work there on a daily basis. Not one of the ten thousand people who entered the building on the morning of September 11th saw a wire sticking out of a wall, or a piece of drywall displaced, because they were THAT good. They did this because flying airplanes into the buildings wasn’t going to be terrifying enough and they needed more bang for their buck. Conversely, they considered simply blowing up the buildings, but they decided instead to synchronize the simultaneous hijacking of four jetliners, because the blowing up the buildings wasn’t complicated enough. Also, they thought it a good idea to blow the buildings an hour after the planes hit, when every camera in the tri-state area would be trained on the buildings because they were THAT confident in their optical illusion of structural collapse. And who would be digging around the site afterwards to find all of those blasting caps anyway? Again people weren’t going to be upset enough by the collapse of the two largest buildings in New York City so they decided to blow up another smaller one, later that evening, for added effect. The false flag operation just wouldn’t have enough teeth without that Building 7 coming down. Also, even though they had three planes going into New York and Pennsylvania, they decided to mix it up a little and go with a MISSLE into the Pentagon. They could have gone with the fourth plane into the Pentagon but they liked the challenge of remotely incinerating the passengers from the fourth plane in Newark and scattering them around the crash site in Washington when no one was looking. They needed to do all of this and pin it on 19 Saudi hijackers as an excuse to invade, not Saudi Arabia, but Iraq and Afghanistan, forgetting that they could have just pinned it on 19 pretend Iraqis or Afghanis. God I feel like such a fool when now that I see how obvious it all is.
pleaseandthankyou on January 4, 2009 at 9:47 AM
I’m trying to find footage or pics of the molten metal pouring out of the towers but so far they all lead to truther sites and I don’t want to send any traffic their way.
ronsfi on January 4, 2009 at 9:47 AM
.
So where did the molten metal come from? There has to be an explanation.
ronsfi on January 4, 2009 at 9:50 AM
Gosh I hope those truthers aren’t photshopping to enhance their photos…nah they wouldn’t do that…or would they?
Start more simple. Start with normal aircraft fires. note the melted aluminum that occurs. this happens even without the addition of the fuel and the containment of a building.
kanda on January 4, 2009 at 9:53 AM
PS It is a documented fact that workers cutting through the twisted debris during rescue/cleanup created evidence of molten metal pools with their blow torches.
pleaseandthankyou on January 4, 2009 at 9:57 AM
It doesn’t help a discussion if some refuse to read the posts properly.
Ronsfi is referring to molten iron/steel, not aluminium.
OldEnglish on January 4, 2009 at 9:58 AM
ha ha ha that is the best laugh I’ve had this year. The missle part was pure genius. Could we kinda add a part where the Marines were seen leaving the building a few days before? you know first to fight angle and all. ha ha ha
kanda on January 4, 2009 at 9:59 AM
Well judging from the numerous sources as well as mutually supporting, eyewitness accounts by firefighters and rescue workers I don’t believe there is a conspiracy. Also as stated before Aluminum does not glow like steel when melted. It is silver and looks much like mercury. The molten metal is a fact. How it came to be is the question. I’m just asking. No answers yet.
ronsfi on January 4, 2009 at 10:00 AM
I’d take that as a compliment except that this year is only five days old. :0)
pleaseandthankyou on January 4, 2009 at 10:02 AM
For all of those doubters that say the fire could not get hot enough with just the kerosene, remember that man has been working iron and steel for many years using just wood, and coal to get a hot enough fire to melt steel.
JohnB on January 4, 2009 at 10:02 AM
check that, 4 days.
pleaseandthankyou on January 4, 2009 at 10:02 AM
how much of the towers were heated by natural gas?
What was in the towers that could be used as fuel for a fire? there was already a good source of oxygen for the fire to burn thanks to a big freaking hole in the side of a building..
how much of the building used aluminum in it? or some other alloy? magnesium or something else?
