The end of "911 Conpiracy", and the beginning of "911 Common Knowledge", page 16
Pages: <<  13    14    15    16  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 139 times


reply posted on 22-7-2009 @ 10:25 PM by king9072
reply to post by jfj123


And I notice you love to play semantics. I also notice that your last deflection "hot and pliable" has now been abandoned since I brought a point across.

Good job ignoring the point, and again using deflection tactics.

Other than aluminum, all listed metals have a melting point near 2000 degrees. Aluminum would only be found in relatively small quantities, the next most common metal in the building would be copper, which has a similar melting point to steel.

So your still not debating that there was molten "metal" but you still don't feel the need to explain it. Since, the official story is conclusive and it does explain every aspect of that day right? So ok, ill wait for your answer to the molten metal part in your next deflection post.

And yes, the building was made of steel. Notice it's referred to as a "Steel Structured Building" that means that it is built of steel. It doesn't matter whether you build a building of wood, stone, or steel, you're going to have copper plumbing, copper wiring, perhaps some aluminum wiring depending on circumstances. But the structure is the structure.

The copper wasn't the load carrying metal, neither was aluminum or gold. Steel was.

The amount of steel in the building is exponentially larger than any other metal, even the next most common metal copper.

Can we conclusively tell if it was the most common metal found in a building such as that, that was liquefied? No. We can only speculate based on it's abundance versus other metals, especially aluminum.

But, as mentioned they still melt near 2000 (except alum), so you aren't off the hook - you still need to explain why molten metal was found AT ALL. And after multiple pages of deflections, you still haven't. Office fires 80 storeys off the ground doesn't melt ANY METAL in the basement. You will never be able to explain that.

It was also convenient how you just once again outright ignored my building seven arguments. Good work on that one too.

Regardless, I am done feeding you troll. And anyone with a brain who reads these pages will understand why. You haven't bothered to bring any valid arguments to the table - or evidence. You deflect or ignore every single argument you can't explain, and ultimately you've made it quite clear you have no intention of ever doing any of that. I'm done with this thread, thanks for proving nothing for your side.


reply posted on 22-7-2009 @ 10:42 PM by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by king9072




Aluminum would only be found in relatively small quantities, the next most common metal in the building would be copper, which has a similar melting point to steel


Oh I am dying to know what "relatively small" quantities of aluminum means. Especially since that exterior of both towers was aluminum.


reply posted on 22-7-2009 @ 10:56 PM by Taxi-Driver
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999



The more this guy talks, the more obvious it becomes that he really hasn't done his research. You get that feeling too, Swampfox?



reply posted on 23-7-2009 @ 12:46 AM by king9072
Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by king9072




Aluminum would only be found in relatively small quantities, the next most common metal in the building would be copper, which has a similar melting point to steel


Oh I am dying to know what "relatively small" quantities of aluminum means. Especially since that exterior of both towers was aluminum.



You're right, the facades were aluminum, where as the structure as well as the exterior columns are all steel.

I was wrong in saying that it was relatively small amount in relation to all metals, but I am still right as far as being a relatively small amount as far as total weight attributed to 'metal' in the entire structure.

See how easy it is to admit when you're wrong?

Debunker Checklist:
- Still ignoring anything related to WTC7
- Still ignoring the question "How did any molten metal come about?"
- Hot and pliable, still currently abandoned
- Still no response to anything to do with thermite...

Alright. Done here. Good night boys, at least you responded with a legitimate point this time. Congrats, and I apologize for my error, despite it being mostly in the wording.


reply posted on 23-7-2009 @ 12:56 AM by TheColdDragon
As stated in the link I provided in a previous post (And for you bastardly lazy people who can't cocking go back a page, Here's the Link Again ) there are statements of the molten metal that are specious and have been proven to be from entirely unreliable sources.

That does not mean that the articles which reported on it, as well as the witness testimony is ALL SPECIOUS.

The simple, easy fact of the matter is that Molten (Not softened) metal was found for weeks at the collapse site.

The temperature to melt the majority of metals found at the collapse site exceeded the temperature that was provided due to the collisions.

Now, I am not saying the buildings didn't fall due to structural failure. I am asking why the hell there is molten metal where by all rights there should not be.

Smouldering materials due to ongoing fires in pockets of the rubble, yes.

Even if I entertained the possibility of there being molten metal due to the fires, Anything Molten initially is not going to retain it's ambient heat for two effing weeks, it is going to cool and harden within hours.

