9/11 Attacks

alastair

Soveriegn wrote: »

This has also been posted. It's visual evidence of molten steel.

No it's not. It's evidence of a glowing metal, and possibly a partially molten metal. That's all.

namloc1980

Soveriegn wrote: »

I don't think demon appears foolish. I agree with him that alice looks foolish. Now you are appearing foolish too

:pac: He said James Quintiere lost his job at NIST for speaking out about 9/11. However Mr. Quintiere left NIST in 1989. Now you look foolish for defending his making stuff up foolishness

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

You can accept that a man in a dark suit handed an official an intact passport fallen from an horrific explosion and inferno in which the passport owners body didn't survive and minutes before the building collapsed and you can't accept the independent testimony of scores of people who saw molten steel??? Time for bed Alastair.

They didn't see molten steel - they saw molten metal. There's no ambiguity about who's passport was found on the street - it's there as clear evidence.

alastair

namloc1980 wrote: »

The only one looking foolish is you after your made up claim about James Quintiere. So anything to say on that one?

eh?

meglome

demonspawn wrote: »

What's contradictory? Our theory is that jet fuel could not have possibly melted steel beams. Our theory points to the use of thermite. You're theory of jet fuel in completely implausible. Are you all caught up now?

But I don't think jet fuel melted steel beams. No one outside of the CT world believes that. It's very simple... the hotter it got the more structural strength the steel would lose, it doesn't need to be anywhere near melting point.

demonspawn wrote: »

You find it difficult to believe numerous credible eye witnesses and experts' testimony that say they saw molten steel and that the temperatures in the rubble were incredibly hot for days after the disaster? Is that what you are saying?

The satellites show temperatures lower than the melting point of steel. Some of your quotes are saying (assuming they are accurate) they actually saw molten steel. I hate to point this you but even if thermate was used the chemical reaction would be over in minutes so none of these people could actually see molten steel. And most would have no expertise to tell if the molten metal was steel or anything else.

And with just basic fact checking.

Although this is generally attributed to Leslie Robertson, it’s not at all clear that he ever said these words[Molten Steel]. The quote actually comes from an article by James M Williams, recounting a keynote address that was delivered by Robertson, so it’s at best a second-hand interpretation of what he said.

Robertson says he didn’t use the “molten steel” quote, then, and Williams notes don’t disprove this.

Seemingly Robertson may has said molten metal not molten steel.

Soveriegn

Just thought i'd throw this out there...

I remember someone said... i think it was alice or genie

"airplane wings and engines are very light and weak", "thats the reason there is no impact dents/holes/damage from them on the pentagon "


Yet, there is damage from them on this steel structure.



:rolleyes:

demonspawn

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

And how does the thermite theory work, where would the ammount of thermite be stored, without people noticing it?

I'm not the one who blew up the WTC. Go ask the ones that did.

Brown Bomber

alastair wrote: »

Where have I been proven wrong? I'm still waiting for the evidence of molten steel.

You've been given evidence. Witness testimony.

If they didn't know what molten steel looked like they'd hardly state on camera that they saw molten steel now would they? They'd say molten mettle. It'd be like if I was at a carvery I had a choice between Salmon and chicken. I like the look of the fish but I don't know what type it is. Now I'm hardly going to randomly say "I'LL have the plaice please" just becuase it is the name of a fish. If I didn't know the name I'd ask for the fish.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

How does the terrorist theory work. how would they steal 4 planes, without people noticing them..........................oh wait!

I think you'll find that pretty much everyone on the planes noticed. And soon after a lot more people did too.

alastair

Soveriegn wrote: »

Just thought i'd throw this out there...

I remember someone said... i think it was alice or genie

"airplane wings and engines are very light and weak", "thats the reason there is no impact dents/holes/damage from them on the pentagon "


Yet, there is damage from them on this steel structure.



:rolleyes:

You do know that that's aluminium you're looking at?

demonspawn

Soveriegn wrote: »

Just thought i'd throw this out there...

I remember someone said... i think it was alice or genie

"airplane wings and engines are very light and weak", "thats the reason there is no impact dents/holes/damage from them on the pentagon "


Yet, there is damage from them on this steel structure.
:rolleyes:

lol Who said airplane wings are weak? They hold the entire weight of the fuselage on two points where they connect to the plane. The wings and where they connect to the fuselage are probably the strongest part of an aircraft. They don't just snap off under a bit of pressure.

namloc1980

alastair wrote: »

eh?

That was for demonspawn. He made up something earlier in the thread.

Soveriegn

alastair wrote: »

No it's not. It's evidence of a glowing metal, and possibly a partially molten metal. That's all.

Its dripping.

alastair

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You've been given evidence. Witness testimony.