Where and who talked about molten steel pouring out of the towers? I missed that part..
but then, I haven’t watched ‘Loose Change’ either.
DaveC on January 4, 2009 at 10:05 AM
Want to bet this prof teaches his students to side with CAIR over the U.S.?
Of course you don’t.
artist on January 4, 2009 at 10:08 AM
As I said before, I would also like to know. For example, how much molten steel was found in the basement? Just enough to be accounted for by cutting torches, or much more? The amount seems to be crucial to the answer.
OldEnglish on January 4, 2009 at 10:08 AM
Found a non-truther site debunking the molten metal.
http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm
FYI — Any time you want to find a fact out about 9/11 without going to websites with nutcases, simply include within the search “popular mechanics” The phrase alone is like kryptonite to truthers.
jimmy the notable on January 4, 2009 at 10:08 AM
I’d like to expand on the bellows theory, mentioned above. I’m thinking Venturi effect. If there is a breach of the outer skin of the WTC halfway up then there is a major opening for air/oxygen to flow in. The fire will be sucking oxygen anyway, because that’s what fires do–which is why firemen break all the windows–otherwise low pressure builds up in the building and it can implode. So you have oxygen flowing into the building. When moving air enters a smaller space it speeds up–this is the Venturi effect. If there were a vented cavity (elevator shafts?) in the middle of the building, this would give the speeding, and now heated (by the fire on the lower floors) a place to go. (Without a place to go obviously the air wouldn’t move.) Depending on a whole bunch of factors beyond my ability (or interest) to evaluate, it is possible that due to Venturi effect, there may have been a very significant amount of speed increase in the air, which might have generated a significant bellows effect. What I’m suggesting is kind of a firestorm within a building.
Anyway, I don’t give a rat’s patoot for this line of thinking. Number one: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Number two: just imagining the Venturi effect happening in the WTC should be a good example of how, depending on very subtle factors, such as–materials, and how they interact, esp when heated to extremes; air flow through the building; aspects of the design of the building, and ways in which the design was altered by the impact of the planes–all these elements, and many more, create a complexity that would take qualified engineers, architects, and forensic specialists YEARS to figure out– even if most of the evidence had not been destroyed by the event itself. What is with the need to find something sinister behind this? Paranoia we destroy-ya. Careful ronsfi, a lot of troofers started out just like you.
smellthecoffee on January 4, 2009 at 10:11 AM
ronsfi.
I want you to read what I am about to print extremely carefully, because as it is, you are coming off like a total retard.
Bill Whittle wrote an article about conspiracy theories a while back that had a great point. The reason people believe in them is because their brains are unable to process the possibility that a lone man, or a small group of men, can change the entire course of history. That’s why you have the US groverment causing 9/11. That’s why you have second gunmen shooting Kennedy. That’s why you have aliens building the pyramids. Conspiracy theorists, like yourselves, are so disdainful of humanity that you refuse to accept that any or all of us could be capable of doing something to alter the universe.
1) That building that, as you so eloquently put it, “collapsed into its own footprint”? Well, it DIDN’T. It fell OVER, spilling debris all over adjacent streets. Did you ever visit the WTC before it fell? They were office buildings. And as such, they used cantilevered construction, which allows large buildings to have open spaces such as atriums, call centers, and nested cubicles. It is essentially a three-axis form of keystone construction. A few small bumps on the wrong part of the building, and the whole thing could come down…and if it does, it will tend to collapse in starting at the point of impact.
2) A controlled demolition is an temporal impossibility. The WTC offices had workers in them 7 days a week, 24 hours a day. A controlled demo requires months of planning, a huge amount of explosive, and the removal of many layers of sheetrock, concrete and structural steel. SOMEONE would have noticed this. And there’s no way it can be done overnight.
3) Controlled demos take place from the bottom up, not the top down. This is for two reasons: 1) to minimize the length of primercord that has to be run, and 2) because top-down demo is too hard to control.
