Who supports a new 9/11 investigation and why or why not? (parade, myths)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm nobody's mother. Your post really adds no information to the discussion at hand and is way off topic as well. Carry on!
Oh give me a break, as if you would actually read and consider any information other than what you get from your precious CT sites.
I have added quite a bit of information to these discussions in the umpteen previous conspiracy threads that have appeared on this forum. Silly me once thought that providing thoughtful, logical information that might not otherwise be readily available would clarify certain misconceptions that the truther set holds dear. In response, your little friend simply accused me of being a government plant. There's no point in trying to "discuss" anything with those of you who think that way.
Ironically, while you all use the same tired old robotic response of accusing the rest of us of believing "the official story", even when sources are other than anything the government said, it seems apparent to me that those of you who hold so tightly onto your misinformation are guilty of exactly that: You believe what the conspiracy sites and videos tell you, and never question a damn thing they say or look to other sources for verification, do you.
Okay... I will type very slowly so that you might finally hear what you have been told for years:
1) Molten metal is not automatically molten steel. There are, in case you were unaware, a lot of metals that are not steel.
2) It is impossible to identify a specific molten metal simply by seeing it from a distance on a video. No competent metallurgist (except perhaps some jewelers) would ever pretend to be able to do so.
3) Not a single example of molten or melted steel was ever found in the debris from the WTC. Melted aluminum? Yes. Melted lead/tin conglomerates? Yes.
Molten steel? No.
It is a bald faced lie to assert otherwise.
No ... you keep repeating the bald face lie. Why continue to lie when it is an undeniable fact? Why do you continue to say the same lie over and over again? Dozens of eyewitnesses testify to molten iron ... steel beams (like the now famous CROSS) melted together, beams being pulled from the rubble with their ends dripping with molten steel .... NASA thermal images showing temperatures reaching those necessary to melt steel ....
The only conclusion is that you have either lost your mind and incapable of rational thought ... or you are blatantly and deliberately making fraudulent claims.
You aren't going to get away with it!!! I'm not going to allow you to. You're a fraud ... and you have exposed yourself .... keep on ... everyone can see what you are doing.
This is the Yosemite Firefall at Yosemite National Park. That's just embers from bark being thrown from the top. While it's safe to say there was no bark in the towers it's also safe to say there was wood from office furniture. But I want to make this clear, I'm not saying this is what we see coming from the window. What I'm suggesting is that it is probably a molten metal mix of aluminum and something else. Don't limit yourself here. I'm not saying aluminum and wood only. One of my biggest criticisms with the conspiracy theorists is the one dimensional thinking.
----
meanwhile the allegded 'flowing molten metal' coming out of the side at ther 81th floor(network plus), was from this
----
meanwhile you can even see the sagging floors in this pic of the 'molten' stuff
omg is that the sagging floors that will pancake, the the twoofers say dont exist
Experiments have been done re the furniture and molten metal idea.
"Monday, July 30, 2007
MELTED STEEL IN WTC BASEMENTS
EXACTLY WHY IT'S A SMOKING GUN
The simple facts of temperatures:
* 1535ºC (2795ºF) - melting point of iron
* ~1510ºC (2750ºF) - melting point of typical structural steel
* ~825ºC (1517ºF) - maximum temperature of hydrocarbon fires burning in the atmosphere without pressurization or pre-heating (premixed fuel and air - blue flame)
Diffuse flames burn far cooler.
Oxygen-starved diffuse flames are cooler yet.
It is simply impossible for a hydrocarbon and office furnishings fire burning in air to melt steel, it just doesn't happen. Yet SOMETHING caused large quantities of molten iron and/or steel to accumulate in the basements of all three WTC buildings that collapsed to the ground and apparently some steel was even VAPORIZED that day."
"Now let's hear from the only real journalist given unrestricted access to Ground Zero for the duration of the "cleanup." He was below the surface of "the pile," exploring with engineers on more than one occasion. Here he mentions "...the rattle of cascading debris, the ominous groaning of weakened structures overhead, or, in the early days, the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole."
- William Langewiesche, American Ground: Unbuilding the World Trade Center, North Point Press, New York, 2002, p. 32.
"Peter Tully of Tully Construction was the contractor responsible for the eastern quadrant of the pile-- the South Tower, WTC 4 and 5, and the 425,000 square foot underground mall. Tully granted an interview that proved most interesting:
Quote:
'Think of the thousands of file cabinets, computers, and telephones in those towers - I never saw one - everything was pulverized,' he said. 'Everything that was above grade - above the 6th and 7th floor - disintegrated...it was like an explosion.' Tully Construction specializes in concrete. I asked Mr. Tully if he had ever seen concrete pulverized as it was at the WTC.
