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.

 

Giving this one more go.... molten metal

page: 7
14
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 2 2010 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by ohhwataloser

Originally posted by jthomas
- 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.


your missing something, it looks like any other molten metal at the same temperature otherwise no it doesn't.


Correct. It would glow at a lower temperature than steel and look like steel does at a higher temperature. No temperatures were recorded, nor evidence of temperatures, higher than 2,000 degree F., too low to melt construction steel.




posted on May, 2 2010 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
So do you discount Jones' findings?
Or do you propose another source of sulfur?

Remember Dr. Jones' findings are preliminary and not 100% definitive. I also don't recall sulfur being mentioned in the findings, nor do I recall testing for sulfur or found during the tests. This would be a good question to ask Dr. Jones.


I'm asking this hombre, since as you've stated, he seems to have the chops.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


You should learn to look at facts and not let your desire for conspiracy cloud your brain. The noises heard do not always mean explosions and explosions in a fire do not always mean demolition. To claim such is unfounded folly.
The number of charges necessary, the patterns of the explosions, and the sizes of those charges would leave no doubt of CD, had it occurred. It didn't and there is not an iota of evidence to say that it did.
All those armchair sleuths who believe that the perpetrators who orchestrated the biggest conspiracy in history would leave video evidence for them to find are fantasizing that they are more clever and resourceful than the evil doers. Do you think that the conspirators would forget that videos were produced and that they would let teenaged youtube commandoes discover their secrets and spill the beans?

I think denial lies with the conspiracy crowd.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


Jones found trace sulfur and claimed contamination by gypsum wallboard [CaSO4] which is probably the thing he got right. No large amounts of sulfur or barium were found. Thermate is eliminated.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine

Jones found trace sulfur and claimed contamination by gypsum wallboard [CaSO4] which is probably the thing he got right. No large amounts of sulfur or barium were found. Thermate is eliminated.


Yeah, that's what I thought.

No thermAte.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine

The number of charges necessary, the patterns of the explosions, and the sizes of those charges would leave no doubt of CD, had it occurred. It didn't and there is not an iota of evidence to say that it did.



Here's a good source for Bonez:

www.militarynewbie.com...

It's a manual for military demo engineers. It describes methods of cutting steel, without the use of lsc's.

It's interesting to note that using C-4, cutting a roughly 20" x 20" x 1" thick H beam would require about 17lbs of C-4.

12" I beam needs 3 lbs.

14" x 2" steel plate takes 3 lbs.

Pretty loud. And that's with some careful placement, hence time consuming.

But since he's claimed that time consuming prep wouldn't be necessary, those charges would need to be bigger. I'm sure that with the help of this info, he can figure out how it could be done, and how much C-4 would do the trick at various stand-offs from the steel..

I'm quite sure that a crack researcher like Bonez will take this info, and see if he can prove/disprove the claims of quieter secret explosives in use by the military in his mockumentary.

I'm quite sure that a crack researcher like Bonez will provide the engineering basis for believing in the first place that quieter, and thus lower detonation velocity explosives could do the job in his mockumentary.

I'm quite sure that a crack researcher like Bonez will use the software programs that NIST used in exploring the CD claims in the report on 7 to find out whether or not explosive CD will result in the same window breakage in his mockumentary.

I'm quite sure that a crack researcher like Bonez will combine all these elements and form some kind of workable hypothesis about how it could be done in his mockumentary.

Or not...........



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
You are most definitely wrong, BS. I will explain again, carefully. Please try to follow along. Steelmaking is a multi-step process.


We aren't talking about how steel is made. We are talking about the "theory" that "debunkers" have made here that a blast furnace was created under the debris pile, so it was able to produce massive temperatures and even melt steel. But to do that DOES require heated air being circulated.



As to your second point about "There was no oxygen or fire down there...", I believe that you are wrong again. The plots of heat show that there was definitely fire down there. Underground fires are the most plausible explanation. How would you explain long term heating otherwise?