4) A controlled demo has to be done on-site, and detonators are extremely large and hard to hide. SOMEONE WOULD HAVE SEEN.
5) There were multiple credible, sober-minded eyewitnesses who saw the plane go into the Pentagon, as well as debris bearing the airline’s logo, matching the rivet pattern (as unique as a fingerprint) of the plane.
6) Ever seen a plane hit a concrete wall? I have. Planes are hollow, made of aluminum, and are highly flexible, which is how they stay in the air. A simple rebar-enforced thick concrete wall is enough to obliterate the average plane. The Pentagon is a military fortress, with the walls fortified to resist truck bombs like the one in Oklahoma City. That the plane made it 3 levels into the building is surprising, but made possible by the fact that that particular wing was undergoing renovations and had not yet been reinforced.
7) Fire melts steel, because fire MAKES steel. Take a look at this:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/29/BAGVOPHQU46.DTL
This is the I-580 overpass at I-980 and Highway 24 in Oakland, California. On April 29, 2007, a gasoline tanker crashed and caught fire underneath this bridge. The gas fire melted – MELTED! – the steel – STEEL! – understructure of the overpass, causing it to collapse. Note this was an open-air fire, not in an enclosed, heat-trapping structure like the WTC towers would be. Jet fuel flooding the sub-basements would have caused an extremely rapid rise in temperature. Even if the collapse were not due to the steel completely melting, a fire at 1500-1800 degrees – which scientists say was a CONSERVATIVE estimate – can weaken the structural integrity of steel by as much at 50%. In addition, rapid heating or cooling causes additional strees on top of that. Add in the added weight of the initial post-impact collapse, and the chances for a structural failure increased at a geometric rate. The fire and subsequent collapse could then easily have resulted in undermining the integrity of WTC7’s foundation, contributing to its subsequent failure.
8) What happened to all the people that were on the planes? If a missile hit the Pentagon and another hit in Shanksville, you have two full planes unaccounted for. If the government killed them, where are the bodies?
9) If the planes themselves were a hoax, and the government orchestrated the attacks, and the WTC workers never noticed anything, you have a conspiracy of, literally, HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of people, not one of whom has come forward with any evidence or statements, not one of whom has testified, not one of whom has taken the fame, fortune and glory that such an exposing would bring. The bigger a conspiracy, the higher chance there is of someone being a stoolie. Just ask John Dillinger.
10) The Pentagon was hit from a parallel angle, close to the ground. Missiles tend to fly in a high arc, for the sake of accuracy. Given the terrain surrounding the Pentagon, it would be impossible for a guided missile to hit that building without being fired from VERY close nearby…close enough to have been noticed by any number of observers.
11) The tip of the wing of the plane that hit the Pentagon scraped the ground before it went in. Missiles don’t have wings, and therefore couldn’t have made the mark.
So, in sommary: 9/11 was perpetrated by pissed-off Muslims, you and all your conspiracy theorist friends are morons, and OJ did it.
CASE F*CKING CLOSED.
fusionaddict on January 4, 2009 at 10:11 AM
I am not advocating truther theories. I am simply asking a question.
I find it pathetic that you don’t even need an answer. And you call me easily swayed. One thing I don’t like about HA is the dim witted mind numbed lemmings that accept everything they are fed without a seconds critical thought. Perhaps you should try shifting your attention from more that just talk radio and cable news. Anyway, thanks for adding nothing to the conversation.
ronsfi on January 4, 2009 at 10:12 AM
Where did the molten metal come from?
ronsfi on January 4, 2009 at 10:13 AM
yep it’s not kerosene either. A truther trying to melt steel with 10 gallons of gasoline asked why it wouldn’t melt. The truther asked why the experts said WTC steel may have melted asked on answers yahoo The answer is:
The experts are right. I am an expert!
You can melt steel with jet fuel. It’s called JP5.
