It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Somebody called me a "Truther" for the first time.

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbloch7986

"Truther" is meant to do exactly what you said its doing. Taking someone who is telling the truth and turning them into a bad person. Essentially it is installing the idea in people that telling the truth is bad.


Far from it. Claiming things are the "truth" like "9/11 was an inside job" is not the truth unless it can be so demonstrated. It has not. Claims are not automatically true. And unsupported claims are all the 9/11 Truth Movement has.

After 9 years of hearing the same claims made and the same claims repeatedly debunked, one shouldn't be surprised at the reaction Truthers get.




posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
There is nothing there at all about "NIST lying about molten steel."

So when NIST says that they are unaware of any witnesses that claimed as such, then the video shows several witnesses talking about the pools of molten steel "flowing like lava", these witnesses must all be liars then?

I'd tend to believe firefighters who know what fire and molten steel look like than a government agency that used guesses and their own calculations for their reports.

The witnesses prove that NIST is either lying, incompetent, or willfully ignorant. Take your pic because those are your only options besides calling our heroes liars.



Originally posted by jthomas
but never any evidence of "pools of molten steel."

The witnesses are evidence. The big rock of molten steel and concrete is evidence. That's two forms of evidence, how much more do you need?



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by jthomas
There is nothing there at all about "NIST lying about molten steel."

So when NIST says that they are unaware of any witnesses that claimed as such, then the video shows several witnesses talking about the pools of molten steel "flowing like lava", these witnesses must all be liars then?


Why would you think that?


I'd tend to believe firefighters who know what fire and molten steel look like than a government agency that used guesses and their own calculations for their reports.


How do you claim to know that firefighters know what molten steel looks like? We know there was molten aluminum (melting point = 660.25 °C) but steel melts typically at 1370 degrees C, a little below Iron at 1,535 °C.

What were the temperatures actually measured at Ground Zero? And when?


The witnesses prove that NIST is either lying, incompetent, or willfully ignorant. Take your pic because those are your only options besides calling our heroes liars.


You have nothing to go on. Witnesses thinking they saw "molten steel" is just as normal as witnesses thinking "strange lights" are flying saucers. We have evidence of molten aluminum but none of molten steel. We have evidence of "molten metal" as some claim, e.g. aluminum, but no evidence of molten "steel."


The witnesses are evidence. The big rock of molten steel and concrete is evidence. That's two forms of evidence, how much more do you need?


Big rock of "molten steel" with unmelted iron rebar coming out of it? How do you figure? You didn't fall for Steven Jone's paper, "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?" of 2006 did you? Where he stated:


"The following photograph has become available, evidently showing the now-solidified metal with entrained material, stored (as of November 2005) in a warehouse in New York."

journalof911studies.com... Page 6


Yes, indeed, "now-solidified metal" that didn't melt the rebar it solidified around. If you believe that....

Well, Jones was corrected on that point in his earlier addition of that paper and he responded, not by removing his ridiculous claim, but by simply adding the word "evidently."

Does Jones know that 9/11 Truthers won't question his claims? The evidence certainly points that way.



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 07:03 PM
link   


Above, molten steel with rebar protruding.




Above, same melted steel "meteorite" found at the WTC site.
Both examined and determined to be steel, aluminum and other metallic material.



Below is a sat photo from the Geological Survey showing temps after 5 days.




[edit on 4/26/2010 by mikelee]



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 07:21 PM
link   



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikelee


Above, molten steel with rebar protruding.


Obviously, if it had been "molten steel" it would have melted the rebar.




Above, same melted steel "meteorite" found at the WTC site.


Obviously, not "melted" steel.


Both examined and determined to be steel, aluminum and other metallic material.


Examined and determined to be compressed floors with concrete, structural steel, office furniture, and paper - never in a molten state.

The only question is why Steven Jones continues to lie about it after all these years.



[edit on 26-4-2010 by jthomas]



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikelee

(Richard Gage video)


Have you bothered to check Gage's claims? Do you believe him?

[edit on 26-4-2010 by jthomas]



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


Everything you reply to or post is obviously faulty and borders on the verge of not just ignorance but a deeply rooted psycological denial factor. You stated that there could not be a "solidified mass" around rebar and hence, I posted a photo to prove it, and yet you are in denial of such.

