Maddox debunks 9/11 conspiracy theory

[15357]

Your post contradicts itself by the fact that it exists.

 

[Llama]

Yes i'm stupid, blind, and incapable of reading. I'm sorry dear sir for offending you by saying something cross about your dear idol.

That is in fact all I see about 9/11 loose change. Then he goes on to rant about some bullshit about folding a 20 a certain way or something... Where is the rest?

You see, the mistake that you managed to make (Exactly how I have no idea) as that Maddox writes abusive articles about, suprisingly, idiots. Let me guess, you expected an expansive responce filled with links and scientific facts? If you expected this then obviously you either a.) Think loose change makes sense or b) Think it deserves a proper responce. In other words, you make about as much sense as loose change itself.


Congratulations! You're an idiot!

Although I suppose as you are a blind person that can't read (fairly obvious when you think about it) you can be excused

 

[Korgoth]

I know who maddox is, and what he is about. I've read probably every article on his site. But then this post neither deserves a place in the politics forum, and shouldn't be presented as such. Allow me to recite the thread (the one we are posting in) title to you. *ahem*

Maddox debunks 9/11 conspiracy theory

I then went on to say that I don't see any "debunking" other than him rambling about the creators of the documentary still being alive. To which you replied, very eloquently I may add:

Are you really stupid / blind / incapable of reading entire articles?

Congratulations! I can make make my text larger!

Now, am I to understand that last little bit "incapable of reading entire articles", that there is more that I missed? That there is indeed a proper "debunking"?

Let me just ask you this, why did you get so offended by my post, so much so that you saw fit to call me an idiot? Where exactly did I offend you?

 

[Llama]

You didnt offend me, i'm a very laid back person However, you seemed to miss the fact that it wasn't an attempt at debunking, it was a piss taking attempt.
Was it not that obvious? :O

Big edit: Ahh, you're complaining about the relevance of the article in this forum as a political tool rather than how you find the article itself? I can understand that.

 

[Korgoth]

yeah lol sorry if it didn't come off that way, I can understand this as a piss take though, and I still enjoy maddox's gabs

 

[Llama]

No problem, just a break down in communication... >.< Boy do I feel the smart one

 

[sinkoman]

OMG, you guys are making me sick.

If Bush wanted to go to war that bad, he would have pulled one of the millions of reasons he's got hidden in his ass. Not blow up a building.

The fact that the current war is radically unrealistically justified just shows that Bush has better fake-asshat-reasons to declare war, than blow up his own people.

Keep in mind that its not molten aluminium, as molten aluminium retains its silvery colour.

O RLY?

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/dailypix/2006/Feb/18/FPI602180326AR_b.jpg

 

[Glirk Dient]

The conspiracy theories don't hold up so im wondering why you guys are trying to debunk the official story when there isn't a single alternate theory that has a shred of credible scientific evidence.

Even the thermite has been debunked in the link I posted earlier. That was the only lead the theories had.

 

[_Z_Ryuken]

I still say we need to construct a replica of one of the towers and fly a jet into it.

 

[clarky003]

The conspiracy theories don't hold up so im wondering why you guys are trying to debunk the official story when there isn't a single alternate theory that has a shred of credible scientific evidence.

Even the thermite has been debunked in the link I posted earlier. That was the only lead the theories had.

Well let us not forget that the official theory doesn't really have any concrete evidence going for it either, infact the pancaking conclusion eventually came about only after NIST does some 'tweaking' on the models to the most extreme circumstance. The origional conclusion therefore lacks in hard evidence, and is only a derivitive of pushing virtual models to a certain threshold to produce the results for floor collapse and even then the collapse itself wasnt modelled so we dont know how it would compare up to verify further that it was a pancaking collapse. It is a different issue as weither what they eventually require in the models to create floor collapse were the actual conditions at the time.

Let us also not forget that it was a crime scene, and these 3 steel highrise buildings were the only cases of fire induced collapse in history, considering the significance of that it is only sensible to want further analysis given the illegal and criminal destruction of evidence at ground zero, only a few samples were obtained and anaylised by FEMA and they indicated unusually high amounts of sulphur.

Also the supposed debunking of the molten steel as "a cocktail of aircraft metals" amongst all the waffling this is the main point, where as this maybe possible, there is no evidence and is again flat out omission as to the source of the molten metal, therefore it still has a probability of being molten metal from the buildings steel structure. But its common sense that the small amounts of possible molten material in the planes again do not explain the large amounts of heat and near molten materials remaining for months afterwards at basement levels.

O RLY?