The pancake theory has been abandoned- even by the "official conspiracy theorists". If you were taking the trouble to inform yourself, you would know this.
No ... you keep repeating the bald face lie. Why continue to lie when it is an undeniable fact? Why do you continue to say the same lie over and over again? Dozens of eyewitnesses testify to molten iron (1) ... steel beams (like the now famous CROSS) melted together (2), beams being pulled from the rubble with their ends dripping with molten steel (3).... NASA thermal images showing temperatures reaching those necessary to melt steel (4)....
(1) Eyewitnesses can testify only to seeing molten metal. It is impossible for even an expert metallurgist to visually identify any particular molten metal as as iron. And not a single one of those eyewitnesses pretends to have even been a jeweler.
(2) There were no steel beams from the debris ever found "melted together."
Time for another idiotic statement alert... like your earlier assertion that thermitic lances had something to do with thermite. The "now famous cross" was not melted together. It was an ordinary cross beam of the sort deliberately created to build the WTC in the first place.
(3) Beams were pulled from the rubble with their ends dripping with molten metal. Because... as we all know by now... it is impossible for even an expert metallurgist to visually identify any particular molten metal as as iron.
(4) You are lying about the thermal images.
Quote:
Initial analysis of these data revealed a number of thermal hot spots on September 16 in the region where the buildings collapsed 5 days earlier. Analysis of the data indicates temperatures greater than 800 degrees F. Over 3 dozen hot spots appear in the core zone. By September 23, only 4, or possibly 5, hot spots are apparent, with temperatures cooler than those on September 16.
Over 800 degrees F is hot, but not nearly hot enough. A more speculative view on the paper suggests maximum temperatures of 1341 degrees F
( USGS Spectroscopy Lab - World Trade Center USGS environmental assessment ),
but that's still well below the “about 2,800° Fahrenheit†we need to get "literally molten steel".
As usual... the simplest effort to look at your details proves them to be lies.
Your larger arguments, built on such a foundation, are little more than hand waving and verbal legerdemain.
But what more can we honestly expert from a jeweler?
There goes our resident jeweler again... trying to swamp the thread and hope people haven't noticed how thoroughly his actual arguments get eviscerated again, and again, and again.
He is the poster child for the pathological characteristics of "conspiracy theorists" that I posted several days ago.
Description of Ad Hominem
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting).
This type of "argument" has the following form:
Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made). Example of Ad Hominem
Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."
[SIZE=4][SIZE=3]Description of Ad Hominem[/SIZE][/SIZE]
[SIZE=4][SIZE=3]Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person." [/SIZE][/SIZE]
[SIZE=4][SIZE=3]An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form: [/SIZE][/SIZE]
[SIZE=4][SIZE=3]
Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.[/SIZE][/SIZE]
[SIZE=4][SIZE=3]The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made). [/SIZE][/SIZE] [SIZE=4][SIZE=3]Example of Ad Hominem[/SIZE][/SIZE]
[SIZE=4][SIZE=3]
Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."[/SIZE][/SIZE]
It's not an ad hominem argument to point out that Guy is a jeweler.
It is instead mockery of his original claim that being a jeweler made him some sort of an expert in metallurgy, able to magically do what no genuine metallurgist can do... perform a chemical analysis on molten metal through a video.
Oh give me a break, as if you would actually read and consider any information other than what you get from your precious CT sites.
I have added quite a bit of information to these discussions in the umpteen previous conspiracy threads that have appeared on this forum. Silly me once thought that providing thoughtful, logical information that might not otherwise be readily available would clarify certain misconceptions that the truther set holds dear. In response, your little friend simply accused me of being a government plant. There's no point in trying to "discuss" anything with those of you who think that way.
Ironically, while you all use the same tired old robotic response of accusing the rest of us of believing "the official story", even when sources are other than anything the government said, it seems apparent to me that those of you who hold so tightly onto your misinformation are guilty of exactly that: You believe what the conspiracy sites and videos tell you, and never question a damn thing they say or look to other sources for verification, do you.
You are wrong. I studied all sides in my spare time for over 5 years- AFTER questions I had (coming from MYSELF- not any "conspiracy" folks) regarding what I saw and heard over the days and weeks of MSM coverage.......the first red flag, after the initial shock, was the ID with photos of all 19 hijackers within 48 hours. That dog did not hunt- as they say.
Sorry... but I had to quote that before you fixed it. It's just too funny.
Glad to know you have a sense of humor!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