And don't you bloody state it depends on how much molten metal, because if there was THAT MUCH, you have to explain why there was THAT MUCH as well.

So why, for the love of god, is there Molten Metal found at the collapse site WEEKS after the collapse?

Why is there molten metal AT ALL?


reply posted on 23-7-2009 @ 12:56 AM by Grambler
Originally posted by jfj123
For the truthers.
I was wondering, if the government used explosives to drop the WTC towers, why would they do it in an apparently obvious manner?

Let's say they did it. Wouldn't it make more sense to drop it sideways and create more death and damage to create even more outrage. I mean if you're going to do it, do it right.... RIGHT?

Let's say our government is so HYPER COMPETENT that they are able to pull of a coupe of this magnitude, wouldn't they want it to look MORE like a terrorist attack so as to not leave a shred of doubt that terrorists were behind this and get the backing of the American people 1000% ?????



I think this is an excellent question.

I think there could be several answers to this. The first and most obvious would be that although the government did it and are indeed very powerful, they are not all powerful, and in fact could have made a mistake. Although that argument could be true, I have a feeling you would like a better answer, so I will try to oblige.

The next reason would be one of logistics. Perhaps it was to difficult to know exactly on which side of the building the planes would hit, so it would be risky to put explosives on one side. The reason for this would be that if the building fell to the opposite side of the hit, perhaps it would have been easier to identify something was amiss (note, I'm not an engineer, so this is just conjecture).

Another reason could have been because the collateral damage of the surrounding buildings that would have been greater affected could have had a value to the perpetrators that they didn't want to damage.

It could have also been that the government truly thought they were doing what was best for the greater good by doing these attacks and the policies that were able to be achieved as a result of them, so they didn't want to do more damage and potentially cause more death than absolutely necessary.

The last reason I can come up with is the most frightening. Perhaps it is as you say, and the government would of have to been hyper competent to pull this off. Perhaps they knew that a small amount of people would find the truth as the result of the type of demolition, and wanted it. The reason could be that maybe these people could be easily identified as risks for future plans, or maybe it was to encourage these people to get vocal and/or violent so as to have an excuse to do more policies.

I don't know for sure if any of that is true, but hopefully that helped you.


reply posted on 23-7-2009 @ 01:10 AM by Grambler
reply to post by jfj123


Just a reply to a couple of more points you made.

As to providing a metallurgical sample of the molten metal: Unfortunately this is impossible because the feds quarantined the area and disposed of almost all of the evidence (to the best of my knowledge). So not being able to show proof wouldn't necessarily discount the argument.

As to tower 7 being hit by debris: Even NIST admits in their final report that this debris had nothing to do with the collapse of 7. Instead they give an explanation of how just the fire cause the collapse, hence the skepticism.

For the record, I only responded to your questions because I actually do think that you are a reasonable person and I find your post interesting to read most of the time, and I look forward to discussing more issues with you in the future.

If you want to see where I am coming from on the 9-11 question, read my post at the bottom of page 12 (sorry for the length).


reply posted on 23-7-2009 @ 01:49 AM by pccat
reply to post by TheColdDragon


like I posted before.. to you specifically..
possible mundane reason for molten metal?

11-settembre.blogspot.com...


reply posted on 23-7-2009 @ 01:55 AM by TheColdDragon
reply to post by pccat


And I looked, read, and considered your link.... and summarily discarded it, on account that the people doing the cutting would have known where the molten metal came from, and the people doing the commenting are some of the people who'd be responsible for such things.

I don't believe the people commenting, professionals in their fields, are such idiots as to think that the molten materials created from their own cutting is something curious.

Your explanation could explain how there is some molten metal, but not in the amounts of what is described... and not for the duration described, and not producing the effects described.


reply posted on 23-7-2009 @ 02:31 AM by pccat
reply to post by TheColdDragon


another explanatory reference to aluminum..



www.youtube.com...

[edit on 23-7-2009 by pccat]


reply posted on 23-7-2009 @ 02:45 AM by TheColdDragon
reply to post by pccat


Alright. So the proposed possibility is that the molten metal viewed by the people in the previously mentioned articles "MIGHT" have been Aluminum. I'll accept that as a "POSSIBILITY".

However, this does not disprove that there "MIGHT" have been molten steel at the collapse site, only that the molten metal commented on by various sources "MIGHT" have been Aluminum.

The question remains as to if the amount of Aluminum present would have continued to remain molten for weeks.

I am not making any claims as to what exactly might maintain a metal at a constant temperature and cause it to maintain a molten state... I'm not claiming thermite or anything else, as I am neither a chemist nor a metallurgist.