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/da...180326AR_b.jpg

It would help if you understood your metals, at melting point aluminium stays silver and would begin to run away from the heat source and begin to cool down, aluminium becomes red hot like that when it is in dark areas, in daylight it has high reflectivity and the heat colour can hardly be seen. Far in access of its melting point at around 1500 C + in daylight it would still remain silvery gray, even still it raises the question of why molten aluminium would be coming out of building all of sudden minutes prior to collapse , when the hottest moment was surely the seconds/minutes within which the jet fuel was consumed.

edit: I'm not saying its true, but the likeness to a thermite reaction is striking (also note the distinctly more white smoke rising from the location) http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Thermite.htm, which is why it should be mentioned and not outrightly assumed as 'a cocktail of plane metals' especially with no direct evidence of that occuring.


_______ ___________

 

[sinkoman]

It would help if you understood your metals, at melting point aluminium stays silver and would begin to run away from the heat source and begin to cool down, aluminium becomes red hot like that when it is in dark areas, in daylight it has high reflectivity and the heat colour can hardly be seen. Far in access of its melting point at around 1500 C + in daylight it would still remain silvery gray, even still it raises the question of why molten aluminium would be coming out of building all of sudden minutes prior to collapse , when the hottest moment was surely the seconds/minutes within which the jet fuel was consumed.

I understand enough about metals to know what this is.

 

[Raziaar]

I understand enough about metals to know what this is.

Fix the link, it says forbidden

Load it to imageshack

 

[Glirk Dient]

Well let us not forget that the official theory doesn't really have any concrete evidence going for it either

Good point...theres no evidence like plane pieces, video footage, plenty of documents explaining the physics behind oh and all the other tangible evidence that was at the towers.

infact the pancaking conclusion eventually came about only after NIST does some 'tweaking' on the models to the most extreme circumstance. The origional conclusion therefore lacks in hard evidence, and is only a derivitive of pushing virtual models to a certain threshold to produce the results for floor collapse and even then the collapse itself wasnt modelled so we dont know how it would compare up to verify further that it was a pancaking collapse. It is a different issue as weither what they eventually require in the models to create floor collapse were the actual conditions at the time.

So your saying the pancake theory is false because it came out at a later date and the originals didn't fit? Then you go to say that the pancake theory doesn't work because we didn't build replica models even though that same line of thought debunks the explosion collapse theory.

Let us also not forget that it was a crime scene, and these 3 steel highrise buildings were the only cases of fire induced collapse in history, considering the significance of that it is only sensible to want further analysis given the illegal and criminal destruction of evidence at ground zero, only a few samples were obtained and anaylised by FEMA and they indicated unusually high amounts of sulphur.

Funny enough they saw no reason to keep the garbage around as they needed to clear it out and recover bodies/whatever else they saw fit. There was no need to keep it and examine it as to this date there still isn't a credible reason.

Also the supposed debunking of the molten steel as "a cocktail of aircraft metals" amongst all the waffling this is the main point, where as this maybe possible, there is no evidence and is again flat out omission as to the source of the molten metal, therefore it still has a probability of being molten metal from the buildings steel structure. But its common sense that the small amounts of possible molten material in the planes again do not explain the large amounts of heat and near molten materials remaining for months afterwards at basement levels.

You missed the fallacies they pointed out that the molten steel would be in that location. The molten steel came right from the area where the plane crashed and took out the support columns, seems odd they would use thermite on those and also seems probable the area where the plane crashed and is full of low melting point materials would have liquid substance come out of it. Note that it hasn't been proven it is any metal, which means that steel isn't the only thing it could have been.

It would help if you understood your metals, at melting point aluminium stays silver and would begin to run away from the heat source and begin to cool down, aluminium becomes red hot like that when it is in dark areas, in daylight it has high reflectivity and the heat colour can hardly be seen. Far in access of its melting point at around 1500 C + in daylight it would still remain silvery gray, even still it raises the question of why molten aluminium would be coming out of building all of sudden minutes prior to collapse , when the hottest moment was surely the seconds/minutes within which the jet fuel was consumed.

Wrong about the heat...the fires increased and got hotter.

Here is a quote from my link earlier

One explanation is that molten aluminum, which is very reactive, interacted chemically with impurities on the facade and emitted spectra. The silver appearance is consistent with molten aluminum near its melting point.

edit: I'm not saying its true, but the likeness to a thermite reaction is striking (also note the distinctly more white smoke rising from the location) http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Thermite.htm, which is why it should be mentioned and not outrightly assumed as 'a cocktail of plane metals' especially with no direct evidence of that occuring.

White smoke means there is liquid...IE not as strong a fire. Something such as fire sprinklers that shoot out water would cause this as a large majority of the smoke was black. Also I am not sure what white smoke your talking to but it could have been the concrete clouds.

 

[sinkoman]

I understand enough about metals to know what this is.

Fix the link, it says forbidden

Load it to imageshack

Google "tin foil hat".

 

[15357]

Guys, please. 9/11 was an accident. I didn't mean to hit the towers. I'm sorry.