You still haven't learned that I don't have to have a better theory to debunk yours. The evidence still contradicts what you're saying. Specifically the clean-up workers contradict what you're saying and so do the geologists and others who contributed to the pdf I posted showing where molten steel hot spots were located.



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

We aren't talking about how steel is made. We are talking about the "theory" that "debunkers" have made here that a blast furnace was created under the debris pile, so it was able to produce massive temperatures and even melt steel. But to do that DOES require heated air being circulated.

You still haven't learned that I don't have to have a better theory to debunk yours. The evidence still contradicts what you're saying. Specifically the clean-up workers contradict what you're saying and so do the geologists and others who contributed to the pdf I posted showing where molten steel hot spots were located.


This discussion started when I explained how flashover occurred. You made some claims based on faulty reasoning and I explained things for you. I explained how the flashover occurred and, when you made incorrect statements about a blast furnace, I explained that to you also. Underground fires burn with little oxygen and are chemically reducing in nature. They are the source of underground heat. They can account for the sulfidation of the surface layers of eroded steel which I also explained.
It is unlikely that you will develop a "better theory." The evidence does not contradict what I am saying, the evidence says that there were underground fires that burned for a long time which is what I claimed. Contrary to your reliance on Hunter College's whimsical "molten steel hot spot" label, the map just showed "hot spots." In fact, the text said "heat being given off from the structure from underlying hot debris or molten steel." They should have added "Or anything else that is hot down there."
The heat is from fires. There is evidence of fires. Note how the fires move toward the largest concentrations of fuel over time. Do you think someone is moving hot steel around, underground? What does your logic tell you?






[edit on 5/3/2010 by pteridine]



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


Come on man. You know when you are ranting. I know when you are ranting. You are grasping at straws.

Even though I just provided two separate and direct pieces of evidence that prove the "underground fire" theory wrong, two pieces of evidence that there was no oxygen to supply fire heating this steel, you ignore that because you say there is no better theory. Okay, you stick with that "argument" then.

If a theory is proven wrong, you don't act like it's correct anyway until a better theory happens to come along. You start looking for a better theory and at least acknowledge that you don't know what actually happened. But this is all lost and pointless to tell you, and internet troll who will never have anything to do with scientific work, especially in regards to 9/11, in your life. So I waste my words really. Just keep pretending you know what happened when it's completely obvious based on the evidence that what you say is impossible.

Saying massive underground fires can heat so much steel for so long without an oxygen supply is ignorant, and an embarrassment to real science, which you still don't understand. I could die before you finally figured out how to make a legitimate argument that fits the evidence.



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


On the contrary, there was enough oxygen: via the subway tunnels, cracks, voids, spaces, sewers. The oxygen can enter through any of the underground and buried openings, and when the oxygen is consumed, the fires can suck in more through the holes. Dont you know this bsbray?

Also, blacksmiths use sulfur-rich charcoal when they heat up the iron and steel. Why is that? Burning the sulfur rich coal creates sulfur-dioxide. When sulfur dioxide in its gaseous form or when mixed with water, it creates a corrosive agent. This corrosive agent can rapidly oxidize the iron. More here:


Other degrading solutions are sulfur dioxide in water and carbon dioxide in water. Under these corrosive conditions, iron(III) species are formed. Unlike iron(II) oxides, iron(III) oxides are not passivating because these materials do not adhere to the bulk metal. As these iron(III) compounds form and flake off from the surface, fresh iron is exposed, and the corrosion process continues until all of the iron(0) is either consumed or all of the oxygen, water, carbon dioxide, or sulfur dioxide in the system are removed or consumed

en.wikipedia.org...

Here is more on iron and sulfur dioxide:
en.wikipedia.org...

But, BUT! Here is an interesting pdf artical about the steel at WTC7:

www.springerlink.com...


Microstructural examination of a beam from Building 7 showed that temperatures higher than 940 °C were experienced in localized regions. Concurrent examination of the beam surfaces and surface layers showed evidence of extensive metal removal, and the analysis suggests that this removal occurred while the beam was exposed to the fire in the rubble pile after the building had collapsed.


resources.metapress.com...