So the two proposed theories you have posited are that A) The molten metals are run-off from cutting torches. Plausible, though I find it unlikely due to the cooling speed of torch run-off (Even if there were hundreds doing so, the torch run-off for each torch would be localized in small areas and cool likely before contacting any other run-off).

B) The molten metal was Aluminum... I find it implausible, as the accounts of molten metal running "Like a foundry" decries the potential amount of heat produced from the initial blast.

Furthermore, why were the fires continuing at such an increased temperature after the fall? What was causing the immense heat to melt the Aluminum if it was Aluminum that was viewed?

Unless there was some sort of fuel to continue feeding the fires that were burning from the initial impacts AFTER the fall, the fires would have been suffocated and put out from all the debris.

So we have not determined WHAT the molten metal was, and at this point I view it as unlikely.... but there was molten metal, and viewed for some weeks after the initial collapse.

Let me be quite clear, There are SPECIOUS claims and SPECIOUS arguments with SPECIOUS data in 9/11 conspiracy theory. I am not refuting that you may be correct, but I am clearly pointing out that it is equal amounts speculation on the account of the molten metal being ALUMINUM as it is for being STEEL.

So, these new questions of mine stand.


reply posted on 23-7-2009 @ 05:20 AM by jfj123
Originally posted by king9072
reply to post by jfj123


And I notice you love to play semantics. I also notice that your last deflection "hot and pliable" has now been abandoned since I brought a point across.

Did you notice I brought it up in the form of a question too? In other words asking if that were the case and not telling everyone?

Notice this picture however?


This is supposedly molten metal. Now if we go with your definition, the hoe wouldn't be able to lift it up as it would be liquid as opposed to HOT and PLIABLE.

Good job ignoring the point, and again using deflection tactics.

Actually not at all. See above.

Other than aluminum, all listed metals have a melting point near 2000 degrees. Aluminum would only be found in relatively small quantities, the next most common metal in the building would be copper, which has a similar melting point to steel.

Actually there would be plenty of aluminum in the building.
And regarding copper, yes it has a similar melting point as steel. Keeping that in mind, when I used to go camping at Copper Harbor, MI ; I would go looking for copper ore. I'd gather up small copper pieces and melt them down over a campfire into a nice chunk of solid copper. Now if I can melt down copper over a wood campfire, surely an office fire could have melted down copper under the right conditions????

So your still not debating that there was molten "metal" but you still don't feel the need to explain it.

I can explain it in a number of ways.
1. As before, we don't know what kind of metal it was so we don't know the metals melting point.
2. It's very possible that the combination of the rubble and air flow could have turned the area's around the molten unknown metal, into a blast furnace which could have easily super heated metals. Of course you won't believe this so I might ask, haven't you ever seen an underground fire last months? years? or even decades? It happens

Since, the official story is conclusive and it does explain every aspect of that day right? So ok, ill wait for your answer to the molten metal part in your next deflection post.

You can pretend I've created deflective posts but that doesn't make it so. I also have explained a number of times that I don't believe that the official story is 100% correct so the fact that you're claiming I'm a backer of the official story means you're just not reading my posts very closely. You might want to try it before responding next time.

And yes, the building was made of steel.

The building was constructed of steel but there were many other metals inside the building. There's a difference that you failed to understand earlier.

Notice it's referred to as a "Steel Structured Building" that means that it is built of steel.

Again, we both know that's not what I'm referring to. Now who's deflecting

It doesn't matter whether you build a building of wood, stone, or steel, you're going to have copper plumbing, copper wiring, perhaps some aluminum wiring depending on circumstances.

That was my entire point you missed. The building is made up of many different metals as copper plumbing, copper and aluminum wiring, etc.. are part of the building.

The copper wasn't the load carrying metal, neither was aluminum or gold. Steel was.

Never said it was. More deflecting on your part.

The amount of steel in the building is exponentially larger than any other metal, even the next most common metal copper.

Which has to do with nothing. You can't assume that because there was more steel then other metals, the liquified metal found was steel.

Can we conclusively tell if it was the most common metal found in a building such as that, that was liquefied? No. We can only speculate based on it's abundance versus other metals, especially aluminum.

You can only guess with no basis for your guess.
Also keep in mind there are more then 1 kind of steel and they have different melting points.

But, as mentioned they still melt near 2000 (except alum), so you aren't off the hook - you still need to explain why molten metal was found AT ALL. And after multiple pages of deflections, you still haven't. Office fires 80 storeys off the ground doesn't melt ANY METAL in the basement. You will never be able to explain that.