You can also melt steel with GASOLINE or even natural gas, or acetylene gas. You can even use wood, like a blacksmith. It cannot be done with any of these fuels by themselves. You need large amounts of fuel mixed with enough oxygen to raise the temperature above 1800 degrees fahrenheit.
Fuel burning in still air like a fire pit does not generate enough heat to melt steel. It would be difficult to raise the temp much above 800 deg f. But if you continue to add fuel and oxygen as the temperature goes up the higher temps will allow fuel and oxygen to conflagrate even faster. The reaction will accelerate quickly.
A blacksmith uses a bellows to blow air on the wood causing the hot coals to become very hot and burn faster. He then adds more fuel and blows even harder.
The twin towers were verrry tall the heat of the burning JP5 caused a huge convection which is the suction of air thru the steel structure. Since there were thousands of gallons the temp kept rising sucking more and more air. That’s why it took a while to actually melt and fall.
Did you know that if the temp gets high enough most metals will actually burn, the thinner anything is the easier it is to burn it, like kindling. The steel in the twin towers was thin and the steel actually burned!
That was the answer given…what say you?
kanda on January 4, 2009 at 10:15 AM
ronsfi on January 4, 2009 at 10:15 AM
And there IS video of the plane hitting the Pentagon.
SoulGlo on January 4, 2009 at 9:01 AM
Really? Got a link I missed it somehow?
ronsfi on January 4, 2009 at 9:08 AM
———
Why don’t you go talk to the hundreds of eye witnesses in their cars on their morning commute nearby who saw that plane circling, then approaching, then hitting the pentagon, then maybe you could stfu.
Dave Rywall on January 4, 2009 at 10:16 AM
Great Post!
kanda on January 4, 2009 at 10:19 AM
Hey, jerkface, prove to me beyond a doubt that there actually were “rivers of molten metal”
And by the way, There were many other kinds of metal that do melt and become molten at heats lower than that which would melt steel located at the WTC.
But seriously, PROVE TO ME, that there actually was molten steel. You can’t do it. Case closed.
jimmy the notable on January 4, 2009 at 10:19 AM
Thank you for the link. That is a very plausible explanation for the molten steel found. I much appreciate it.
OldEnglish on January 4, 2009 at 10:20 AM
Rywall! I am so glad you’re not on this jerkface’s side.
jimmy the notable on January 4, 2009 at 10:20 AM
As I understand it the core was made up of 47 pillars of 4 in. thick steel. Is that thin in your estimation?
ronsfi on January 4, 2009 at 10:20 AM
It is really a pleasure to read a truly great and interesting post. Thank you for adding it.
My previous post left off your handle.
kanda on January 4, 2009 at 10:22 AM
Guys! Can we stop with the name-calling? It’s not necessary, and it degrades this blog. You read the comments on you-tube, and because one guy thinks Van Halen was playing a guitar with this kind of strap, and the other guy thinks it was another kind of strap, they’re calling each other six kinds of mofo within three exchanges. We don’t need to go there.
smellthecoffee on January 4, 2009 at 10:23 AM
Ah well since you called me jerkface wow how refute that devastaing argument. Well there are firsthand accounts and photos. Soo case open! Snuggle Bear!
ronsfi on January 4, 2009 at 10:24 AM
You understand wrong. You should go back to my previous post and read that report before people start thinking you don’t know what you are talking about.
kanda on January 4, 2009 at 10:25 AM
Show me a photo of “rivers of molten steel” beneath WTC, jerkface. Until you do that, case is closed.
jimmy the notable on January 4, 2009 at 10:25 AM
Since I don’t know anything about steel, I would have no way of evaluating what “thin” constitutes in the context of super-heating. Neither do you. Why can’t you just admit it? And you’ve gone beyond “asking questions” to doggedly defending your pet hypothesis against repeated rational explanations which are beyond your competence to dispute. If you’re not a truther, ronsfi, you are well on your way to becoming indistinguishable from one.
smellthecoffee on January 4, 2009 at 10:28 AM
Thats right we can give ronsfi the information but we can’t make ronsfi think.
kanda on January 4, 2009 at 10:31 AM
.
