Pegasus Research Consortium

John Lear's Question and Answers => John Lear's Question and Answer Area => 9/11 Conspiracies => Topic started by: larishira on September 29, 2016, 09:29:54 am

Title: Ok, no planes...but....passenger list, who are these names?
Post by: larishira on September 29, 2016, 09:29:54 am
Ok...there´s no plane...thats a fact....but the passangers...the list...the whole scene they calling to their familys to say bye...whathever...
My dad ask me...and i cannot find a answer for this question!!!
Title: Re: Ok, no planes...but....passenger list, who are these names?
Post by: Pimander on September 29, 2016, 10:30:56 am
Are you referring to the Ukraine flight that was "shot down"?
Title: Re: Ok, no planes...but....passenger list, who are these names?
Post by: larishira on September 29, 2016, 10:41:51 am
no....the planes that crashed into the WTC Towers
Title: Re: Ok, no planes...but....passenger list, who are these names?
Post by: Dyna on October 01, 2016, 05:55:38 pm
Ok...there´s no plane...thats a fact....but the passengers...the list...the whole scene they calling to their familys to say bye...whathever...
My dad ask me...and i cannot find a answer for this question!!!

I suppose it would be possible to have false reports from false loved ones and false passenger lists and all.
Check this out
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Tbz7867Nbg
Title: Re: Ok, no planes...but....passenger list, who are these names?
Post by: ArMaP on October 02, 2016, 03:28:57 am
It's interesting that the video starts with a supposed Adolf Hitler quote that I couldn't find anywhere. :)

Yes, you shouldn't believe any thing you see just because you see it on the papers, magazines, TV or Internet, including videos like these.
Title: Re: Ok, no planes...but....passenger list, who are these names?
Post by: zorgon on October 11, 2016, 08:54:23 pm
Ok...there's no plane...that's a fact....but the passangers...the list...the whole scene they calling to their family's to say bye...whatever...
My dad ask me...and i cannot find a answer for this question!!!

Well the Red Cross raised MILLIONS of dollars for those airplane victim families. Where did that money go? Very little was paid out.

Usually in any plane crash of any kind, they reassemble bits of the plane at the FAA warehouse. This was NOT done on 911...

There have been several cases where people that were supposed to have died in those planes show up to be alive...

It is easy to plant actors and false families.  Sure many did die in the tower collapse... but has nayone REALLY followed up on those passenger lists? Or did everyone just take the word of the 'authorities' as to who was on those planes?

The public is a fickle audience... they soon forget and don't care unless it effects them directly. The general public is also to blinded by trust that their minds cannot grasp the enormity of the act  even though the pentagon already had the same plan laid out for Cuba in 1954 (Operation Northwoods)

Its just to unfathomable for them to believe.

Just show your father the picture of Edna Crinton standing in the hole where the "plane" was supposed to have crashed and the fuel was supposed to be hot enough to melt steel. See how he explains her being there :P

Title: Re: Ok, no planes...but....passenger list, who are these names?
Post by: zorgon on October 11, 2016, 08:56:42 pm
It's interesting that the video starts with a supposed Adolf Hitler quote that I couldn't find anywhere. :)

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/adolf_hitler.html

 ::)

36:  “Through clever and constant application of propaganda, people can be made to see paradise as hell, and also the other way round, to consider the most wretched sort of life as paradise.”

http://www.quotesigma.com/50-famous-quotes-adolf-hitler/
Title: Re: Ok, no planes...but....passenger list, who are these names?
Post by: ArMaP on October 12, 2016, 01:23:55 am
I was talking of real sources, a site that repeats a supposed quote without saying when it was originally used means nothing. :)
Title: Re: Ok, no planes...but....passenger list, who are these names?
Post by: Pimander on October 12, 2016, 05:26:20 am
(http://www.vortexmemorywater.com/images/EdnaCintron.jpg)
Title: Re: Ok, no planes...but....passenger list, who are these names?
Post by: ArMaP on October 12, 2016, 05:36:53 am
(http://www.vortexmemorywater.com/images/EdnaCintron.jpg)
That image only demonstrates that there wasn't a "blazing inferno" there, it demonstrates nothing about the solidity of the building's structure.
Title: Re: Ok, no planes...but....passenger list, who are these names?
Post by: Pimander on October 12, 2016, 05:41:08 am
That image only demonstrates that there wasn't a "blazing inferno" there, it demonstrates nothing about the solidity of the building's structure.
I'm just posting the picture because Z mentioned it.

I have my doubts that a fire would collapse the building but I am not certain one way or the other.  A lot of engineers and architects doubt the official story so I think it is stupid to not be sceptical about 9/11.  Yes, sceptical can include being sceptical of the official story AND the conspiracy theory. :)
Title: Re: Ok, no planes...but....passenger list, who are these names?
Post by: Sgt.Rocknroll on October 12, 2016, 06:15:57 am
For your viewing pleasure...or not...

(http://i1135.photobucket.com/albums/m623/Sgt_Rocknroll/Flight11_zpsj4q6wkkk.png) (http://s1135.photobucket.com/user/Sgt_Rocknroll/media/Flight11_zpsj4q6wkkk.png.html)
(http://i1135.photobucket.com/albums/m623/Sgt_Rocknroll/Flight175_zps5wxex3aj.png) (http://s1135.photobucket.com/user/Sgt_Rocknroll/media/Flight175_zps5wxex3aj.png.html)
(http://i1135.photobucket.com/albums/m623/Sgt_Rocknroll/Flight93_zpsdwqk3tlb.png) (http://s1135.photobucket.com/user/Sgt_Rocknroll/media/Flight93_zpsdwqk3tlb.png.html)
(http://i1135.photobucket.com/albums/m623/Sgt_Rocknroll/Flight77_zpsyutsu8hn.png) (http://s1135.photobucket.com/user/Sgt_Rocknroll/media/Flight77_zpsyutsu8hn.png.html)


http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/passengers.html



Title: Re: Ok, no planes...but....passenger list, who are these names?
Post by: Pimander on October 12, 2016, 10:50:32 am
Sorry guys but this always irritates the hell out of me.  Are births and death records public the same as in the UK?  Here all births and deaths are recorded in the registry of births and deaths.  That is how we know who is British and alive.  You have similar surely?

