• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

9/11 Experiments: The Great Thermate Debate

Forums New posts

Free episodes:

Like most things that i want to have an opinion on but have no first hand knowledge of I tend to go with the evidence and expert views, in this case common sense seems to dictate that 911 ia an inside job and much like the JFK assassination or any other highly suspect US media coverage event of dubious intent the wool gets so easily pulled over the herds eyes.

GO TO SLEEP AMERICA, HERE WATCH THIS TALENT SHOW AND THESE GHOST HUNTING PROGRAMMES
 
Last edited:
The words "inside job" are toxic. When I discuss this topic I never use them in the conversation.
 
What molten steel? I saw what looked like streamers of burning melted plastic coming out of the building, like we used to do in campfires, but on a larger scale... The ones who yell about the steel being impossible to melt, are the only ones who claim the steel actually melted to begin with. Hot steel softens; "bubble gum" won't hold up a tower. And as far as 7 goes... when the skeleton goes, the skin will follow- and not slowly. No one who has witnessed an OCR explosion, as I have, will ever wonder why a building *built around a substation and on fire* didn't survive. If people ever realize those big canisters at substations are full of hot, hot, oil, they'll start being nervous about proximity, too...

Oh, yes. Burned cars were dragged out of the vicinity and cleared up as time permitted. Big deal- who is claiming those cars were burned on the spot they are in the photograph? Again, not officialdom, so why should they take any of the heat- so to speak?
 
Pygar2 said:
What molten steel? I saw what looked like streamers of burning melted plastic coming out of the building, like we used to do in campfires, but on a larger scale... The ones who yell about the steel being impossible to melt, are the only ones who claim the steel actually melted to begin with. Hot steel softens; "bubble gum" won't hold up a tower. And as far as 7 goes... when the skeleton goes, the skin will follow- and not slowly. No one who has witnessed an OCR explosion, as I have, will ever wonder why a building *built around a substation and on fire* didn't survive. If people ever realize those big canisters at substations are full of hot, hot, oil, they'll start being nervous about proximity, too...

Oh, yes. Burned cars were dragged out of the vicinity and cleared up as time permitted. Big deal- who is claiming those cars were burned on the spot they are in the photograph? Again, not officialdom, so why should they take any of the heat- so to speak?
Click to expand...
If you do not know about the molten steel in all wtc buildings then you need to back away from this topic and come back after a few years of research. Seriously Pygar2, I suggest you go away before you look dumberer than you do now.
 
"Dumberer"?

I know of *allegations* of molten steel; I know of no one who actually sampled one of the streams of sparks and sent the results off to a real lab. I know that after the building was down and charcoaled, purely chemical means could erode the steel. i was referring to the unproven allegation that the buildings collapsed *because steel melted*, despite the complete lack of proof that it happened or was necessary in order for the buildings to fall. Straight down, by the way, because gravity works that way. No way a building built of tiny bits, with no strong interior support, was going to fall by tipping over... And I know of no samples with a chain of custody leading back to the Towers, that show any sign of thermite, thermate, or Magic Therm*te, the stuff that severs vertical beams, although real thermite melts downward, not sideways.

But then I've also read that the buildings, which collapsed from the top, were destroyed by Magic Clean Lightless Nukes in the basement, converting them into dust, which magically reassembled itself into the extensive debris field...
 
Again... you have no clue what you are talking about. Now you are looking dumbererer. Research is your friend, do some.
 
I HAVE done the research; the results, and the *evidence* (not allegations!) are as I stated them. Of course, I wandered off the nutbar sites from time to time; try it! Show me where the *authorities* say the buildings collapsed from *molten* steel, before you sneer at the authorities' claim that the buildings fell from molten steel... Show me anyone directly involved in highrise construction planning or highrise demolition who says that steel had to melt. No, I don't mean the railroad engineers and sketchers of 7-11's, that claim prowess in unrelated fields gives them an insight.

And if all you have is faintly literate insults, why bother replying? "Dumbererer"? Great way to come out on top of what is, after all, a scientific debate...
 
I guess where I stand on 9/11 is that inside job or not the situation was exploited by those in power at the time to initiate Wars for their own personal and corporate agendas.
If there is any conspiracy here that should be looked at it is just how much did those at the top know before the event happened.
 
Pygar2 said:
I HAVE done the research; the results, and the *evidence* (not allegations!) are as I stated them. Of course, I wandered off the nutbar sites from time to time; try it! Show me where the *authorities* say the buildings collapsed from *molten* steel, before you sneer at the authorities' claim that the buildings fell from molten steel... Show me anyone directly involved in highrise construction planning or highrise demolition who says that steel had to melt. No, I don't mean the railroad engineers and sketchers of 7-11's, that claim prowess in unrelated fields gives them an insight.

