Debunking 9/11 conspiracy theorists part 3 -Thermate, thermite and glowing aluminium
In this video Myles discusses some of the claims made by thruthers that can be disproven with a simple google search. Claims such as Al does not glow red, cuts at the base of the WTC and the difference between thermate and thermite.
Myles Power 
Debunking the claims of ‘conspiracy theorists’ is not the same as understanding (and being able to prove with evidence) precisely WHAT happened to the WTC 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 ……. as well as Bankers Trust and the 1,400 ‘toasted’ cars etc etc
In other words, proving Group A’s theories wrong does not mean that Group B’s theories are automatically right. Disproving the existence of someone else’s god does not mean that your god is any more real.
Either we know what happened on 9/11 or we do not. If we claim to know what happened on 9/11 then we must be able to explain all the physical evidence and hard scientific date and account for how it came to be that way. If we can’t explain all the evidence then we must concede that we do not really know what happened on 9/11.
Detectives investigating a murder do not spend year after year bickering over theories – instead they get busy examining the evidence. And not just some of it but ALL of it.
Half an hour’s research into the EVIDENCE at the WTC will show you beyond all doubt that the towers did not collapse (due to fires, bombs, thermite, jet fuel or any other reason).
– If the towers had collapsed there would be a pile of material in and around the tower’s base because that’s what ‘collapse’ means. But there isn’t any significant amount of debris on the ground at all. As you can see, the ‘pile’ of debris from WTC 1 isbarely above street level. Notice the parked ambulance indicating where street level is. The big grey pieces are aluminium cladding. The rest is dust and paper. The distinctive lobby walls are clearly visible, as is the remains of stairwell B where 14 people survived.
The 11 miles worth of massive core columns (47 columns x 1300 ft) were the last part of the towers to remain standing. Had they fallen over sideways (like a tree) they would have fallen across the top of several blocks and this would have been clearly visible (this didn’t happen). Had they collapsed down vertically they should be lying on top of the tower’s debris ‘pile’. But the photo (and many others) shows the 11 miles of core box columns aren’t there either. So where are they?
If you claim the towers collapsed then you must KNOW where they went and you must be able to PROVE where they went. Otherwise you’re just inventing a theory about an imagined event not the real event (ie you’re just making stuff up).
Sure, there are *some* columns lying about (mostly outer ‘wheatcheck’ columns) but not enough to account for the 11 mile of core columns and 240 miles of outer columns (plus all the horizontal beams, floor pans, lift shafts, trusses etc)
– Had the towers collapsed they would also have created a seismic signal reflecting 500,000 ton buildings slamming into the ground. This also did not happen. The seismic signals were roughly equivalent to 30 story buildings hitting the ground. WTC 7 barely registered any signal at all despite being 47 stories and 230,000 tons.
The seismic signals were also SHORTER than the duration of the destruction. They lasted about 8 seconds, yet the overall destruction times for WTC1 was nearly 30 seconds (if you include the massive core columns which remained standing for a while). Any collapse theory would have to account for that too. During known controlled demolitions the seismic signals can last up to a minute (as the rubble shifts about in the rubble pile).
– Had the towers collapsed to the ground the 14 people in the core of WTC1 would have been buried underneath 500,000 tons of steal and concrete and they would probably have been squished as well. After all, the collapse theory is based on the idea that the weight of the top of the towers was capable of squishing the entire structure below it – but then your theory suggests that force suddenly stopped just a few feet above the heads of those survivors (and left no ‘pile driver’ behind either). The whole thing is ludicrous.
We know that 14 people DID survive in the core of WTC1 near ground level. They weren’t crushed and they weren’t buried. Some of them managed to crawl UP and OUT of the debris ‘pile’ by themselves!
If the weight of the top part of the towers is crushing the lower parts of the towers then that weight needs to be present all the way down to the ground, yes? But we know that there is virtually nothing piled up on the towers’ footprints, and those people weren’t crushed either …… so what crushed the towers down to that level? What is it? Where is it? How did it work?
If you promote the collapse theory you must know otherwise you’re just making stuff up again.
The steel columns in the lower sections of the tower was many times thicker than in the upper sections (obviously, because they had to support more weight above them). So the towers were many times stronger near their bases than higher up (as all towers are). But those massive core columns have all been ‘removed’ right down to the ground, yet there is no weight sitting on top of them AND we know that 14 people survived just a few feet below the top of the debris ‘pile’.