If they didn't know what molten steel looked like they'd hardly state on camera that they saw molten steel now would they? They'd say molten mettle. It'd be like if I was at a carvery I had a choice between Salmon and chicken. I like the look of the fish but I don't know what type it is. Now I'm hardly going to randomly say "I'LL have the plaice please" just becuase it is the name of a fish. If I didn't know the name I'd ask for the fish.

What makes you believe they could determine the molten metal they saw?

It's rather easier to distinguish one fish from another than it is one molten metal from another. Particularly if it's a salmon.

Brown Bomber

meglome wrote: »

But I don't think jet fuel melted steel beams. No one outside of the CT world believes that.

What does that even mean?

And if anyone believes that do they automatically enter the "CT World"?

Seriously man you need to get off your high horse.

meglome wrote: »

Seemingly Robertson may has said molten metal not molten steel.

I could see how that would lead to confusion alright

Soveriegn

alastair wrote: »

You do know that that's aluminium you're looking at?

Ya, see the big hole where the wings went in.... they cut through girders also.

meglome

Soveriegn wrote: »

Its dripping.

What is? And obviously i can see the picture but how do you think this is steel? It would need to be in a furnace.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

They didn't see molten steel - they saw molten metal. There's no ambiguity about who's passport was found on the street - it's there as clear evidence.

It 'was' a passport, but there is ambiguity about where it came from, an unknown man in a dark suit and iirc an unnamed official ain't evidence where I come from.

alastair

Soveriegn wrote: »

Its dripping.

Maybe it is, but that doesn't make it steel.

Brown Bomber

alastair wrote: »

It's red, it's hot, and it's flowing about.

:eek::eek::eek::eek:


Time and a place and all that...:D

meglome

Brown Bomber wrote: »

What does that even mean?

And if anyone believes that do they automatically enter the "CT World"?

Seriously man you need to get off your high horse.

I could see how that would lead to confusion alright

Well the only people I've heard say that steel melted are CT'ers.

I have no issue believing there might be molten metal. But nothing I've seen shows any temperature high enough for steel to melt.

Soveriegn

See this. This occurs through extremely high tempatures. Much hotter than office fires can reach.

Jeboa Safari

demonspawn wrote: »

I'm not the one who blew up the WTC. Go ask the ones that did.

So basically thats a cop out, and you have no answer?

meglome

Soveriegn wrote: »

See this. This occurs through extremely high tempatures. Much hotter than office fires can reach.

OR from the massive forces released by the collapsing building and the heat. And again an ordinary office fire doesn't have a plane full of jet fuel in the middle of it.

Brown Bomber

alastair wrote: »

question - what metal is this?

I was right wasn't I?

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

I think you'll find that pretty much everyone on the planes noticed. And soon after a lot more people did too.

99% of Americans would have laughed at you if you had said 4 terrorists would bring down the Twin Towers and crash into the Pentagon just a few hours before impact at Tower 1. Tragically anything is possible, but you aren't going to find out if you don't even test for it. because you have already made your 'independent investigative' mind up.


12. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."
NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.
The responses to questions number 2, 4, 5 and 11 demonstrate why NIST concluded that there were no explosives or controlled demolition involved in the collapses of the WTC towers.
Furthermore, a very large quantity of thermite (a mixture of powdered or granular aluminum metal and powdered iron oxide that burns at extremely high temperatures when ignited) or another incendiary compound would have had to be placed on at least the number of columns damaged by the aircraft impact and weakened by the subsequent fires to bring down a tower. Thermite burns slowly relative to explosive materials and can require several minutes in contact with a massive steel section to heat it to a temperature that would result in substantial weakening. Separate from the WTC towers investigation, NIST researchers estimated that at least 0.13 pounds of thermite would be required to heat each pound of a steel section to approximately 700 degrees Celsius (the temperature at which steel weakens substantially). Therefore, while a thermite reaction can cut through large steel columns, many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building. This makes it an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition.
Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC towers, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard that was prevalent in the interior partitions.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Soveriegn

Look, an explosion. Up and out..

meglome

Can demonspawn, BB or Sovereign tell me what they actually believe happened then.

I'm a little confused by what it actually is. You think that thermite was used to collapse the buildings. And there was molten steel witnessed after the collapses. Is that right?

Soveriegn

meglome wrote: »

Can demonspawn, BB or Sovereign tell me what they actually believe happened then.

I'm a little confused by what it actually is. You think that thermite was used to collapse the buildings. And there was molten steel witnessed after the collapses. Is that right?

Medal time.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

It 'was' a passport, but there is ambiguity about where it came from, an unknown man in a dark suit and iirc an unnamed official ain't evidence where I come from.

Well it was picked up off the street in NYC by a punter and it had last been seen in Boston with it's owner getting on board the plane now lodged in the wtc. Unless you've got another means of getting it from the owner on board a plane in Boston to the street in NYC 50 minutes later, I think it's fair enough to expect it travelled with it's owner.