And if all you have is faintly literate insults, why bother replying? "Dumbererer"? Great way to come out on top of what is, after all, a scientific debate...
Click to expand...
no one ever said the buildings fell from molten steel. molten steel/iron was found in the basements of all 3 buildings in some cases over a month after the event. look up how hot jet fuel burns, how hot office furniture burns and how hot steel has to get before it is molten, then do the math.
 
the jet fuel played little to no role in the collapse of the WTC...
how can I a simple derby gurl say that?
I got facts to back me up...take a look at this gang this will change how you view the events of Sept 11th. Pixel I invite you to check it out as well. I hope this counts as research!
How Hot Did The Jet Fuel Heat The World Trade Center?
My Husband and I have such lively discussions about the events of Sept 11th 2001...
More evidence that demands a verdict:
Active Thermitics Made Simple
 
stonehart said:
Susan Lindauer's Conspiracy Theory Video ...
Click to expand...
I don't buy Lindauer's conspiracy theory ( or any particular theory for that matter. But if ( and this is a big IF ) our own people orchestrated any controlled demolition, it was exactly for that purpose ( control of the demolition ). Why? When it was learned that the intent of the attacks on the WTC was to create a massive amount of damage by causing them to topple sideways onto other buildings and not simply implode into their own footprint, a controlled demolition last resort failsafe was installed. It was kept secret for security purposes. At some point this failsafe was activated ( either on purpose, automatically or by accident ). We'll probably never know the full truth. The other explanation for the molten metal in the basement may have to do with all the missing bullion stored in the underground vaults. Perhaps the havoc above was cover for a huge heist. I wonder if any WTC gold has turned up on the black market?
 
Interesting tidbits here ...


NOTE: I don't buy the Government conspiracy,
but the tidbits mentioned do raise eyebrows.​
 
I've read no lab analysis, for all I know the "steel" was gallons of lead solder or no telling what- if it was there. I've seen no pics from a source I trust. I remember reading about 3 days after it happened, that they'd dug down and gotten the gold out, before mentioning to anyone that is was even there... While it is true all the government had to do was dust off premade plans to go to war, this is because there are plans on file for every conceivable war, and probably some not so conceivable. There are people that do this, day in and day out. If Sri Lanka and Lichtenstein ever pulled such a stunt, all it would mean is digging in a dustier drawer. As far as the "government stands to gain" business... you can pull that card out of your vest pocket only so many times, IMHO. No one accused stood in any danger of missing a meal or a paycheck, so all they'd be gaining is a chance to utterly destroy themselves, and their whole party, if something went wrong. Oh- and no way those rivets and welds would hold up well enough for the Towers to fall like a big popsicle stick, anyway. Only a bit of tipping would tear the building to shreds- and *straight* down the shreds would, and did, fall.
 
Rikki said:
the jet fuel played little to no role in the collapse of the WTC...
how can I a simple derby gurl say that?
I got facts to back me up...take a look at this gang this will change how you view the events of Sept 11th. Pixel I invite you to check it out as well. I hope this counts as research!
How Hot Did The Jet Fuel Heat The World Trade Center?
My Husband and I have such lively discussions about the events of Sept 11th 2001...
More evidence that demands a verdict:
Active Thermitics Made Simple
Click to expand...
Thanks for posting that. I read it before but not many other people have. Rikki I thought you were on the other side of the fence on this discussion at one time.
 
I won't speak for my wife but I will say we somewhat parted company on the subject of the events of sept 11th 2001. Rikki has gone to great leanths in her search for the truth. As have I. Do I beleve the events of sept 11th was an inside job? NO. Do I beleve they were used to start 2 wars? Absultly! Rikki and I enjoy a good debate..although I must say it gets a little rough sometimes....
 
I'm not conversant with technical details regarding the twin towers disaster. The collapse of the towers did look suspiciously symmetrical. Building 7 definitely stinks. Consider also, that along with enough fuel to generate the heat needed to soften steel, a lot of oxygen is needed. I'm wondering how this internal fire might have been fed enough air to cause the purported result. This is in advanced technical territory, but has the question been asked ?

As Goggs suggested previously, what looks even more suspicious is a comparison of evident thermal energy released in the twin towers impact vs the Pentagon. Where is the massive fire and charring one would expect at the latter? It's certainly not evident in the few measly photos and toss away video offered up for public view.
 
The jet fuel probably *didn't* have a lot to do with the actual collapse, any more than the bratburgers on my grill were cooked by the lighting fluid... But with elevator shafts, air vents, and busted windows, there was plenty of air for them to start all the plastic etc. going. As far as the wars go... Afghanistan only had to turn over OBL in the SIX WEEKS they had to do it in; and Iraq only had to stop firing on American pilots, stop jerking around the weapons inspectors, and come clean about the current whereabouts of their WMD. In short it takes two to make a war, and they both did more than their part. Imagine how tough making a case for war would have been, if both of them had shown the full cooperation of the innocents they wanted to pretend to be... And I can understand why a hardened WWII masonry structure showed less damage than a Seventies skyscraper with no proper internal supports- believe it or not, the floors were simply hung between the inner core and outer shell- no pillar type supports at all! Granted, 7 is going to look weird to anyone who doesn't realize that its wonky framework (over a SUBSTATION with no telling how many OCR's!) had gone, and what was left was just the shell. There are those who think it was done to destroy documents; but shredders were cheaper and more reliable- I've seen a pic at the Towers base that looks like a snowstorm of paper...
 
Back
Top