Here come the trolls. You haven’t even followed the thread. I said plainly that I believe a plane hit the Pentagon. My question is why, with all the cameras available how come we only get the before and after? You know they have better video.
It’s funny all I had to do was ask a question. Still have no answer. But I have been called quite a few names. I may never get an answer. What perfect little followers you are. Good boy! Now sit.
ronsfi on January 4, 2009 at 10:31 AM
fusionaddict,
that was a great post and to your average joe it would seem obvious, but I’m convinced that conspiracy theorists brains work differently than ours. You can throw logical fact after logical fact at them and they are simply incapable of getting it. It’s as if their brains are a single binary switch. If one thing doesn’t add up then all of it doesn’t add up. If it’s part of the “official” government story then it is, to them, by definition false. This is why I really think it is a mental disease, emanating perhaps from getting severely betrayed by an authority figure at an early age. The more you try and use logic with them, the more twisted their theories become, and the more they become stridently invested in those theories. It’s hopeless, really.
pleaseandthankyou on January 4, 2009 at 10:33 AM
What about photos of it pouring out of the side of the building lovey nubbins?
ronsfi on January 4, 2009 at 10:34 AM
.. and I had asked who or where were the questions being asked about the molten steel?
was there links and I missed them?
DaveC on January 4, 2009 at 10:35 AM
Well, this thread had degraded. When the arguments sound like something Rosie O’Donnell would blab up when she was drunk and high, you know things are bad.
This was about Mo Atta’s remains and what they are good for. Cat, dog, or kitty litter. Help for snow traction. Perhaps those ashes could be melted and made into little glass crosses and stars of david.
Mr. Joe on January 4, 2009 at 10:35 AM
To guote Yogi Berra ” it’s like deja vu all over again“.
kanda on January 4, 2009 at 10:36 AM
We’re not entitled to the video because it is classified.
Only crazy people rattle on about every single thing that’s classified claiming that because its classified “they must be hiding something.”
Some things are just classified. When I look at an old released CIA file on the internet which has specific names blackened out, I don’t somehow go into a tizzy, claiming that the man who REALLY landed on the moon is 400-year-old Leonardo DaVinci, and until you can prove to me that it wasn’t, until you RELEASE DAVINCI’S BONES, I am going to continue asking questions.
Why? Not because the government wants me to go on believing that DaVinci is dead (like a good little sheep), because it is GENUINELY, HONESTLY stupid to go on asking stupid questions.
jimmy the notable on January 4, 2009 at 10:37 AM
Finally the Rosie O reference I thought I would have to wait all day. I think I’ve proven my point. I will leave you geniuses to pat each other on the ass reasure each other how utterly correct you are.
ronsfi on January 4, 2009 at 10:39 AM
Regarding Mo Atta. I respect the dead as much as the next guy but using Atta’s remains as kitty litter is total disrespect to the cat. ;) It’s cruelty to animals I tell you…..well not to Atta but to the cat or dog.
kanda on January 4, 2009 at 10:41 AM
This sort of language is an excellent clue to the conspiracy theorists mind. They think that if they, or anyone agrees with the official story then they are docile, followers, sheep, naive, polly-annas. Again, they probably trusted someone with a story once and got severely burned. They forget it’s also the official government story that the moon revolves around the earth and the earth around the sun, though it wouldn’t surprise me if they came up with a theory to disprove that as well.
pleaseandthankyou on January 4, 2009 at 10:42 AM
What’s the matter? Are you afraid to investigate the ACTUAL facts that refute the truther falsehoods?