Can an office fire get hot enough to melt metal? Sure, why not. Ever been in a house after a fire ? I have and have found plenty of melted metal and a bit of molten metal.
The molten metal didn't need to originate in the basement. It could have been on any floor and once the building collapsed, it could have, in liquid state, works it's way down.

It was also convenient how you just once again outright ignored my building seven arguments. Good work on that one too.

I didn't ignore them. At this point I'd rather focus on 1 and 2. We can get to 7 later if you like.

Regardless, I am done feeding you troll.

I find this amusing. I don't agree with you and your admitted GUESSES and now I'm a troll You really don't mind looking silly, do you?????

And anyone with a brain who reads these pages will understand why. You haven't bothered to bring any valid arguments to the table - or evidence. You deflect or ignore every single argument you can't explain, and ultimately you've made it quite clear you have no intention of ever doing any of that. I'm done with this thread, thanks for proving nothing for your side.

You might want to look at your own posts. Your GUESSES don't PROVE anything either. Why would anyone with half a brain REQUIRE me to PROVE my side then only expect to provide GUESSES on their side ?????????????????? Are you SERIOUS ?????????????



reply posted on 23-7-2009 @ 05:48 AM by hgfbob
Originally posted by pccat
reply to post by TheColdDragon


like I posted before.. to you specifically..
possible mundane reason for molten metal?

11-settembre.blogspot.com...



lol...yea....like in T-2 when the liquid metal terminator melts, it all pools up in the SAME area to reform....only on 9-11 it ALL pooled under each building...maybe it was trying to rebuild the buildings



the ONLY problem being, is that is solidifies after a few min....even quicker if it is allowed to flow....it cools faster


reply posted on 24-7-2009 @ 01:38 PM by Badgered1
I'm still dumbfounded that everything we knew to be true was suspended that morning.
We were simply told what we were seeing - unless the OS started to smell in which case we were told it was something else.

The WTC south tower 'pancaked' and uniformly collapsed due to all the weight of the floors above, apparently. That the first 1/4 of the tower had toppled off so even if it hadn't spontaneously and mysteriously disintegrated the weight on the floors below would have been very uneven doesn't seem to factor in. Neither does the cause of the top 1/4 suddenly evaporating ever seem to jibe with the OS. Before 911, I would have bet you that it would have fallen all the way to the street relatively intact. That morning, science had the day off.

Had WTC7 partially collapsed, say, where the fires were reported, I may have bought the story. However, it simply fell into it's own footprint in an astounding spontaneous failure of all support in the building. Amazing. The BBC said it happened earlier, but they were wrong. The BBC? Wow.
The most historic catastrophe in history, and the BBC destroys the tape. Wow, again. Imagine the Hindenberg disaster film just being thrown away. Oh, the humanity? Nope. Read all about it in the papers the next day with a description from a really credible (ahem) source.

When the Shanksville crash was reported to have been swallowed by the soft earth I couldn't believe what I was hearing! How was I supposed to believe that? Really?

When the Pentagon was hit I was surprised that the pilot (ahem) had targeted the side rather than diving in on it. 29+ acres is easier to hit than the side wall only 77' high. Unless the ground effect was suspended that morning like so many other scientific disciplines.

As an aside, there's a scene in the video game "Call of Duty Modern Warfare" where a nuclear explosion takes out a middle east city. At one point, a high rise building - already skeletonized from the initial explosion - uniformly collapses in on itself just like we saw the WTC towers collapse. Just wondering if this is a way of showing the video game generation that high rise steel buildings fall uniformly in on themselves regardless of the cause? Seems off to me.

The OS is so full of holes, and has so many arguments against it that I am surprised anyone still clings to it.
Pages: <<  13    14    15    16  >>    ^^TOP^^



Flight 93 was headed for Building 7
  Posted 11 days ago with 48 member flags
9/11 INTERCEPTED
  Posted 3 days ago with 45 member flags
9/11: The WTC Elevator Key
  Posted 14 days ago with 43 member flags
What are your favorite 9/11 debunking tactics?
  Posted 7 days ago with 17 member flags
Who is the Joker on ATS radio now running their mouth?
  Posted 15 days ago with 13 member flags
Was the government a co-conspirator?
  Posted 17 days ago with 9 member flags
British Police Want Us To Present False Flag Terror Evidence.
  Posted 7 days ago with 8 member flags