I have to question based on that your purpose for being on here, a conspiracy based website in which people post ideas & theorys that may not fit within the moral boundrys of some yet you continue to question, deny, post replys to things within a blanket denial auspice but fail to lend a hand at proving your side of what you deny.

[edit on 4/26/2010 by mikelee]



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 12:51 AM
link   
I think I was quite clear in questioning how it is possible for molten metal to solidify around rebar without melting the rebar.

This has been discussed for years. It has been shown repeatedly that it was never "solidified molten metal" to begin with. The point is why people continue to accept an invalid claim to begin with with.

I would assume you would want to know the truth about it.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 01:05 AM
link   
Truthers is the derogatory term used to describe people with a rigid belief and no support for it. The classic example is what you said "9/11 was an inside job".

That is the definition of a truther. There is no facts to support that. I personally think it is a conspiracy but do not know who the culprits are. It could be a foreign country, or industrial espionage until the truth is known I am not going to blame any entity without more evidence.

Truthers typically make these assumptions based off what their told to believe. Thus it is like a reverse effect of the story that it was Al Queda, instead of that story they cling to some other story that isnt supported either.

I dont know what happened, but i dont believe the official story. And I dont believe people who think it is an inside job. All that says to me is they lack the ability of critical thinking and are just as bad as people who believe the official story. So if you willing to be closed minded then you have become a truther. That is why it is a derogatory term, its from the negative connotation of its application to the ability of free thought and analysis.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by tigpoppa
Truthers typically make these assumptions based off what their told to believe. Thus it is like a reverse effect of the story that it was Al Queda, instead of that story they cling to some other story that isnt supported either.


Don't you find it odd that such a massive political event that has led to 2 extremely controversial wars doesn't have support of evidence?



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
Have you bothered to check Gage's claims? Do you believe him?

Gage didn't make any claims in that video. He showed literally dozens of witnesses that saw the molten steel first-hand, along with images and video clips of the molten steel, and then showed a clip of NIST lying. NIST either purposely lied, or are grossly incompetent as investigators for not knowing how many witnesses did see the molten steel. And that is on top of the available images and videos of the molten steel.

Why you won't admit that NIST is lying or incompetent on this particular point only shows that you are here to debunk and debunk only, regardless of the factual evidence presented. Add on top of that, you just keep giving your opinion without any supporting evidence.

In the videos that Mikelee and I have shown, there are images and videos of the molten steel, and dozens of eyewitnesses to the pools of molten steel. Images and videos with dozens of supporting witnesses is proof of molten steel. This fact alone destroys the official conspiracy theory.

Now, do you have any supporting evidence in the form of images, videos or witnesses that there was not molten steel at ground zero? If you cannot show actual evidence that there was not molten steel and that dozens of witnesses are lying or mistaken, then I will assume that you have conceded this point and finally admit there was molten steel and that NIST was either lying or grossly incompetent.

I want to see evidence only to the contrary, not your opinions. Otherwise you're wasting your time and ours by responding.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by jthomas
Have you bothered to check Gage's claims? Do you believe him?

Gage didn't make any claims in that video.


He made loads of claims. Here are a few:

1. He claims Leslie Robertson stated on Oct 5, 2001: "As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running."

- The reporter's notes said Robertson said "molten metal, not "steel".

2. Gage claims that claims that the "meteorite is "cooled molten metal." The absurdity of that claim has already been demonstrated and Gage is lying about it.

3. Mark Loizeaux: "I didn't personally see molten steel at the World Trade Center site."


He showed literally dozens of witnesses that saw the molten steel first-hand, along with images and video clips of the molten steel, and then showed a clip of NIST lying.


You mean they "claimed" to have seen "molten steel" or "molten metal." Sorry, nothing but anecdotal accounts with no distinction between "steel" and "metal" and no physical measurements of temperatures high enough to melt construction steel.


NIST either purposely lied, or are grossly incompetent as investigators for not knowing how many witnesses did see the molten steel. And that is on top of the available images and videos of the molten steel.


Sorry, no one has demonstrated NIST lied. Period. You can believe it all you want but there is no evidence of anything other than molten aluminum.


Why you won't admit that NIST is lying or incompetent on this particular point only shows that you are here to debunk and debunk only, regardless of the factual evidence presented. Add on top of that, you just keep giving your opinion without any supporting evidence.


You haven't given any acceptable evidence for molten steel and hence cannot claim NIST lied.


In the videos that Mikelee and I have shown, there are images and videos of the molten steel, and dozens of eyewitnesses to the pools of molten steel. Images and videos with dozens of supporting witnesses is proof of molten steel. This fact alone destroys the official conspiracy theory.


Nothing you have given can be construed to be evidence of "molten steel. Aluminum, yes, steel, no.


Now, do you have any supporting evidence in the form of images, videos or witnesses that there was not molten steel at ground zero?


Nothing you have presented shows "molten steel." Nor the temperatures high enough to melt steel. But we are given Gage's renowned misrepresentations and deceitful practices instead.

See: "Melted Steel: How Important?"

web.archive.org...://www.atslab.com/fire/PDF/MeltedSteel.pdf

Please show us all the "pools" re-solidified "melted steel" after the debris was removed. The photos must be amazing.



[edit on 27-4-2010 by jthomas]



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 

Can I ask, what is your goal on these 911 threads?
What are you trying to prove?



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by jthomas
 

Can I ask, what is your goal on these 911 threads?


I am asking questions about claims that are made here and pointing out where and why those claims are not valid, why the burden of proof is on Truthers' shoulders, as well as pointing out errors in reasoning and logic. I'm also trying to find out how you all expect to get a new investigation on that basis.


What are you trying to prove?


I'm not trying to "prove" anything. I'm illustrating what kind of skeptical world is out there, skeptical of Truther claims, and why it is easy to fall into the trap of confirmation bias when minds are already made up that, for instance, "9/11 was an inside job, over and out, we just need a trial to convict Bush and Cheney."

I would ask you all the same questions, what is your goal on these 9/11 threads? What are you trying to prove?

I'll point out that the majority of the threads are repetitious, discussing the exact same things discussed up to 8 years ago, making the same claims even when thoroughly debunked repeatedly. I really would like to know, where are you all going with that?



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
Sorry, no one has demonstrated NIST lied. Period. You can believe it all you want but there is no evidence of anything other than molten aluminum.

Actually, we have. You are obviously and blatantly denying the fact for some apparent agenda-driven reason.

NIST said they weren't aware of anyone claiming there was molten steel. Not only were dozens of witnesses shown in the two videos above to have seen molten steel, here's a list of dozens more experienced ironworkers, architects, engineers, and firefighters who saw the molten steel first-hand:

911conspiracy.wordpress.com...


Now, you say there is no evidence of anything other than molten aluminum. Let's take a look at what molten aluminum looks like:







Notice that time, after time, after time again, aluminum is silver when it is melted. Not a single, solitary image shows silvery liquid and not a single, solitary person says that they saw silvery liquid flowing anywhere. Every single witness said red, orange, yellow hot steel flowing like lava. Lava is not silver. Are we clear now that there is zero proof of molten aluminum and all proof of molten steel?



Originally posted by jthomas
3. Mark Loizeaux: "I didn't personally see molten steel at the World Trade Center site."

This is the only point of this discussion that you've actually been correct on. Yes, even though Mark said that he personally did not see the molten steel himself, in an email reply from Mark to "honway" dated 12/13/2003, Mark had this to say:

Molten steel was encountered primarily during excavation of debris around the South Tower when large hydraulic excavators were digging trenches 2 to 4 meters deep into the compacted/burning debris pile. There are both video tape and still photos of the molten steel being “dipped” out by the buckets of excavators. I’m not sure where you can get a copy.

Sorry I cannot provide personal confirmation.

Regards,

Mark Loizeaux, President
CONTROLLED DEMOLITION, INC.
2737 Merryman’s Mill Road
Phoenix, Maryland USA 21131
Tel: 1-410-667-XXXX
Fax: 1-410-667-XXXX
www.controlled-demolition.com



Here's one of the very images that Mark says exists of molten steel in the bucket of an excavation machine:




I think you're about ready to concede and admit there was molten steel like the images show and numerous dozens of professionals saw with their own eyes. And as such, NIST is either blatantly lying or grossly incompetent.

Then finally, admitting there was molten steel will also now conclude that there was some sort of incendiary that wasn't supposed to be there that melted those steel beams. I wonder what that could've been?






[edit on 27-4-2010 by _BoneZ_]



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 02:56 AM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


Can I ask, what is your goal on these 911 threads?

I am asking questions about claims that are made here and pointing out where and why those claims are not valid, why the burden of proof is on Truthers' shoulders, as well as pointing out errors in reasoning and logic. I'm also trying to find out how you all expect to get a new investigation on that basis.


You have not proved any of the questions are invalid and the burden of proof lies on both parties of these 911 discussions. You are making claims the OS is true, you have to support your evidences as well. 911 is not a one-way discussion, it’s a real debate.
So the proof lies on both shoulders. As for pointing out errors in reasoning and logic are you kidding! As for trying to find out how the Truth movement are going to get a new investigation I suggest you go read:

cms.ae911truth.org...

www.patriotsquestion911.com...

And many other 911 websites, instead of ridiculing people on ATS who do not subscribe to your OS views. Most of us in here are only interested in uncovering the twisted lies of the OS I am not in any movement demanding a new investigation, although I would like there to be one. You know why people are demanding a new investigation don’t you.
Do you think most people are ignorant? Do you think people cannot think for themselves? And need the government and NIST, 911 Commission reports to do the thinking for us. Not all of us are ignorant as you may think. Some of us are experts in some of the fields of 911 and know better.


What are you trying to prove?

I'm not trying to "prove" anything. I'm illustrating what kind of skeptical world is out there, skeptical of Truther claims, and why it is easy to fall into the trap of confirmation bias when minds are already made up that, for instance, "9/11 was an inside job, over and out, we just need a trial to convict Bush and Cheney."


Being skeptical is one thing and don’t you think, to be a Truther one must be “skeptical”?


why it is easy to fall into the trap of confirmation bias when minds are already made up that, for instance,


Do I hear pot calling kettle?


I would ask you all the same questions, what is your goal on these 9/11 threads? What are you trying to prove?


The truth that is supported by the facts, scientific facts, credible eyewitness, credible sources, not “opinions” without any sources.
To bring the Truth to the table to prove the OS is a lie, which we have.
To continue on talking about the truth, to “debate” the OS and show the errors and deceptions and outright lies. That is why I am here.

The Truth stands on its own credibility, people who defend it don’t need to lie, or distort it, as some do in supporting the OS. The OS is mostly lies and for anyone to support it and defend it, they have to lie to help cover-up the old lies and that is a proven fact.
Why I say this is because there is no real evidences to support the OS, however there is plenty of real evidences to prove it is mostly false.


I'll point out that the majority of the threads are repetitious, discussing the exact same things discussed up to 8 years ago, making the same claims even when thoroughly debunked repeatedly. I really would like to know, where are you all going with that?


Yes many topics on 911 are repeated but you forgot you’re on a conspiracy website, not a court of law. I find it rather amusing that you make the claims of repetitious, because you yourself are just as bad in repeating the OS that we all know by hart. So, where are you going by repeating the OS repeatedly, when it has been proven mostly lies, years ago?




[edit on 28-4-2010 by impressme]



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 07:02 AM
link   
Part 1 of 2:


Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by jthomas
Sorry, no one has demonstrated NIST lied. Period. You can believe it all you want but there is no evidence of anything other than molten aluminum.

Actually, we have. You are obviously and blatantly denying the fact for some apparent agenda-driven reason.


No, I'm just reporting that there is no evidence of "molten steel."


NIST said they weren't aware of anyone claiming there was molten steel.


Let's examine exactly who said what:

The claim that John Gross lied came from a student video of a Q & A session:


"This video was shot on October 18, 2006. John Gross was asked to come speak at the University of Texas at Austin by the Phil. M. Ferguson Fund. A UT 9/11 Truth student organization called A Project for the New American Citizen was there to ask questions and film his response."

www.livevideo.com...


This student group, now defunct, was run by two students, one by the name of "Jon" who is apparently the one asking John Gross the questions. I transcribed the relevant section leaving only very few irrelevant parts out:

---

Jon: "I'm curious about the pool of molten steel found in the bottom of the towers... eyewitnesses there found huge pools of molten steel beneath the towers.... and scientists, some scientists, don't think that the collapse of the building could melt all that steel and professor...uh...a physics professor ana lysed some of this steel and Steven Jones, he found evidence of thermite residue which would explain how the buildings collapsed by means of pre-planted explosives, so have you ana lysed the steel for any of those residues."

Gross: "First of all, let's go back to your basic premise that there was...uh...a pool of molten steel. I know of absolutely nobody, no eyewitnesses who said so, nobody who's produced it...I don't know that that's so."

Jon: "There's video of it."

Gross: "Steel melts around 2,600 degrees Fahrenheit. I think it's probably pretty difficult to get that kind of temperatures in a...uh...fire."

Jon: "Well NASA pictures...uh...thermal images show those sorts of temperatures in the basement."

Gross: "Will you send them to me?"

Jon: "He (Gross) asked me to e-mail him those thermal images. When I approached him after his talk to get his e-mail address for that purpose, he refused to provide it to me.

---

Let's list what Jon, the student, is stating:

1. A pool of molten steel was found at the bottom of the towers.
2. Eyewitnesses there found huge pools of molten steel beneath the towers.
3. There's video of it. (A pool of "molten steel.")
4. thermal images show those sorts of temperatures in the basement.

These are the statements to which John Gross replied, to wit, when he said: "First of all, let's go back to your basic premise that there was...uh...a pool of molten steel. I know of absolutely nobody, no eyewitnesses who said so, nobody who's produced it...I don't know that that's so."

At that point the video instantly shifts to statements of various people. But in this video with the "testimony" of "eyewitnesses" there is not one claim there of anyone seeing pools of molten steel..

- No ones states seeing a "pool" or "huge pools of molten steel."
- No one shows any video of "a pool of molten steel."
- The NASA thermal images could only measure the surface temperatures down a few feet, not temperatures of any kind in the basement of the towers.

So the claim that John Gross "lied" is not even supported by the one claiming he lied.

In addition, Jon the student states, "He (Gross) asked me to e-mail him those thermal images. When I approached him after his talk to get his e-mail address for that purpose, he refused to provide it to me." (John Gross said "send" not "e-mail.") That claim is dubious since John Gross's e-mail address and phone number have been available on the NIST website since before 9/11. Here's one from Feb. 2000:


fire.nist.gov...

Contact: Dr. John Gross
Structures Division
(301) 975-6068
john.gross@nist.gov


His e-mail and phone number remain the same to this day.

Who is John Gross? Who is the man who is categorically being told by a student that "pools of molten steel" were definitely found but never showed any, never showed anyone who claimed to have seen "pools", and then accused John Gross of lying about it?


Cornell University, Civil (Structural) Engineering,
B.S., 1969;
M.E., 1970;
Ph.D., 1980
"In July 1983, Dr. Gross joined NIST as a Research Structural Engineer. His research interests include computer analysis and design of structures, structural steel, fracture mechanics, nonlinear mechanics and stability. Dr. Gross has been active in the development of analytical methods for shoring loads and slab capacity for multi story concrete construction and in research into the behavior of steel braced frame connections. He participated in the collapse investigation of L'Ambiance Plaza and led the Ashland Oil tank failure investigation. Dr. Gross conducted an analytical investigation of the Cypress Viaduct elevated highway structure that failed in the Loma Prieta earthquake of October 1989, and research into the failure of steel beam-to-column connections in the January, 1994 Northridge earthquake. Dr. Gross will be responsible for the Structural Fire Response and Collapse aspects of the NIST World Trade Center Investigation."

wtc.nist.gov...



...here's a list of dozens more experienced ironworkers, architects, engineers, and firefighters who saw the molten steel first-hand:

911conspiracy.wordpress.com...


Let's see:

- There is no one who claims to see "pools of molten steel."
- Many see deformities that don't indicate melting of the steel
- Many were not even at Ground Zero.
- There are NO reports of temperatures as high as the 2,600 degree F. needed to melt steel.
- There are reports of temperatures high enough to melt aluminum.
- Experienced fire fighters know how to look at different materials to estimate the temperatures they burned at. NONE reported temperatures above 2,000 degrees F., 600 degrees short of the melting point of steel:


"The temperature at the core of ‘the pile,’ is near 2000 degrees Fahrenheit, according to fire officials."


And the articles conclusion?


The overwhelming evidence for impossibly high temperatures during and/or after the “collapses” has been hidden from the public. "


Really?

- Who claimed there were "impossibly high temperatures" and why?
- Who stated that the temperatures reached the 2,600 degrees Fahrenheit necessary to melt construction steel?
- Where are the "pools of molten steel?"
- Who "hid" all of the video statements that the interviewer used in his video?

(continued in next post....)



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 07:05 AM
link   
Part 2 of 2:


Now, you say there is no evidence of anything other than molten aluminum. Let's take a look at what molten aluminum looks like:





Notice that time, after time, after time again, aluminum is silver when it is melted. Not a single, solitary image shows silvery liquid and not a single, solitary person says that they saw silvery liquid flowing anywhere. Every single witness said red, orange, yellow hot steel flowing like lava. Lava is not silver. Are we clear now that there is zero proof of molten aluminum and all proof of molten steel?


No, it is precisely the opposite and here's why.

Pure aluminum at its melting point of 1,221 degrees Fahrenheit is indeed silvery as you show above. As temperatures go up, molten aluminum will start glowing and look like molten steel and other molten metals. The same is true when molten aluminum is contaminated with impurities. Here are photos that demonstrate it:


www.basicaluminum.com...




Recycling aluminum. A worker stirs a natural gas-powered furnace of molten aluminum at Crestwood Metal in Holbrook, N.Y. Wednesday, Feb 8, 2006. The company recycles 35 million pounds of aluminum yearly and sells it to car manufacturers and aluminum companies. Photo credit: Ed Betz, AP
www.talkingproud.us...





Molten aluminum is poured into a cast at United Company Rusal's Krasnoyarsk aluminum smelter in Russia.
online.wsj.com...



Construction steel's melting point is 2,600 degrees Fahrenheit, almost 1,400 degrees higher than that of aluminum. Steel goes through the same progression of colors as it approaches its melting point.

NO temperatures were reported as high as 2,600 degrees. Temperatures ranging from 1,200 degrees to 2,000 degrees were reported, above the melting point of aluminum. There were around 4,000,000 kg of aluminum cladding from WTC 1 and 2 in the burning pile at temperatures above the melting point of aluminum.

- Should streams of molten aluminum NOT be present?

- How would witnesses know the difference between molten aluminum and molten steel if both look the same when molten aluminum is running through debris and picking up impurities and/or are at the much higher temperatures than it's melting point when it looks silvery?

- Is it not reasonable for people to think it's steel not knowing or having any reason to think that the cladding was made of aluminum?


Originally posted by jthomas
3. Mark Loizeaux: "I didn't personally see molten steel at the World Trade Center site."

This is the only point of this discussion that you've actually been correct on. Yes, even though Mark said that he personally did not see the molten steel himself, in an email reply from Mark to "honway" dated 12/13/2003,...

Actually, it was an e-mail to Garry Bryan on 26 Sep. 2002.

You forgot the first two sentences:

"I didn't personally see molten steel at the World Trade Center site. It was
reported to me by contractors we had been working with."




Molten steel was encountered primarily during excavation of debris around the South Tower when large hydraulic excavators were digging trenches 2 to 4 meters deep into the compacted/burning debris pile. There are both video tape and still photos of the molten steel being “dipped” out by the buckets of excavators. I’m not sure where you can get a copy.

Sorry I cannot provide personal confirmation.

Regards,

Mark Loizeaux, President
CONTROLLED DEMOLITION, INC.
2737 Merryman’s Mill Road
Phoenix, Maryland USA 21131
Tel: 1-410-667-XXXX
Fax: 1-410-667-XXXX
www.controlled-demolition.com


Here's one of the very images that Mark says exists of molten steel in the bucket of an excavation machine:






"Construction steel has an extremely high melting point of about 2,800° Fahrenheit (1535° Celsius). Asked what could have caused such extreme heat, Tully said, "Think of the jet fuel."

Loizeaux told AFP that the steel-melting fires were fueled by "paper, carpet and other combustibles packed down the elevator shafts by the tower floors as they 'pancaked' into the basement."

Kerosene-based jet fuel, paper, or the other combustibles normally found in the towers, however, cannot generate the heat required to melt steel, especially in an oxygen-poor environment like a deep basement."

www.serendipity.li...



I think you're about ready to concede and admit there was molten steel like the images show and numerous dozens of professionals saw with their own eyes. And as such, NIST is either blatantly lying or grossly incompetent.


Quite the opposite. I believe you are now ready to admit I have no reason to believe there was molten steel.I think you would now understand why there is no evidence of molten steel/ and why there is no reason to accept any claim there was. Let's review:

- A college student ("Jon") made a video of John Gross and claimed Gross "lied". The video shows quite clearly that John Gross of NIST addressed a specific claim that eyewitnesses saw "huge pools of molten steel under the towers." The college student then switches to various claims none of which show anyone or any video showing "pools of molten steel" and misrepresents the specific claim Gross was addressing. John Gross is vindicated in that NO evidence, NO testimony, NO video, and NO temperatures sufficient to melt steel were demonstrated in that deceptive video nor have ever been demonstrated since.

- No temperatures reaching the required 2,600 degree F. to melt steel have been reported or demonstrated.

- Temperatures well above the melting point of aluminum existed in the pile for a long time.

- There was around 4,000,000 kg of aluminum cladding from WTC 1 and 2. It would be expected that there would be molten aluminum but not molten steel at the reported temperatures in the pile.

- Molten aluminum at high temperatures and/or contaminated with impurities, as would be expected running through the debris in the pile, glows and looks like any other molten metal. It would not be readily apparent that it was molten aluminum and not molten steel. (This is also true about the metal dripping from WTC 2 before it collapsed. See:
www.debunking911.com...)

- It would not be unexpected for people to assume it was molten steel since aluminum is not associated with building construction and people would not have any reason to assume the cladding was aluminum. Many just said they saw molten metal.

This all points to the continuing reluctance of 9/11 Truthers to actually think critically about what they accept automatically as true. You don't bother to research it. Confirmation bias rules the day and you can be taken advantage of by those who you think are telling you the truth. We skeptics wonder when you claim "you are just asking questions" when you don't bother to ask any questions about the claims you believe.

If you cannot convince we skeptical laymen, how do you possibly think you will actually convince anyone competent in the relevant fields of the need for a new investigation?



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
I believe you are now ready to admit I have no reason to believe there was molten steel.

Your denial gives you reason to admit there was no molten steel. All while ignoring the dozens upon dozens of witnesses that have testified to seeing the molten steel. You would think firefighters, who see fires every single day, or controlled demolition experts, would know what molten steel looks like. I even posted an image that the president of CDI says exists of molten steel.

You're assuming that all these professionals are just dumb and don't know what the hell they're talking about and that is just reckless on your part.

There are, however, things you need to consider:

1.) The fires were up top. Most of the fires were extinguished from all the dust and debris during the collapse of the buildings. Just as one can extinguish a campfire by throwing dusty dirt over it.

2.) There could very well have been molten aluminum mixed in with the pools of molten metal in the basements of the towers, but you have to ask yourself: where did all the energy come from in the basements of the the towers, some 7-storeys below the ground, to melt all that steel and aluminum? Where did the energy come from to sustain it for weeks and months?

3.) The melting point of aluminum is almost 1300-degrees. At that temperature, you're getting dangerously close to the maximum temperature of office fires which is about 1800 degrees under the most ideal, oxygen-fed, open-air conditions.

There was not enough oxygen below ground to fuel any kind of fires that may have magically bypassed a quarter-mile of dust/debris and made it into the basements from above.

There are several witnesses, however, that talk about a ground-level fireball coming from the base of the towers as the towers were collapsing:




You'll also see a fireball storeys high coming from controlled demolitions:




Basement level explosions, reported throughout the morning on 9/11 and now when the towers are collapsing? The basement level explosions could explain the molten steel/aluminum in the basement levels, nothing else.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join