If you do have similar then this is not something difficult to determine.  If it happened here I could tell you without much doubt whether real people appear to have died on the plane.  I could follow up by checking local records to find the addresses and places of work of people and check that their friends, relatives, workplaces and schools mourned their passing.

???
Title: Re: Ok, no planes...but....passenger list, who are these names?
Post by: zorgon on October 13, 2016, 01:50:56 am
I have my doubts that a fire would collapse the building but I am not certain one way or the other.

Look... it doesn't take a rocket scientist :P   Just watch the video... jet fuel burns in a very quick ball of flame. LOOK AT THE DAMN VIDEO :P and count the seconds from 'impact'  The jet fuel fireball lasts exactly 7.5 seconds MOST of it outside the building... SEVEN AND A HALF SECONDS and the jet fuel is gone  POOF The picture of Edna proves that only a few office fires are still burning, not hot enough to even scorch her white pants.

Now go out and get some gasoline and pour it over a small steel bar....  Count the number of seconds that it takes for that gasoline to even get that small steel bar red hot, never mind melt.

I thought you were a scientist :P  If anyone can believe that 7.5 seconds of a jet fuel plume can melt those steel core beams then there is no hope for humanity and the Aliens need to eradicate us immediately :P

problem is NO ONE actually does the math as it were. No one has yet shown jet fuel melting even a small piece of steel.

And besides that if you know anything about burning jet fuel, the fuel itself does not burn. The heat comes from the fumes above the fuel and the steel would have to be above that to get hot.  So take five gallons of gasoline and set it on fire....  see how much steel you can melt with that and get back to me

 ::)
Title: Re: Ok, no planes...but....passenger list, who are these names?
Post by: zorgon on October 13, 2016, 01:57:20 am
Look at the time stamps...  one POOF and the fuel is gone. gasoline gets hot expands to vapour then goes up in a fireball... try it at home :P

But NOTICE  That MOST OF THE PLUME IS OUTSIDE THE BUILDING!!!!!!!

(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/47john_lear/04images/911/Fireball_06.png)
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/47john_lear/04images/911/Fireball_08.png)
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/47john_lear/04images/911/Fireball_10.png)
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/47john_lear/04images/911/Fireball_11.png)
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/47john_lear/04images/911/Fireball_12.png)
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/47john_lear/04images/911/Fireball_13.png)
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/47john_lear/04images/911/Fireball_14.png)
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/47john_lear/04images/911/Fireball_15.png)
Title: Re: Ok, no planes...but....passenger list, who are these names?
Post by: zorgon on October 13, 2016, 02:01:14 am
That image only demonstrates that there wasn't a "blazing inferno" there, it demonstrates nothing about the solidity of the building's structure.

Well the "blazing inferno" is what supposedly melted the steel. If there is no "blazing inferno" then there is no melting of steel. Surely not even YOU believe that a few offic fires can melt steel beams of that size?

Seriously  Go try to melt some steel in your back yard using gasoline and report back to me your results. until then your opinion is of no value :P

 ::)
Title: Re: Ok, no planes...but....passenger list, who are these names?
Post by: Pimander on October 13, 2016, 02:37:33 am
Come on Z, it just is not as simple as you just said. ::)

I'll list a few things that also need considering for both sides of the argument.

Look... it doesn't take a rocket scientist :P   Just watch the video... jet fuel burns in a very quick ball of flame. LOOK AT THE DAMN VIDEO :P and count the seconds from 'impact'  The jet fuel fireball lasts exactly 7.5 seconds MOST of it outside the building... SEVEN AND A HALF SECONDS and the jet fuel is gone  POOF The picture of Edna proves that only a few office fires are still burning, not hot enough to even scorch her white pants.
Was all the fuel burned in the 7.5secs?

Quote
Now go out and get some gasoline and pour it over a small steel bar....  Count the number of seconds that it takes for that gasoline to even get that small steel bar red hot, never mind melt.
Heat does more to steel than just met it.  At temperatures below melting point the properties of steel can change.

Quote
If anyone can believe that 7.5 seconds of a jet fuel plume can melt those steel core beams then there is no hope for humanity and the Aliens need to eradicate us immediately
I'm not sure either way.  Please don't exterminate me Aliens!

Quote
problem is NO ONE actually does the math as it were. No one has yet shown jet fuel melting even a small piece of steel.
You don't have to melt steel to destroy a structure.  However, if the reports of molten metal at ground zero are true then.....

Quote
And besides that if you know anything about burning jet fuel, the fuel itself does not burn. The heat comes from the fumes above the fuel and the steel would have to be above that to get hot.  So take five gallons of gasoline and set it on fire....  see how much steel you can melt with that and get back to me
I do know something about it.  Jet fuel when NOT in a jet with optimal oxygen supply burns at a MUCH LOWER TEMPERATURE.  A dirty burn (notice the smoke) in normal air of hydrocarbons take place at less than 370C or 700F.  So if the initial impact and explosion didn't cause the collapse then what did?

But like I say, I don't know for sure what caused the collapse.  I agree that a thermite reaction could do it though.  I don't see how the other building that wasn't hit collapsed.  That is the most obviously suspicious to me,, especially considering the reports of flashes and explosions inside the building by witnesses which were shown on a UK TV documentary.

ETA:  Steel would not be altered at all below 700F
Title: Re: Ok, no planes...but....passenger list, who are these names?
Post by: zorgon on October 13, 2016, 09:54:00 am
Come on Z, it just is not as simple as you just said. ::)

Well actually it IS simple. but people don't want to accept rreality so they find all sorts of complications so they can accept the horror. Humnans tend to over complicate simple solutions yet will rarely actually TEST it to see if it can be duplicated

Quote
I'll list a few things that also need considering for both sides of the argument.
Was all the fuel burned in the 7.5secs?

Doesn't matter... even if it was 10 to 15 minutes of fuel burning jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel. SIMPLE as that. maybe if you added a blast furnace... then maybe...  I have forged steel sword blades in a blast furnace forge. It takes a long time to get that steel hot enough to shape.

Those core beam are huge and thick. Heat would need to be intensely focused on a small area to even begin to get those beams glowing

Now explain to me how those beams were still RED HOT under ground 6 weeks later when they dug them up

 ::)

Quote
Heat does more to steel than just met it.  At temperatures below melting point the properties of steel can change.

Yes it does BUT you fail to consider the sheer mass of those beams and the way heat disperses along a large steel beam. Take an acytelene torch to a thick steel rail and show me how long it takes you to even get it glowing. And a torch is focused heat a lot hotter than jet fuel.

Don't argue maybe's and could bes   Just show me a recreation  It IS that simple... If you claim jet fuel can melt such a beam then do the recreation to prove it. How simple is that? Yet NO ONE has done so.

Quote
I'm not sure either way.  Please don't exterminate me Aliens!

So your a fence sitter... not a real scientist willing to test a SIMPLE experiment :P  Go ahead Aliens... take him out :P

Quote
You don't have to melt steel to destroy a structure.  However, if the reports of molten metal at ground zero are true then.....

True but the engineers built it to withstand SEVERAL plane crashes. And many other buildings have had planes crash into them and had extremely severe fires hot enough that you can see molten metal dripping (like that recent one in Dubai)  yet NO DAMAGE was done to the core beams. The ONLY time in history that happened was 911

And yes the molten metal is real

6 weeks later  See for yourself

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7P5GelS50c


Quote
I do know something about it.  Jet fuel when NOT in a jet with optimal oxygen supply burns at a MUCH LOWER TEMPERATURE.  A dirty burn (notice the smoke) in normal air of hydrocarbons take place at less than 370C or 700F.  So if the initial impact and explosion didn't cause the collapse then what did?

I go with PARTICAL BEAM  That can explain the vaporization and the fact that the steel was still hot 6 weeks later. Even THERMITE burns would not stay hot very long. The only way the steel would stay hot is if something changed the molecular structure. 

Quote
But like I say, I don't know for sure what caused the collapse.  I agree that a thermite reaction could do it though.  I don't see how the other building that wasn't hit collapsed.  That is the most obviously suspicious to me,, especially considering the reports of flashes and explosions inside the building by witnesses which were shown on a UK TV documentary.

Or the fact that the UK TV reported Building 7 had collapsed when you can still see it standing behind the reporter :P OOPS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltP2t9nq9fI

 ::)

Quote
ETA:  Steel would not be altered at all below 700F

It would certainly NOT turn to dust in seconds as did the remaining core :D Watch at :44

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKKtAlK2Lh0

Title: Re: Ok, no planes...but....passenger list, who are these names?
Post by: zorgon on October 13, 2016, 10:21:49 am
For your viewing pleasure...or not...

great  So now we have a (supposed) passenger list. And yes I see a lot of arabic names on that too :P

Now all we need to do is search the OBITURAIES and see if these people are actually dead.

Sorry guys but this always irritates the hell out of me.  Are births and death records public the same as in the UK?  Here all births and deaths are recorded in the registry of births and deaths.  That is how we know who is British and alive.  You have similar surely?

Surely we do yes... but that would require actual WORK to dig through the records and match them up.

Here is the thing... you would only need to find ONE PERSON on that list that isn't dead. :P

Just ONE and the house of cards crumbles

At Least 7 of the 9/11
Hijackers are Still Alive

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/hijackers.html

Title: Re: Ok, no planes...but....passenger list, who are these names?
Post by: zorgon on October 13, 2016, 10:31:22 am
THIS little hole is where that plane vanished into...

First responders to Shanksville 'crash'

(https://911logic.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/15-9l-shanksville-hole.jpg)

Not ONE piece of airplane wreckage, no bodies, no suitcaes debris, nada, zip, nothing

These guys are just meandering about wondering what's up :P

(http://911review.org/93/shanksville-1.JPG)

Old satellite footage shows that the Shanksville hole was there BEFORE the crash.

1994 Shanksville gash from mining at the exact location

(http://whale.to/b/Shanksville_mine_1994.jpg)

Despite what they want you to believe airplanes do NOT just vaporize without a trace
Title: Re: Ok, no planes...but....passenger list, who are these names?
Post by: larishira on October 13, 2016, 01:01:02 pm
Did you know that 9 of the 12 terrorists are alive?
Title: Re: Ok, no planes...but....passenger list, who are these names?
Post by: ArMaP on October 13, 2016, 01:26:32 pm
Well the "blazing inferno" is what supposedly melted the steel.
Really? Who says that?

Quote
If there is no "blazing inferno" then there is no melting of steel.
There's no need for the steel to melt for a steel structure have a catastrophic failure.

Quote
Surely not even YOU believe that a few offic fires can melt steel beams of that size?
I don't believe that any steel was melt soon after the planes hit the buildings.

Quote
Seriously  Go try to melt some steel in your back yard using gasoline and report back to me your results. until then your opinion is of no value :P
Two things:
1 - the fuel used on the planes was not gasoline, jet planes use a type of fuel that is closer to kerosene;
2 - I don't have a back yard.

And my opinion has the same value as any other from any person that knows little or nothing about steel structures, like most people talking about this.
Title: Re: Ok, no planes...but....passenger list, who are these names?
Post by: larishira on October 13, 2016, 01:46:34 pm
Really? Who says that?
There's no need for the steel to melt for a steel structure have a catastrophic failure.
I don't believe that any steel was melt soon after the planes hit the buildings.
Two things:
1 - the fuel used on the planes was not gasoline, jet planes use a type of fuel that is closer to kerosene;
2 - I don't have a back yard.

And my opinion has the same value as any other from any person that knows little or nothing about steel structures, like most people talking about this.

Are  you physical, chemical or engineer????
Title: Re: Ok, no planes...but....passenger list, who are these names?
Post by: zorgon on October 13, 2016, 01:51:35 pm
And my opinion has the same value as any other from any person that knows little or nothing about steel structures, like most people talking about this.

You are right  Any person who knows little or nothing about steel cannot have a valuable opinion :P

And gasoline, jet fuel, Kerosene...  all are pretty much the same stuff in their effect on steel :P

Title: Re: Ok, no planes...but....passenger list, who are these names?
Post by: zorgon on October 13, 2016, 01:53:31 pm
Are  you physical, chemical or engineer????

No he isn't :P 

But he is right when he says "I don't believe that any steel was melt soon after the planes hit the buildings."

 8)

...because no planes hit the buildings :p
Title: Re: Ok, no planes...but....passenger list, who are these names?
Post by: larishira on October 13, 2016, 01:54:28 pm
You are right  Any person who knows little or nothing about steel cannot have a valuable opinion :P

And gasoline, jet fuel, Kerosene...  all are pretty much the same stuff in their effect on steel :P

maybe we should listen the enginners...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laS_sia9U9Q (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laS_sia9U9Q)
Title: Re: Ok, no planes...but....passenger list, who are these names?
Post by: larishira on October 13, 2016, 01:57:21 pm
No he isn't :P 

But he is right when he says "I don't believe that any steel was melt soon after the planes hit the buildings."

 8)

...because no planes hit the buildings :p

I did physics and studied almost 6 months on buildings and knowledge I say, they were imploded, but for all we know, the WTC had a self implosion system, but had to be activated 5 minutes before the plane hit !
Title: Re: Ok, no planes...but....passenger list, who are these names?
Post by: ArMaP on October 13, 2016, 03:03:39 pm
Are  you physical, chemical or engineer????
Seeing that I can touch things I suppose I'm physical. ;)

But no, I'm not an engineer.
Title: Re: Ok, no planes...but....passenger list, who are these names?
Post by: ArMaP on October 13, 2016, 03:05:47 pm
You are right  Any person who knows little or nothing about steel cannot have a valuable opinion :P
Now I have to ask: what are your qualifications about steel?

Quote
And gasoline, jet fuel, Kerosene...  all are pretty much the same stuff in their effect on steel :P
Not really, as they have different behaviours and burn at different temperatures.
Title: Re: Ok, no planes...but....passenger list, who are these names?
Post by: zorgon on October 13, 2016, 03:32:41 pm
Now I have to ask: what are your qualifications about steel?

I have a welding certificate and can weld brass and aluminum as well. Welding aluminum is no easy task and my instructor was amazed at how fast I picked it up and showed him how it was done :P

I have made swords from both normal (soft) steel and 1040 carbon steel. So has my son.  I learned this from an armorer in our medieval group who was a master blacksmith and I have learned a few tricks from master Atar of Salamader Armory here in las Vegas, one of the finest sword smiths in the world (literally)

I have also worked with titanium and have a sheet of 1/4 inch thick pure titanium I want tyo make into swords but that requires a plasma cutting torch for extreme high heat and I can't afford one of those so the sheet of titanium sits in my garage.

I also majored in chemistry and metalurgy back in school.  The jewelry skills I have learned allow me to weld gold and silver.

Each metal has its own unique properties like melting point etc. You learn very quickly how much heat you need to weld, to cut or to melt each metal. If you don't, you work will quickly be destroyed

Aluminum is tricky to weld because it is the one metal that gives you no sign that it is ready. it just suddenly melts when you get too hot.

And no it does NOT vaporize like those 'airplanes' did. Just melts into blobs.  Since Aluminum oxide is what forms corundum (ruby, sapphire) the second hardest material on earth. aluminum oxide is used as a polish for rocks. But it does not magically vaporize into thin air as happened on that magical day we call 9/11





Not really, as they have different behaviours and burn at different temperatures.
[/quote]
Title: Re: Ok, no planes...but....passenger list, who are these names?
Post by: ArMaP on October 13, 2016, 03:41:38 pm
maybe we should listen the enginners...
From what I have seen, there are engineers on both sides, so which ones should we listen to?

Quote
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laS_sia9U9Q (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laS_sia9U9Q)
One thing I noticed on that video is that they speak about molten steel but then say that they found molten iron. As zorgon can tell you, steel is not the same as iron, they have different properties, including melting point. They also say that they found molten lead, which is no surprise, as it melts at a relatively low temperature, but what I find strange is no reference to molten copper, they should have found copper from all the electrical wires.
Title: Re: Ok, no planes...but....passenger list, who are these names?
Post by: ArMaP on October 13, 2016, 03:43:26 pm
I have a welding certificate and can weld brass and aluminum as well. Welding aluminum is no easy task and my instructor was amazed at how fast I picked it up and showed him how it was done :P

I have made swords from both normal (soft) steel and 1040 carbon steel. So has my son.  I learned this from an armorer in our medieval group who was a master blacksmith and I have learned a few tricks from master Atar of Salamader Armory here in las Vegas, one of the finest sword smiths in the world (literally)
So you know the differences between melting and only soften steel. At what temperature does steel loses its strength?
Title: Re: Ok, no planes...but....passenger list, who are these names?
Post by: zorgon on October 13, 2016, 03:57:01 pm
Not really, as they have different behaviours and burn at different temperatures.

Well actually ordinary gasoline burns HOTTER than kerosene or jet fuel :P

Regarding the temp. for burning JET A fuel (standard in the US). The open air burning temp is less than 350 C. I think you would have to consider the WTC open air burning. Max temp is achieved only with an optimum mixture of air and fuel producing no smoke. Smoke is a sign of oxygen deprivation with results in lower temperatures. The WTC steel was tested by UL at 2000 C and retained it's specification. It is not likely that an open air burn for less than 50 minutes could have caused enough deformation to result in collapse.

from a real engineer (friend on facebook)

Posted by: Bruce Williams ()
Date: April 04, 2010 07:11PM

No matter if it weakens it or not:
1. No steel building other than the WTC has ever collapsed due to any fire of any sort.
2. A certain temperature may weaken the iron, but it is incapable of melting any of it o matter how large or or how small.

Jet A is the same stuff burned in conventional steel wall heaters. In an open-air office fire such as that at WTC (called a "dirty burn"winking smiley kerosene or any hydrocarbon will burn at around 500-700F (260C to 371C). The FEMA report on 911 said that the jet fuel burned off after a few minutes and the fires from the office furniture and carpets were about 560F (293C) The special structural steel of the WTC has over 98% of its strength at those temperatures, and the WTC was built to hold 5 times its load.

In a "controlled burn" (where oxygen and fuel are regulated in an optimal mix), jet fuel will reach a maximum temperature of 1800F(982C), which is still not anywhere near the temperature required to weaken the steel girders of a building to the point that the entire building plummeted to the ground. Yet molten steel was reported below the towers, suggesting that a very powerful "fuel" was used, set to burn or explode BELOW the building, not at its top. Thermite, an HTA (high-temperature accelerant) typically used in military operations, would have been able to liquefy the steel. Thermite can reach a temperature of 4500F (2482C) in 2 seconds, and steel begins to melt at 2750F (1510C).


So end of story :P Case closed :P
No jet fuel caused the towers to fail PERIOD

and no fire of any type has EVER cause ANY steel structure to fail

Comparfe the few fires seen at 9/11 to THIS one

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPCL3sNVBcM

This one didn't collapse :P  It burned a long time  You can see molten metal spewing off... but NO COLLAPSE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jn3Cv3l1D0A


So stop with the faerie tale of 9/11 :P and accept the reality
Title: Re: Ok, no planes...but....passenger list, who are these names?
Post by: ArMaP on October 13, 2016, 04:55:19 pm
Well actually ordinary gasoline burns HOTTER than kerosene or jet fuel :P
I didn't say that it burned at a higher temperature, did I? :)

Quote
1. No steel building other than the WTC has ever collapsed due to any fire of any sort.
Were those buildings also hit by large aeroplanes?

Quote
So stop with the faerie tale of 9/11 :P and accept the reality
And what is the reality? Planes hit the buildings? Planes didn't hit the buildings? The molten steel found days after was molten before, during or after the towers collapsed?

That's why I always try to ignore these discussions, it's worse than religion or UFOs, everyone has their own pet theory and that is the only one that may be true.
Title: Re: Ok, no planes...but....passenger list, who are these names?
Post by: zorgon on October 13, 2016, 05:51:52 pm
Were those buildings also hit by large aeroplanes?

Some  yes :P

(http://static2.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.2300548.1437588604!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_400/empirestate23a-14-web.jpg)


Quote
And what is the reality? Planes hit the buildings?

No... no actual [lanes hit the buildings :P it was all manipulation of the senses
 
Quote
Planes didn't hit the buildings?

Correct reality :P

Quote
The molten steel found days after was molten before, during or after the towers collapsed?

That is an interesting question. But before we can answer that we need to know what conditions would need to be in place to allow steel to stay molten 9or at least red hot) for six weeks outside a blast furnace

Quote
That's why I always try to ignore these discussions, it's worse than religion or UFOs, everyone has their own pet theory and that is the only one that may be true.

Pet theories are fine... but at some point you have to actually RESEARCH how physics works to get the reality.  Just ignoring physics because it doesn't fit a pet theory is no way to get at the truth.

To put the jet fuel/molten steel theory to rest all that is required is a simple experiment to determine IF jet fuel with added office furniture COUID melt or weaken a steel beam of the size and weight of core beams. And were those beams not encased in concrete anyway?And covered in ASBESTOS (which is why the buildings needed to be demolished in the first place)  So how did this Magic jet Fuel burn through all that?

There is a huge difference between pet theories and looking at actual facts to piece together a puzzle.  Too bad you don't see the difference

Basically, you just DON'T WANT TO BELIEVE :P
Title: Re: Ok, no planes...but....passenger list, who are these names?
Post by: larishira on October 13, 2016, 08:21:49 pm
https://youtu.be/cHHghW4Pg5k (https://youtu.be/cHHghW4Pg5k)
Title: Re: Ok, no planes...but....passenger list, who are these names?
Post by: larishira on October 13, 2016, 08:28:14 pm
what you said about this pic??

(http://massinjustice.org/TT%201%2024%2016%20Employee%20looking%20out%20hole%20in%20building.jpg)
Title: Re: Ok, no planes...but....passenger list, who are these names?
Post by: RUSSO on October 13, 2016, 11:08:07 pm
Basically, you just DON'T WANT TO BELIEVE :P

Is it a matter of beliefs?

Thats right, building 7 was a act of belief!

Contemplate the almighty power of the WILL:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mamvq7LWqRU

Cause I believe this was product of the terrorist prayers. ???

:o

Ps. add that to the "predict the future" factor BBC is capable of... BELIEVE IT! ::)
Title: Re: Ok, no planes...but....passenger list, who are these names?
Post by: RUSSO on October 13, 2016, 11:43:13 pm
Oh... and as important as how it came to the ground, its important to notice what business were in that building:

Quote
At the time of the September 11, 2001, attacks, Salomon Smith Barney was by far the largest tenant in 7 World Trade Center, occupying 1,202,900 sq ft (111,750 m2) (64 percent of the building) which included floors 28–45.[6][35] Other major tenants included ITT Hartford Insurance Group (122,590 sq ft/11,400 m²), American Express Bank International (106,117 sq ft/9,900 m²), Standard Chartered Bank (111,398 sq ft/10,350 m²), and the Securities and Exchange Commission (106,117 sq ft/9,850 m²).[35] Smaller tenants included the Internal Revenue Service Regional Council (90,430 sq ft/8,400 m²) and the United States Secret Service (85,343 sq ft/7,900 m²).[35] The smallest tenants included the New York City Office of Emergency Management,[36] National Association of Insurance Commissioners, Federal Home Loan Bank, First State Management Group Inc., Provident Financial Management, and the Immigration and Naturalization Service.[35] The Department of Defense (DOD) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) shared the 25th floor with the IRS.[6] Floors 46–47 were mechanical floors, as were the bottom six floors and part of the seventh floor.[6][37]

WTC Building Arrangement and Site Plan:

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d7/WTC_Building_Arrangement_and_Site_Plan_%28building_7_highlighted%29.jpg)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center)
Title: Re: Ok, no planes...but....passenger list, who are these names?
Post by: ArMaP on October 14, 2016, 06:05:58 am
Some  yes :P

(http://static2.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.2300548.1437588604!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_400/empirestate23a-14-web.jpg)
That plane weighted 1/10 of the Boeings' that hit the towers.

Quote
Pet theories are fine... but at some point you have to actually RESEARCH how physics works to get the reality.  Just ignoring physics because it doesn't fit a pet theory is no way to get at the truth.
Unfortunately, that's what we see the most, as many people ignore the things that appear to go against their pet theories.

Quote
To put the jet fuel/molten steel theory to rest all that is required is a simple experiment to determine IF jet fuel with added office furniture COUID melt or weaken a steel beam of the size and weight of core beams.
No, we would need a reconstruction of the events, partial reconstructions may be missing important elements.

Quote
There is a huge difference between pet theories and looking at actual facts to piece together a puzzle.  Too bad you don't see the difference
I do see the differences, the problem appears when people look only at the actual facts that support their theory.

Quote
Basically, you just DON'T WANT TO BELIEVE :P
Believe in what?
Title: Re: Ok, no planes...but....passenger list, who are these names?
Post by: zorgon on October 14, 2016, 10:32:26 am
That plane weighted 1/10 of the Boeings' that hit the towers.

So what? What has weight got to do with it? The planes in the WTC didn't knock out the core so... beside that building is 1/10 the size of the WTC :P

Title: Re: Ok, no planes...but....passenger list, who are these names?
Post by: ArMaP on October 14, 2016, 02:10:34 pm
So what? What has weight got to do with it?
It has to do with the energy of the hit, an object that weighs 10 times more than another will hit (at the same velocity) with 10 times more energy.
Title: Re: Ok, no planes...but....passenger list, who are these names?
Post by: RUSSO on October 14, 2016, 02:32:24 pm
It has to do with the energy of the hit, an object that weighs 10 times more than another will hit (at the same velocity) with 10 times more energy.


FAQ #9: Were the Twin Towers Designed to Survive the Impact of the Airplanes?

Quote
Both technical calculations and testimony from WTC structural engineers confirm that the Twin Towers were built to withstand the impact from the passenger jets that hit them on 9/11.

Airplane impact tests conducted by WTC structural engineers during the design of the Twin Towers used the Boeing 707, which was one of the largest passenger jets in the world at the time. The results of the test, carried out early in 1964, calculated that the towers would handle the impact of a 707 traveling at 600 mph without collapsing.
Even though the two Boeing 767 aircraft that were said to be used in the 9/11 attacks were slightly larger than the 707, technical comparisons show that the 707 has more destructive force at cruising speed. The following analysis was compiled by

Quote
Not only were the towers designed to survive crashes of large jet aircraft, but they were designed to potentially survive multiple plane crashes. This assertion is supported by Frank A. Demartini, the on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, who said on January 25, 2001:

“The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door—this intense grid—and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.”

Quote
Demartini appeared to be so confident that the towers would not collapse that he stayed behind, after the airplane impacts, to help save at least 50 people. As a result of his actions, he lost his life on 9/11.

Quote
In addition, investigators from NIST who examined the destruction of the WTC skyscrapers told The New York Times in 2007 that newly disclosed documents from the 1960s show that the new York Port Authority, the original owners of Twin Towers, also considered aircraft moving at 600 mph,slightly faster and therefore more destructive than the ones that did hit the towers.

Full read with the technical analysis here: -->http://www1.ae911truth.org/faqs/655-faq-9-were-the-twin-towers-designed-to-survive-the-impact-of-the-airplanes.html (http://www1.ae911truth.org/faqs/655-faq-9-were-the-twin-towers-designed-to-survive-the-impact-of-the-airplanes.html)
Title: Re: Ok, no planes...but....passenger list, who are these names?
Post by: Pimander on October 15, 2016, 10:10:34 am
Here is the thing... you would only need to find ONE PERSON on that list that isn't dead. :P

Just ONE and the house of cards crumbles

At Least 7 of the 9/11
Hijackers are Still Alive

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/hijackers.html
Or if the hijackers used other peoples ID then the people were still alive and the hijackers were dead.

There's no need for the steel to melt for a steel structure have a catastrophic failure.
This is what I was hinting at earlier.  Steel becomes brittle at temperatures significantly lower than melting point which is why I won't waste my time trying to melt steel because that is not relevant to the collapse.

Molten metal weeks later I can't explain.  I also think building 7 was deliberately demolished and I have always thought the building collapses looked like controlled demolition.  That does not mean they were controlled demolitions and I don't know all the answers.

I just don't have time free at the moment to go into all the details in depth but building 7 is a smoking gun of sorts if you ask me.

And no Z, I don't "want to believe" I want to KNOW!
Title: Re: Ok, no planes...but....passenger list, who are these names?
Post by: petrus4 on October 15, 2016, 10:30:36 am
Molten metal weeks later I can't explain.

Thermite can, depending on the catalyst used.  I feel pretty much certain that thermite was used on 9/11.  It accounts for everything.

Quote
I just don't have time free at the moment to go into all the details in depth but building 7 is a smoking gun of sorts if you ask me.

Exactly.  The planes were used as cover, but they had nothing to do with the real cause of the demolition whatsoever.  They were a diversion; one which was sadly very successful.
Title: Re: Ok, no planes...but....passenger list, who are these names?
Post by: ArMaP on October 15, 2016, 11:57:11 am
FAQ #9: Were the Twin Towers Designed to Survive the Impact of the Airplanes?
The question should be "were the Twin Towers designed to survive the impact of the airplanes and a fire?"
Title: Re: Ok, no planes...but....passenger list, who are these names?
Post by: Pimander on October 15, 2016, 01:01:18 pm
Thermite can, depending on the catalyst used.  I feel pretty much certain that thermite was used on 9/11.  It accounts for everything.
No, a  thermite reaction is very quick. But if some of the thermite was not triggered in the initial collapse it could be triggered by heat in the rubble and ignite other reactions down there.

White smoke from the wreckage (most building fires produce brown smoke) is evidence of thermite.

It is difficult to dismiss peer reviewed research too.

Quote
Abstract: We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in this paper. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later. The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic.
Active thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe (http://www.911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/bentham_open/ActiveThermitic_Harrit_Bentham2009.pdf)
Title: Re: Ok, no planes...but....passenger list, who are these names?
Post by: RUSSO on October 15, 2016, 01:28:56 pm
The question should be "were the Twin Towers designed to survive the impact of the airplanes and a fire?"

True.

But in the link i posted lead WTC Structural Engineer John Skilling told The Seattle Times:

Quote
“We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side… Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed. [But] the building structure would still be there.

(http://www1.ae911truth.org/images/infoitems/John_Skilling.png)
Quote
Lead WTC Structural Engineer John Skilling was rightfully confident that neither the impact of a large passenger jet nor the ensuing office fires was capable of bringing down the Twin Towers

Title: Re: Ok, no planes...but....passenger list, who are these names?
Post by: Pimander on October 15, 2016, 01:38:26 pm
The question should be "were the Twin Towers designed to survive the impact of the airplanes and a fire?"
Yes they were.
Title: Re: Ok, no planes...but....passenger list, who are these names?
Post by: zorgon on October 15, 2016, 05:20:27 pm
The question should be "were the Twin Towers designed to survive the impact of the airplanes and a fire?"

It is a given that when an airplane crashes there would be fire from the fuel :P

You also ignore the fact that building 7 had no collision yet still fell

You also ignore the fact that there were only a few small office fires on a couple of floors (easily visible in all film footage) and that those would NOT be enough to bring down any building, ever.

What I cannot fathom is how anyone can look at the evidence and compare it to all previous airplane crashes and building fires and still believe that this was 'normal'

 ::)


I am thinking that the media performed some trick of mass hypnosis on the viewers. That is the only logical explanation

 8)
Title: Re: Ok, no planes...but....passenger list, who are these names?
Post by: ArMaP on October 15, 2016, 06:23:34 pm
It is a given that when an airplane crashes there would be fire from the fuel :P
I don't work with "givens", if it's not explicitly said then I cannot be sure if it was considered or not.

Quote
You also ignore the fact that building 7 had no collision yet still fell
When talking about other things, sure I ignore building 7, as I ignore basketball, pizza and everything else.  :P

Quote
You also ignore the fact that there were only a few small office fires on a couple of floors (easily visible in all film footage) and that those would NOT be enough to bring down any building, ever.
I do not ignore what is seen on the videos, but I do not ignore we could not see inside the buildings, so I don't assume that nothing special was happening just because I don't see it.

Quote
What I cannot fathom is how anyone can look at the evidence and compare it to all previous airplane crashes and building fires and still believe that this was 'normal'
I never said it was "normal", what I have always said is that I find it possible that there weren't any other major forces involved in the collapsing of the buildings, the energy of the hits and the fire could have been enough to weaken the structure enough for it to collapse.

Quote
I am thinking that the media performed some trick of mass hypnosis on the viewers. That is the only logical explanation
I wouldn't be surprised if you really thought that, as you always prefer the less normal theories.  :P
Title: Re: Ok, no planes...but....passenger list, who are these names?
Post by: zorgon on October 16, 2016, 12:18:42 am
I wouldn't be surprised if you really thought that, as you always prefer the less normal theories.  :P

That is why we hang out on Conspiracy sites :P What's YOUR excuse? :P
Title: Re: Ok, no planes...but....passenger list, who are these names?
Post by: ArMaP on October 16, 2016, 04:26:06 am
What's YOUR excuse? :P
I like to study, from a complete amateur point of view, as I have zero theoretical knowledge about it, human psychology, so I like to see people's reactions, ideas, interpretations, etc. :)
Title: Re: Ok, no planes...but....passenger list, who are these names?
Post by: Sgt.Rocknroll on October 16, 2016, 05:04:21 am
Yes they were.
But, were they 'actually' built as designed?....No short cuts, budget problems, deadlines?
Don't know myself but this video explains how the floors collapsed...

skip to around 36:00
(edit: also 40:50)

https://youtu.be/3S5ohCX9JI8
Title: Re: Ok, no planes...but....passenger list, who are these names?
Post by: NativeAlien on March 30, 2017, 10:08:54 pm
Ok...there´s no plane...thats a fact....but the passangers...the list...the whole scene they calling to their familys to say bye...whathever...
My dad ask me...and i cannot find a answer for this question!!!

Okay so this thread went sideways from the original question.  But I will do my best to help you figure out where to start.  Check first the names of the passengers on the plane against the Social Security Index.  They have had plenty of time to update that by now.  You can find it with a simple google search.  Then the list of people that died inside the towers. Run their names thru the SSI as well and see if there is a difference in the answers that you get to your queries.  That should get you started. 
Title: Re: Ok, no planes...but....passenger list, who are these names?
Post by: micjer on March 31, 2017, 05:15:24 am

When talking about other things, sure I ignore building 7, as I ignore basketball, pizza and everything else.  :P
s.  :P


You wouldn't make a very good judge in a court of law if you ignored some of the evidence.  If you can explain it that would be one thing.  But you can't ignore facts and be fair.
Title: Re: Ok, no planes...but....passenger list, who are these names?
Post by: micjer on March 31, 2017, 05:20:52 am
Okay so this thread went sideways from the original question.  But I will do my best to help you figure out where to start.  Check first the names of the passengers on the plane against the Social Security Index.  They have had plenty of time to update that by now.  You can find it with a simple google search.  Then the list of people that died inside the towers. Run their names thru the SSI as well and see if there is a difference in the answers that you get to your queries.  That should get you started.


I wonder if this will end up like Sandy Hook, and other false flag events where the people appear to be alive and well.  Either that or their Dopplegangers are well.
Title: Re: Ok, no planes...but....passenger list, who are these names?
Post by: micjer on March 31, 2017, 05:53:25 am
https://goo.gl/images/DNEcPC

This is what I believe happened at the Pentagon
Title: Re: Ok, no planes...but....passenger list, who are these names?
Post by: micjer on March 31, 2017, 06:13:29 am
Let's start with Barbara Olson

First the cell phone calls have been proven to not have happened.


Here is a pic of her.

(http://i562.photobucket.com/albums/ss64/Micjer_2009/barbaraolson_zpsvj0exhqg.jpg) (http://s562.photobucket.com/user/Micjer_2009/media/barbaraolson_zpsvj0exhqg.jpg.html)


Now her husband remarried.   Seems to like blondes.....

Her name was Lady Booth from Kentucky

(http://i562.photobucket.com/albums/ss64/Micjer_2009/barb_zpsjpvas4gu.jpg) (http://s562.photobucket.com/user/Micjer_2009/media/barb_zpsjpvas4gu.jpg.html)


https://gumshoenews.com/2015/09/16/death-o-where-is-thy-sting-are-the-9-11-passengers-really-dead/
Title: Re: Ok, no planes...but....passenger list, who are these names?
Post by: zorgon on March 31, 2017, 01:02:49 pm
Then the list of people that died inside the towers. Run their names thru the SSI as well and see if there is a difference in the answers that you get to your queries.  That should get you started.

The list of people who died inside the towers (RIP) is irrelevant. NO ONE QUESTIONS that many people died in the towers that day.

But explain how many of the supposed hijackers turned up alive after? Sure someone may have stolen their ID and sure they had majic indestructable passports that survived the fires strong enough to melt steel :P
Title: Re: Ok, no planes...but....passenger list, who are these names?
Post by: micjer on August 21, 2018, 06:37:01 pm
Lucky Larry Silverstein


Link.
Larry Silverstein began spending every morning at the World Trade Center shortly after he inked a 99-year deal to operate the complex in July 2001. The New York developer would have breakfast at Windows on the World, the restaurant on the 107th floor of the North tower, and then meet for several hours with tenants. But on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, he was at home, dressing for a doctor's appointment his wife had made for him, instead of at his usual table at Windows. "I had said to my wife, sweetheart, cancel my doctor's appointment. I have so much to do at the Trade Center," he recalls. "She got very upset and told me I had to go. As it turns out, that saved my life."

Lucky Larry decided that a visit to the doctor that fateful morning was probably better for his health and pulled the breakfast. Larry knows instinctively what's good for him.

But that was not all... both his daughter and son were also absent according to the Observer:

After a last-minute breakdown in the front-running bid, Mr. Silverstein's team won by a hair. His son, Roger, and his daughter, Lisa, were working for him in temporary offices on the 88th floor of the W.T.C. north tower. Regular meetings with tenants in the weeks immediately following their July 26, 2001, takeover of the building were held each morning at Windows on the World. But on Sept. 11, Roger and Lisa Silverstein were running late. Meanwhile, Mr. Silverstein's wife of 46 years had laid down the law: The developer could not cancel an appointment with his dermatologist, even to meet with tenants at his most important property. If the attack had happened just a little later, Mr. Silverstein's children would likely have been trapped at Windows. As it was, Silverstein Properties lost four employees in the attack, two of whom had just recently been hired.

Larry to the doctor and his son and daughter 'running late'. Quite a coincidence. Anybody who believes these 'coincidences'?

Not only did Silverstein and his family miraculously survive the ordeal of 9/11; he made a hansom profit from it as well. With remarkable foresight he insured his newly acquired buildings against terrorist attacks. From a mere lessee he morphed into the developer of 3 of the 5 newly build towers, to be completed in 2012.

According to Newsweek: "Since September 11, New York real-estate mogul Larry Silverstein, 70, has been in the headlines as the man who "owns" a 99-year lease on all the space at the World Trade Center and is now at the center of the debate over what to rebuild there. What Silverstein actually owns is an 11 percent share of that lease for which he paid about $14 million. Using cash from other investors (who own the other 89 percent) and hundreds of millions more in borrowings, he bought the lease in late July 2001, from the Port"

So Silverstein initially only paid a lousy $14 million. The NY Post (not really an anti-semitic rag), writes in may 2007: "So far, Silverstein has tapped the $2.55 billion received from insurance money to pay about $700 million in rent due under his lease to the PA.".

Subtract some $700 million rent, leaving an overall hansom profit of $1.8 billion. And just wait until Lucky Larry receives his future 90 years of revenues, no longer from an asbestos ridden worthless aging dinosaur (quoting Richard Gage) but from a brand new WTC complex.

Regarding the 'worthless aging dinosaur': "In 1989 - there were plans to erect scaffolding and disassemble the WTC towers and rebuild them. Cost projection was around $5.6 billion. One of the architects shows up to work one day and the MIB's were there - had confiscated all of the plans, specs, details, etc for WTC. They even confiscated their office cubicles and had tape on the floor outlining where they went. Reason - the exterior cast aluminum WTC panels had been directly connected to the steel superstructure of the building, thus causing galvanic corrosion. In short, the "life cycle" of the WTC was not 200 - 300 years, more like 30 years or so."

http://how911wasdone.blogspot.com/