• 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:

Pygar2 said:
And I can understand why a hardened WWII masonry structure showed less damage than a Seventies skyscraper with no proper internal supports.
Click to expand...

That's understandable. But I don't recall seeing anything like evidence of a large hydrocarbon fireball in pics of the Pentagon. Naturally, public access was limited. I'm also still trying to wrap my head around the level of flying skill required to place a jumbo jet right on the first floor without at least plowing into the ground. Maybe I'm missing something here.
 
Pygar2 said:
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...
Click to expand...
again... you have no clue what you are talking about. never have i heard someone so ignorant on the subject.
 
pixelsmith said:
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.
Click to expand...

I WAS! I watched 3 vids you posted Pixel. They made me question. and made me think. I begain to ask my husband about the things that bothered me. He told me to keep looking and I would find the answers I sought. But the answers were not forthcoming.
So I saw SOMEONE was telling LIES. why was thermite reside found? How did Steel melt to the point the witnesses described RIVERS OF MOLTEN STEEL? How did the towers Just collapse? So many unanswered questions. so many "I don't know." so I continue to try to find the truth. Maybe I can turn my husband around. But regardless. the fact remains: The united states used this to launch 2 wars..that cost our nation BILLIONS almost a TRILLION maybe more in money and...
4486 American lives in Iraq
2264 American lives in Afgainstain
I think those who died demand answers.. But answers are hard to come by.
My husband says "seek the truth where ever the truth leads to." I will continue to do so with an open mind.
Victoria Watson
Rikki
 
Goggs Mackay said:
If one major part of 9/11 falls down, then for me it's likely it all does. Not a chance did a big jet hit the Pentagon. Not a chance.
Click to expand...
are you crazy? of course a jumbo jet performed nearly impossible arial turns then skimmed inches off the lawn then folded its wings and huge engines back and made a 16 foot diameter hole in reenforced concrete and kevlar walls.
 
It never ceases to amaze me, the fundamental dichotomy that exists between UFO and Conspiracy believers and the fact that many don't even see it. For example, when you talk to UFO believers about why it is that they believe in UFO's, they will inevitably point to the millions of witnesses, highly qualified or otherwise, who have seen UFO's. However, these same UFO believers who also believe in 9/11 conspiracies will tell you that all of the witness testimony in the world, and there are a ridiculous number of verified reports the last time I checked, won't convince them that a jetliner hit the Pentagon.

So which is it guys? Are witnesses reliable or are they not? Are they only reliable when they're looking at potential off-world technology, which if you think about it should be the thing they are least likely to identify correctly, or what? You can't have it both ways. Either witnesses are reliable, or they aren't. Am I the only one who sees the cognitive dissonance necessary to hang on to both of those beliefs?

Edited to add: I'm not interested in arguing over 9/11 conspiracy theories. just looking for an answer to the above question. Been there, done that. First and last post in this thread for me.
 
Point out one 'UFO Believer' on here that stayed longer than two weeks or came back. Your point is well taken, but it doesn't fit this Forum exactly.
 
Do we have multiple independent civillian witnesses to a plane hitting the Pentagon? I'm asking because I really don't know. I think it's a little hard to compare the two- as the UFO phenom has stretched across several generations with some consistent testimony.
 
dyingsun said:
Point out one 'UFO Believer' on here that stayed longer than two weeks or came back. Your point is well taken, but it doesn't fit this Forum exactly.
Click to expand...

Myself, but I also don't believe in 9/11 conspiracies, other than the idea that the government probably knew more beforehand than they are telling us. When I say UFO believer, I don't mean true believer, just someone who believes that there's something real behind the UFO phenomenon.

Stagger Lee said:
Do we have multiple independent civillian witnesses to a plane hitting the Pentagon? I'm asking because I really don't know. I think it's a little hard to compare the two- as the UFO phenom has stretched across several generations with some consistent testimony.
Click to expand...

Yes, we do and quite a large number at that.
 
Last edited:
Ok.. one more time...we have multiple witnesses that saw a plane hit the pentagon..we have pics and vids of plane parts..we have the remains of the passagers and crew of the aircraft..doing the math this adds up to a plane hit the pentagon....
 
vesvehighfolk said:
Ok.. one more time...we have multiple witnesses that saw a plane hit the pentagon..we have pics and vids of plane parts..we have the remains of the passagers and crew of the aircraft..doing the math this adds up to a plane hit the pentagon....
Click to expand...
Why is it people still question the Pentagon/Plane? Is it the lack of video available?
 
Stagger Lee said:
Why is it people still question the Pentagon/Plane? Is it the lack of video available?
Click to expand...

The first photo taken after the supposed impact shows nothing like what photos show after the wall fell down. To believe that a large jet skimmed inches above the pristine lawn, then went into the building, supposedly causing such heat as to leave little of the plane inctact, whilst not even burning computers, books and wooden desks etc is just not possible. The wings 'folding' doesn't add up. Nor the fact this intense inferno still allowed a woman and child to escape. Where were the engines, objects so heavy and dense that they always survive crashes reasonably intact?

The one video shows something hitting the Pentagon but it was far too small and thin to be the supposed jet. And the military HQ of the most powerful nation on earth only had ONE cctv filming this? Come on! There would have been plenty of cctv around the pentagon. And what about the 100+ cctv tapes confiscated by the FBI immediately after that have never seen the light of day and were even witheld from the 9/11 commission? Not to mention the flight toward the pentagon that all pilots claim was near impossible, certainly for the pilots who did minimal training. where are those tapes. You are trying to tell me that the most heavily guarded military HQ in the world had only one low-quality cctv that captured the impact?

I must link the brilliant Jim Marrs lecture on this, not only does the visual evidence of the pentagon speak volumes, but he follows the money to do with the whole thing-and it stinks.

Show me one piece of footage showing a plane hitting the pentagon and I will drop this subject forever......
 
I must chime in and agree with Goggs. The Pentagon videos are some of the great smoking guns of 9/11.

In the days and weeks that followed 9/11, the national TV audience was shown---over and over and over---the videos of planes hitting the towers in New York. Why? Because the dramatic images in those videos supported the official story of what happened that day. But what happened in Arlington? What happened to the big five-sided building?

There is no need to wonder about the Pentagon attack. There is no need to analyze light poles. There is no mystery about what happened. As Goggs correctly pointed out, the Federal Bureau of Investigation knows exactly what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11. They seized many surveillance videotapes from cameras that had different look angles on the Pentagon. Some were government cameras and some were private (gas station, hotel, etc.). Immediately after the incident the FBI said these tapes could not be released to the public because "the whole matter is under investigation." A dozen years later, apparently, the whole matter is still under investigation. What utter bullshit.

It is clear to me that the Pentagon videos showed events that were not consistent with the official story. That seems blatantly obvious. Top FBI officials and the inner circle of the Bush Administration surely viewed the videos and made certain they were kept from the public. Moreover, they were likely destroyed shortly after 9/11. To my knowledge, not one mainstream radio or TV personality has ever mentioned the "missing" Pentagon videos. They are the videos that cannot be mentioned. They are the videos that cannot be discussed. They are the damning Zapruder films that must never see the light of day. Along with Building 7, they are the smoking guns that show the official story to be false.
 
Sorry, but I still don't see, it. Except in the enhanced still frame that doesn't seem to match what is visible in the frozen frame or a very slow look at the video itself. And again--this in supposedly the only video in existence of the event? Not so much as a glimpse of the 77 approaching from a distance, either from Pentagon or other cameras ? My local WalMart does a better job of video surveillance.
 
Back
Top