Now if anyone has access to this site, or is a member or can find a free versin of this paper, it would make for a most interesting read and a good explaination of what we are basically trying to explain to you in layman terms. And I'm willing to bet that thermite is not even in the report. Temps are too low for any thermite. But a slag forming on the steel from corrosion and heat, that is much more plausible.

more links to papers that investigated the steel from the WTC are also found here:
www.citeulike.org...

[edit on 5/3/2010 by GenRadek]

[edit on 5/3/2010 by GenRadek]



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
On the contrary, there was enough oxygen: via the subway tunnels, cracks, voids, spaces, sewers. The oxygen can enter through any of the underground and buried openings, and when the oxygen is consumed, the fires can suck in more through the holes. Dont you know this bsbray?


This is all theoretical. Which is to say you don't actually know any of this, and you weren't there, you are just assuming this is possible, most likely because you've just seen other "debunkers" repeat the same trash endlessly.

You need to look at what I just posted. Go back to the geological pdf and read where it says that fires did not develop UNTIL exposed to oxygen. Meaning this heat was already there were there was NO fire. This has to be refuted before you can go along merrily ignoring it.

And the clean-up workers said the same thing. There were no underground fires, until they exposed the extremely hot material below to oxygen by digging. This also has to be refuted, you can't just ignore it.

[edit on 3-5-2010 by bsbray11]



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


bsbray, there is always "guesswork" involved when dealing with scenarios like this. Humans cannot be EVERYWHERE to witness EVERYTHING that happens on this planet. However using knowledge, reasoning and facts of what we DO know, we can infer accurately what is going on in an area where we do not have direct access.

But if you are poopoo on that, then I recommend you question everything science has proven indirectly without being there in person. But no, not with healthy skepticism. But with paranoid delusions about how, "if we cant see it, or video tape it, or hold it, it does not exist or occur." Ergo you shall ignore a good 75% of science in the process.

Again you failed to pay attention to what FLASHOVER and BACKDRAFT means, what pteridine was talking about. Here is the breakdown of what that means:
en.wikipedia.org...

A backdraft is a situation which can occur when a fire is starved of oxygen; consequently combustion ceases (due to the lack of oxygen) but the fuel gases and smoke remain at high temperature (at a temperature above the fire-point of the fuel gases). If oxygen is re-introduced to the fire, eg. by opening a door (or window) to a closed room, combustion can (will) restart often resulting in an explosive effect as the gases are heated by the combustion and expand because of the rapidly increasing temperature (see also flashover).


en.wikipedia.org...

This is what was happening in the pile when debris was being removed. The high temps re-ignited when it was exposed to more oxygen. Oye this is basic stuff! I thought you would have been able to at LEAST figure this out, or at least understand it.

Also realize that conditions were greatly varied in the pile. What was happening in one area was not what was happening in another. Geeze, it was chaos in there, and yet you fail to realize this or ignore it purposely. With chaos you cannot be 100% sure. But you can give a damn good estimate observing the situation and applying known, correct, applicable facts and knowledge, not making crap up about magic thermites that can somehow remain molten weeks later, and at the same time ignore how without thermite, steel burning in debris can remain hot for weeks with proper ingredients and conditions, all of which were present in the pile. But you refuse to acknowledge this. You just want one simple, farfetched idea to be true no matter how implausible, because you are too lazy to go down the more complicated route which will reveal a more mundane explanation.
Thermite is the easy and sexy sounding way out. No one wants to hear about long term oxidation, heat, sulfidation from the breakdown of gypsum and heat, fires, water all reacting over time to burn away the steel. yeah too much work for you guys.

Its always the easy way out for you. Somehow, no reason, it was bombs and magic thermite. How? Who? Where? How? We dont know! But we are damn sure that is what it is because, well, because! hah! Lordy lordy. You people are funny!



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
bsbray, there is always "guesswork" involved when dealing with scenarios like this.


When you "deal" with things like this, yes, I know, you are always guessing. Just like when you pretend like you know what was causing the explosions, you don't have evidence, you pretend and guess.