It is as if a monster scooped the towers away like a child scooping away a sand castle. But there are no monsters. The only scientific explanation left is that the towers were turned to dust in mid air and that most of the material never reached the ground in solid form.
Dust does not make a seismic impact.
Dust was everywhere
Everyone and everything was covered in dust
There was so much dust it was visible from space
We can literally SEE the towers turning to dust in mid air
We can literally SEE the core columns turning to dust in mid air.
So we have the situation where direct observation, logic, seismic data, forensic examination of the crime scene and eyewitness testimony all agree from their different perspectives that the buildings did not collapse at all……. they were turned, for the most part, into dust in mid air.
Meanwhile (11 years on), everyone is still arguing over an imaginary event (collapsing towers) which has nothing to do with the real event which took place in the real world on 9/11. The real event as described by the evidence. This is why the whole thing goes round and round in circles.
9/11 is like an endless debate about the murder of ‘John’. Everyone has their own theory about who shot him……..Everyone is debating issues like: Who had access to guns? Who hated John the most? How many people heard the gunshot? What kind of gunshot was it? Was there more than one shooter? Did people really hear a gunshot or was it a tire exploding? Could someone claiming to have heard the gunshot five blocks away on West St really have heard it above traffic noise? Was the crime scene cleared illegally? Did they check the drains for the discarded weapon? What about the car seen driving past the crime scene at speed with its window wound down? Were the windows tinted? Was there a passenger in that car or not? Could the body have been shot from a car travelling at that speed? etc etc
People are so busy arguing that no one has bothered to check the corpse. Everyone just *assumes* the body has a gunshot wound because when the murder was first reported it was called a ‘shooting’. But in reality there is no gunshot wound in the victim. And so all the theorising and bickering is a massive waste of time and energy and a massive distraction. After ten or twenty years everyone gets so sick of it they can’t be bothered to look into it any more.
And this is how cover ups work. You encourage people to interpret an event wrongly from the start by feeding them the wrong terms (the horrific ‘shooting’ ….. the ‘collapse of the world trade centre’) and then you encourage them to argue over a bunch of competing theories – ALL of which are based that wrong assumption. Every ‘side’ of the debate then ends up defending the same erroneous assumptions without even realising it:
“I think the mafia shot John”
“I think his wife shot him”
“I think aliens shot him”
or
“I think jet fuel fires cased the towers to collapse”
“I think a controlled demolition caused the towers to collapse”
“I think aliens caused the towers to collapse”
…and the harder people argue their position the more they help to reinforce the wrong assumptions and cover up the truth.
Nobody’s done a better job of covering up the truth than the ‘9/11 truthers’
Ironic isn’t it?
LikeLike
What I want to know is how a kid and confessed geek from Middlesbrough can afford to fly himself to California to have an opinion on Prop 37 and then get himself to New York to film himself making a terrible attempt of “debunking” 9-11 truthers. Who is funding your “freelance journalism”?
LikeLike
The CIA, FBI, MI6, LGBQT and MI5.
LikeLike
You forgot BBC.
Myles, have a big glass fluoridated water, eat some GM, and get another flu jab, because someone is having “fun with science” …. but it ain’t you sunshine.
LikeLike
I can understand why you don’t buy the 9/11 truth. You just haven’t gotten you “Wake Up Call” yet. Don’t worry though, everyone gets theirs eventually, EVERYONE.
LikeLike
In my pyromaniacal teenage years I made iron thermite, manganese thermite, chromium thermite, even lead sulphide thermite (smelly afterwards, as it make Al2S3). Years later I tried tin thermite, but was disappointed at the huge loss of tin as fume. Anyway, one thing that struck me was how dazzlingly bright they all are. Hardly surprising when you consider that iron thermite can get up to 2500 deg C. Even at iron’s melting point (1538 C) it will be white hot. So that alone proves that the yellow glowing material cascading out of the building cannot have been molten iron. I also made my own version of “thermate” long before I’d heard of it. I read somewhere that MnO2 thermite can make it bang, but I couldn’t even get it to light. So I spiced it up with a little Na chlorate. That did the trick. The bang was heard half a mile away. Oops.
LikeLike