kanda on January 4, 2009 at 10:43 AM
Steel I-Beams and structural steel 4″ thick? Anyone besides me been involved in the construction of a Hi-Rise? I watched the Towers burning on T.V. and knew that they would ‘pancake’ within 1hr.. Molten steel starts cooling as soon as the heat source is removed (go to the local muffler shop and watch). Where did this ‘river of molten’ steel concept originate. (Back and to the left-Back and to the left)
thomasaur on January 4, 2009 at 10:44 AM
wait…hold it…whats up with that…When did the earth stop being flat?
kanda on January 4, 2009 at 10:45 AM
That’s what always starts me muttering at my computer. There were so many people who saw the planes hit. Yes, there are some people whose recollections don’t seem to match what happened, but that’s true of witnesses to anything. The number of people driving on the freeways and streets around there is huge! Are they all too scared to talk?
MamaAJ on January 4, 2009 at 10:45 AM
Truthers always claim that they are “just asking questions.” They are liars and have no intention of considering any evidence you give them. They are too emotionally invested in their theories. I’d just ignore the poor deluded souls. The more logic & facts you give them, the angrier they get.
drflykilla on January 4, 2009 at 10:50 AM
You Truthers need to focus on the birth of Baby Trig now. Andrew Sullivan is looking for more recruits to his madness.
Mr. Joe on January 4, 2009 at 10:51 AM
I had a record (vinyl plastic recording) like that once. It kept repeating itself until I threw it away in disgust. I hope you don’t end up sharing the same fate.
If you really want to look smart, feel smart, and be smart you can always educate yourself with the facts. Think about it. (Only a suggestion)
kanda on January 4, 2009 at 10:52 AM
What we need is a permanent truther thread. They can write to their hearts content and we can all ignore it.
kanda on January 4, 2009 at 10:54 AM
go kanda go kanda go kanda
pleaseandthankyou on January 4, 2009 at 10:54 AM
“RELEASE DAVINCI’S BONES” HAH! You owe me a new keyboard.
smellthecoffee on January 4, 2009 at 10:55 AM
Most hilarious post of the thread!! “RELEASE DAVINCI’S BONES” will live on in Hot Air lore.
kanda on January 4, 2009 at 11:02 AM
You Truthers need to focus on the birth of Baby Trig now. Andrew Sullivan is looking for more recruits to his madness.
Mr. Joe on January 4, 2009 at 10:51 AM
No, that has already been settled; Trig is the progeny of John McCain and Todd Palin (who is actually a woman disguising herself as a man).
It’s time to put the spotlight on Bristol’s supposed pregnancy and birth. I have it on good authority that the baby is of alien stock and might be able to levitate.
Bishop on January 4, 2009 at 11:04 AM
Here come the trolls. You haven’t even followed the thread. I said plainly that I believe a plane hit the Pentagon. My question is why, with all the cameras available how come we only get the before and after? You know they have better video.
It’s funny all I had to do was ask a question. Still have no answer. But I have been called quite a few names. I may never get an answer. What perfect little followers you are. Good boy! Now sit.
ronsfi on January 4, 2009 at 10:31 AM
—————
Because the security cameras aren’t pointed at the sky. They’re pointed at the area in front of the security camera. There is no better footage. Security cameras aren’t HD. They’re bullsh*t cheap as they can get Radio Shack specials. Something moving 400+ mph will be a blur on videotape. Try simply waving your arm past a video camera then watch in slo mo – you might get your arm in one or two frames. That’s it.
As for your ridiculous steel questions, The F (force) the towers experienced thanks to the huge f**king M (mass) of the airplanes travelling at 200? 300? mph would be IMMENSE. This alone would weaken – if not snap – many many many joints up at that level. As previously mentioned, the high wind at that height would serve as an amazing bellows on any fire. With the weight above the entry point and the compromised structure joints = BUILDING FALL DOWN. IT would have been a domino effect – as soon as one core joint failed, the next would be under more stress until it failed, etc etc etc.