This is one reason so many other people want additional investigation. They don't want some self-righteous internet nobody's guesswork in place of what real professionals can come up with that is based on evidence.

Speaking of evidence, I'll mention it to you again so you can reformulate your poor guesswork. There was no fire until the extremely hot steel under the pile was exposed to oxygen. Then there was fire.


You will be ignorant for as long as you choose to ignore this and fail to offer any real evidence for what you are suggesting. You might as well be saying the Twin Towers were brought down with nuclear weapons, because you'd have just has much evidence at your disposal. Not only ignorant of what you say, but a hypocrite to boot, putting on like your guesswork is suddenly worth a damn. Maybe if your credentials were better than "internet troll." But without evidence that's still a damned big maybe.



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 03:45 PM
link   
The mistaken belief that there was no oxygen underground to allow the contents of the towers to burn for weeks and heat steel to high temperatures and melt aluminum is not supported by any evidence nor any credible theory.

Bsbray11 is asking us to accept us to accept the concept that some unknown, undefined, unidentified, massive, and apparently magical, amount of energy not requiring oxygen was at work for months in the "pile" while all kinds of anecdotal accounts of people seeing "molten steel" who magically did not suffocate due to the magical lack of oxygen reigns as the evidence that refutes every expert and every piece of scientific evidence and vast amount of data on how fires behave.

The "pile" itself contained an extraordinary amount of flammable content that we are asked to accept never was exposed to oxygen on the 16-acre WTC site:


WTC Debris Piles Composition

WTC cleanup, fires in piles, Fresh Kills, etc.

9/11 Links
– Up to 180,000 gallons of fuel oil, diesel fuel and transformer oil (See varying estimates in links below)

– 2,000 automobiles and trucks. Not all were burned, but many were (I'm not aware of a count) Each one with fuel on board, each with four tires, foam and fabric upholstery and carpeting, engine oil, rubber hoses, belts, weatherstripping, wiring harnesses, loads of plastic, paint.

– Carpeting. Doesn't sound like a big deal. Imagine going into your local carpet dealer and asking for installation for your living room. Dimensions: 20 feet wide, 65 miles long.

– Tens of thousands of miles of wiring covered with plastic insulation.

– 5 million square feet of painted surfaces.

– Hundreds of tons of wood and particle board.

– Millions of pounds of paper

– 20,000 viscoelastic tower shock absorbers.

– Tens of thousands of computer terminals covered in plastic.

– Hundreds of tons of trading-floor equipment.

– Tens of thousands of telephones covered in plastic.

– Thousands of fax machines covered in plastic.

– Thousands of copiers and toner cartridges covered in plastic.

– Thousands of computer peripherals: printers, scanners, hubs, zip drives (remember them?), millions of CD-ROMs and floppy disks. User manuals for everything. Calculators. Everything covered in plastic.

– All of the electronics above have plastic-insulated wiring and plastic circuit boards.

– About 75,000 chairs, most with foam padding and synthetic coverings.

– Hundreds of upholstered couches.

– Millions of plastic pens and markers.

– Tens of thousands of cardboard boxes

– Tens of thousands of plastic wastebaskets

– Tons and tons of flammable mailroom supplies

– Hundreds of supply closets filled with office consumables, including untold quantities of paper and plastic.

– The contents of the receiving areas: perhaps thousands of boxes of supplies

– Thousands of flammable items used by repair and maintenance crews.

– The contents of over 75 retail stores, with all their merchandise, shelves and display cases, and back rooms filled with stock in boxes. These include 18 clothing stores, several bookstores, newsstands, card shops, two music stores (plastic!), two consumer electronics stores, pharmacies.

– The contents of Windows on the World, the highest-grossing restaurant in the U.S., with all of its supplies, oils, table linens, wall treatments, upholstered furniture, etc.

– The contents of numerous other restaurants, cafés and snack bars.

sites.google.com...


Truthers incredible hand-waving is absurd.



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by GenRadek
On the contrary, there was enough oxygen: via the subway tunnels, cracks, voids, spaces, sewers. The oxygen can enter through any of the underground and buried openings, and when the oxygen is consumed, the fires can suck in more through the holes. Dont you know this bsbray?


This is all theoretical.


No, it's easily demonstrated and proven to be true to the rational.

As the fires burned after the collapses, smoke and hot air rose from the piles.

Therefore, air went into the pile to replace it.

Very simple and reasonable.

Denial of this would be very telling.

Continue though as you please.



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Speaking of evidence, I'll mention it to you again so you can reformulate your poor guesswork. There was no fire until the extremely hot steel under the pile was exposed to oxygen. Then there was fire.



Its just in one ear and out the other. (or is it, in one eye and out the other in this case?)

Once more from the top, I'll see if I can make this part any clearer for those of us..... um... hard of reading and understanding I guess?
Ahem:


A backdraft is a situation which can occur when a fire is starved of oxygen; consequently combustion ceases (due to the lack of oxygen) but the fuel gases and smoke remain at high temperature (at a temperature above the fire-point of the fuel gases). If oxygen is re-introduced to the fire, eg. by opening a door (or window) to a closed room, combustion can (will) restart often resulting in an explosive effect as the gases are heated by the combustion and expand because of the rapidly increasing temperature (see also flashover).


en.wikipedia.org...

Now then that answers your question ( I hope), since somehow you missed it. I had to, well, make it clearer, but since I couldnt hire jugglers and skywriters, I had to go this route. I hope this is now more understandable and answers your burning wonders (pardon the pun) about how really hot debris "burst into flame" after being re-exposed to oxygen, and had fire show up where there was none seen before.



You will be ignorant for as long as you choose to ignore this and fail to offer any real evidence for what you are suggesting. You might as well be saying the Twin Towers were brought down with nuclear weapons, because you'd have just has much evidence at your disposal. Not only ignorant of what you say, but a hypocrite to boot, putting on like your guesswork is suddenly worth a damn. Maybe if your credentials were better than "internet troll." But without evidence that's still a damned big maybe.


My ignorance? So says the person who completely ignored the answer given about how fires re-emerged after being re-exposed to fresh oxygen. Ignored the fact that much of the debris was still smouldering in a low oxygen enviornment which is nothing new or "suspicous" to firefighters, and burst into flame when more oxygen allowed for a renewal of combustion. Ignored the fact that the very act of oxidation of steel and iron creates heat, and heat also increases the rate of oxidation. Ignored the fact that the decomposition of gypsum in heat and humidity releases sulfur dioxide, which by itself is very corrosive to steel and lowers the melting point of steel by creating the very sulfides that attack the steel turning it into "eutectic melt". Ignored the fact that pouring water onto very hot steel also creates hydrogen, which also burns, helping to keep the heat up. -----------> www1.eere.energy.gov...

There is a difference, bsbray, between making crap up to explain something that is not usually encountered in our day to day lif, and using known information, logic, facts, and common sense. I am not making crap up. What you and the TM are doing is mostly making crap up. Magic thermites, silent but supremely powerful explosives that are really tiny and easy to rig, superhuman ability to rig two 110 floor occupied buildings and a burning, leaning 47 story building within a few hours, etc.

I am giving you resources, extra important info from other related sources, which when combined offer a much more reasonable and mundane explanation to the subject at hand. In this case what caused the corrosion of steel from the WTCs and created a tiny layer of slag. I gave you plenty of facts from other disciplines, topics, studies, which would help you understand in a more rational way why we have what we have. You instead, ignore it. Call me a troll. Dont even try to comprehend it, lask about it, or even peek into the alternatives and dismissing them as nonsense. Calling it all guesswork and therefore not admissable. Gee, and I'M the troll?
And what the hell are you doing bsbray? Saying that what I am putting forward is all theoretical and I have no proof of it at all, ergo its inadmissable and fantasy?

And here you are pushing some poorly made up nonsense about thermites which has been based purely upon FLAWED "research" (and I use that term very loosly), which has been shredded apart time and again and shown to be garbage, and has ZERO evidence. And yet you demand "evidence" for things that can be readily looked up and verified through alternative sources.

So no, do not call me a troll or a hypocrite without first taking a damn good long look at yourself. I have to see you do anything to refute anything I have brought forward with any of your own facts, other that BS "show me evidence or else its all guesswork" crap. Either man up, or grow up, and start discussing like a mature adult about why you think what I bring forward is wrong, or incorrect. Show me where I am wrong in my presented information, with some counter facts, or something intelligent. Show how that is not possible in yoru opinoin. Dont pull that "show me real evidence of this" crap. That just shows me you are afraid to discuss this topic because you have no clue on the subject at hand. Look if you dont know or understand something about what i said or anyone else did, geeze, just sayso. I wont think any less of you, nor will I make fun of you. I'm sure others will be more than willing to help you understand certain things that maybe a little difficult for you to grasp. if anything it will show me that you truely are mature and interested in learning the truth.

Now are you going to man up and act like an adult, or are you going to ignore all this, demand proof or "real" evidence, call me a troll, and then run away proclaiming victory?



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by pteridine
 


Come on man. You know when you are ranting. I know when you are ranting. You are grasping at straws.

Even though I just provided two separate and direct pieces of evidence that prove the "underground fire" theory wrong, two pieces of evidence that there was no oxygen to supply fire heating this steel, you ignore that because you say there is no better theory. Okay, you stick with that "argument" then.

Saying massive underground fires can heat so much steel for so long without an oxygen supply is ignorant, and an embarrassment to real science, which you still don't understand. I could die before you finally figured out how to make a legitimate argument that fits the evidence.


You provided no evidence that there were no underground fires. Your version of evidence is merely misunderstanding and lack of technical training. All the evidence says there was underground fires for which you chose not to provide any alternatives. Tracking temperature with time shows how the fires developed and ended up where the most fuel was located. Air will leak in and be drawn in by the fires in a debris field such as this, especially with subway tunnels directly underneath the rubble. Do you still believe that those changes of temperature over time were the result of moving masses of molten metal? Does thermite take weeks to react?
The level of reasoning you have displayed does not bode well for your employment in a technical field.



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 02:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
You provided no evidence that there were no underground fires.


Fire needs oxygen.

There was no fire until the hot steel was exposed to air.


You guys can all keep frothing at the mouth about this all you want, ranting and making completely irrelevant arguments and then starring each others' posts.
The fact that the fires didn't exist until they were introduced to oxygen, as stated by both the clean-up workers and geologists working with them, and this directly contradicts the theory that the steel was so hot because of underground fires.

Underground fires weren't a proven fact to begin with, as an explanation to why the steel was immediately so hot and stayed smoldering for months. It's just a theory internet "debunkers" like to pose as a fact.

[edit on 4-5-2010 by bsbray11]



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 07:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

The fact that the fires didn't exist until they were introduced to oxygen, as stated by both the clean-up workers and geologists working with them, and this directly contradicts the theory that the steel was so hot because of underground fires.

Underground fires weren't a proven fact to begin with, as an explanation to why the steel was immediately so hot and stayed smoldering for months. It's just a theory internet "debunkers" like to pose as a fact.



If "there was no fire until the hot steel was exposed to air," what caused the steel to stay hot for so long? What caused the hot spots to move around? How does your 911 belief system explain these away? Where is the vaunted science training that you claim to have?

I claim underground fires were the cause of the heat and flashover occurred when excess oxygen was introduced into an oxygen depleted fire. These do not stretch the bounds of credulity and have basis in previous occurrences. You don't even have a plausible theory for anything else. All you do is claim that nothing is proved and demand a "new investigation." That will never happen without cause and no one has been able to provide cause, least of all BSBray. It seems as though the evil "debunkers" have bested you again.



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 07:30 AM
link   
So bsbray11 is telling us that there never was the possibility for "flowing streams of molten steel."

But there are flowing streams of Truthers debunking themselves.

[edit on 4-5-2010 by jthomas]



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join