Dave Rywall on January 4, 2009 at 11:04 AM
I goofed it was jimmy the notable on January 4, 2009 at 10:37 AM who coined the phrase RELEASE DAVINCI’S BONES
I can picture the Marines in Tora Bora shouting that as they capture Bin Laden.
kanda on January 4, 2009 at 11:06 AM
ronsfi is a troofer…?
How did I ever miss that?
JetBoy on January 4, 2009 at 11:06 AM
Did you link the solid (pun unavoidable) evidence for molten steel somewhere? I can’t find it after a brief scan.
DarkCurrent on January 4, 2009 at 11:09 AM
Next time a conspiracy theorist tries to rope you into a ridiculous argument, simply ask him to “release DaVinci’s bones”, and leave it at that.
pleaseandthankyou on January 4, 2009 at 11:09 AM
It’s funny all I had to do was ask a question. Still have no answer.
Ask yourself a question which the troofers conveniently brush aside: How did the 50 foot light poles outside the Pentagon get sheared-off their foundations? Not blown off, not hacked off at night with a Sawz-All, sheared off at the height of a planes wings?
I love you troofers, really I do, I admire your ability to keep the stupidest conspiracy in the world alive and well.
Bishop on January 4, 2009 at 11:10 AM
Ronsfi wasn’t questioning the manner in which the towers fell, he wanted to know how the reported molten steel was found in the basement.
Jimmy the notable supplied a link which gave a very plausible explanation as to how the extra heat was supplied.
OldEnglish on January 4, 2009 at 11:15 AM
Oh, Dear Lord. I actually agree with Dave Rywall about something. It’s the big one, Elizabeth. I’m comin’, Honey.
For those of you supporting Ms. (or Mr.) O’Donnell’s position, there is medication available that will help you.
kingsjester on January 4, 2009 at 11:15 AM
Remember the Maine!
Never give up the ship!
RELEASE DAVINCI’S BONES!
kanda on January 4, 2009 at 11:16 AM
Aw shucks guys. Thanks. I did think it was a funny sort of thing to write, but the more I think about it, it is a really good argument against trutherism. Simply act even more insane and demand something even more obscure to force them to confront the idea that simply because they want something release, because they might have questions, doesn’t mean those questions are at all rational or that the simple lack of said release is proof of something nefarious.
I probably could work at it for the rest of my life, but I will never actually see DaVinci’s “supposed” bones.
jimmy the notable on January 4, 2009 at 11:17 AM
“Truther” myths debunked here: http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html
mondonico on January 4, 2009 at 11:21 AM
“Release John Kerry’s Military Records!!!”
mondonico on January 4, 2009 at 11:22 AM
“Release Obama’s College Transcript.”
honestly, I’m way more interested in that than his birth certificate.
jimmy the notable on January 4, 2009 at 11:23 AM
Molten steel in the basement found by – with all due respect – nonmetal combustion expert firefighters?
It could have been molten anything.
Next.
Dave Rywall on January 4, 2009 at 11:24 AM
Can’t. They are a myth.
OldEnglish on January 4, 2009 at 11:24 AM
I have a question….Of the company’s that had their headquarters in the WTC, how many received large infusions of capital from Mideast sources after the fact?
Maybe there’s your inside job…
jerrytbg on January 4, 2009 at 11:26 AM
No they are not a myth. He is an honest to god Vietnam vet. Served about 4 months there. was sent home after 3 purple hearts. As a genuine war hero he got lots of medals. It’s all true. Of course I left out a few unimportant small details but they don’t matter. ;)
kanda on January 4, 2009 at 11:27 AM
On at least two points, that was a very silly answer.
OldEnglish on January 4, 2009 at 11:28 AM
What does molten metal have to do with demolition? Demolition does not cause molten metal so that is a straw man. You saw planes hit the towers. What more is needed in your conspiracy? It’s redundant.
keep the change on January 4, 2009 at 11:30 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »