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.

 

Scientists, Military Officers, and Actors are among new 9/11 research organizations

page: 12
121
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
I find that those who use "liar" to describe other posters are basically insecure folk who may still be fighting the Civil war. The OS is that Virginia and the South lost, decisively, and that Sherman held a seminar on the horrors of war.
Did you sign up as a scientist, military officer, or actor?


Sorry, I'm trying to find an actual response to what I posted from the FEMA report and I'm not seeing it. Why am I not surprised at all. Would you be offended if I asked you how old you are? I'm just curious, that's all. And curious why it is so hard to respond to what I actually post, and why it is so easy for you to comment on my avatar instead.

The Confederacy lost the Civil War because Grant gave up on frontal assaults and sieged Richmond for a number of months until the Confederate army was starving and freezing. Despite eventually losing the war, and despite being outnumbered and outgunned in virtually every major battle, we still inflicted more casualties on the feds than they inflicted on us, we had better generals, and we still whooped more federal ass than they ever whipped out of us. For the first 2 or 3 years of the war, really until Gettysburg, most of the Union army had never even seen a Rebel regiment in retreat and considered Robert E. Lee nearly invincible. Just read Yankee newspapers from the era. That is why their generals were always extremely cautious and slow to act when confronting Lee. They never knew when rebs would come pouring out of the woods screaming and loading them up with a blanket of lead before they could even get organized, and it terrified them. That is why Lincoln went through generals left and right, every time we sent them running back to Washington. That's more than any Brit could ever say about jolly old England. I wonder if you remember when you lot last messed with Virginia. 1812. And before that during the revolution. Why don't you speak for your own country. You can't hurt my pride here, buddy. There is no use even trying. This is my country and I know these people and their resolve, culture and history better than you can understand. It was nice of you to bring up the subject again though.


Since you like ignoring my posts to make off-hand comments on my avatar so much, I'll make you a deal. Every time you feel like copping out rattling off something off-topic about our Civil War instead of giving me a straight response, I'll give you a free history lesson and period song. I don't mind at all.



Enjoy.



edit on 13-9-2010 by VirginiaRisesYetAgain because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
 


Your original post was the petulant

"Liar. Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfication [sic] with subsequent intragranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron"
www.fema.gov...
I say "liar" because there is NO WAY you have been a member here this long and still don't know this.
Save your infamous semantic bickering, which I know you could carry on to infinity. There is no point. Your statement has been debunked."

You are wrong. Read my replies to BSBray. As you missed all of that, I thought that I'd excite you with some Civil War chatter. I'm waiting for you to explain how Virginia actually won the war in spite of Lee's generalship. Longstreet had a much better plan at Gettysburg but, fortunately, Lee insisted on trying to crack the Union lines. Perhaps your enthusiasm is misplaced pride in ones' home state or some sort of overcompensation. Shelby Foote had that problem, too, and hated to admit what happened to the 15th Alabama against the 20th Maine. I don't know why it is not just history at this point, but there seems to be great emotional investment by the present Southerners. As an FYI, those that actually participated are long dead.

I am not a citizen of the UK and, for the record, am glad 'we' won the unjust war of 1812.

Did you sign up for one of the new 911 "Research" organizations? You don't fit in as a scientist and unless they accept Conferedate officers, you may have to sign up as an actor.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
You are wrong. Read my replies to BSBray. As you missed all of that, I thought that I'd excite you with some Civil War chatter.


All you are doing now is reinforcing the fact that you do lie, and blatantly. This makes absolutely no sense because you brought up all that irrelevant Civil War crap before we had this discussion, and you know it.

Speaking of which, all you did was present a petty semantic argument that no pure iron was verified melted. No kidding?
Those buildings weren't made from pure iron after all you know. Or do you?

FEMA still showed that steel from the WTC was melted, and they showed this back in 2002. And you still try to find petty, immature ways to argue around it without ever accepting their findings, that steel from the WTC was melted. And there is still NO evidence that this happened in the rubble pile. In fact, look up the decomposition temperature of iron sulfide. Tell me what you find.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
I'm waiting for you to explain how Virginia actually won the war in spite of Lee's generalship.


The brilliance of this statement speaks well for itself.


Longstreet had a much better plan at Gettysburg but, fortunately, Lee insisted on trying to crack the Union lines.


I agree with this actually. Lee's biggest mistake of the entire war was Pickett's Charge, and the assault on Little Round Top. But Lee was still very highly regarded on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line both during and after the war, for good reason, and this is what you seem not to be able to acknowledge. Chancellorsville, Cold Harbor, Fredericksburg, the Seven Days' Battles. All fought outnumbered, outgunned and outsupplied. Lee demonstrated his competency over federal generals many times during that war, despite Pickett's Charge. Pickett's Charge was one day out of 4 years of fighting. Longstreet, Jackson, Stuart, Early, Beauregard, Forrest, Hood, Gordon, all were competent and very successful leaders during that war, and no one can say the Southern men themselves couldn't fight, as the casualty figures consistently show. I'm not sure why you keep trying to discredit the ability of these people. Let it go. It's done. It's on the record. They weren't just a bunch of incompetent, toothless rednecks like you apparently want to think. And even if they were, it would just reflect that much worse on the US army, that got its ass handed to it so many times.

Still, his men did exactly as ordered at Pickett's Charge and actually made it through that mile of open field, being bombard by heavy artillery the whole time, and pushed the line back briefly before being all but totally annihilated by federal guns. And even that was far from the end of the war, as Grant still had to eventually gave up on frontal assaults and just sieged them for months like I said. Cold Harbor was the last major battle fought in Virginia and it is remembered as one of the most lopsided battles of the entire war, and earned Grant that nickname "the fumbling butcher." Lee surrendered out of pity for his sick, starving, outnumbered men after months of being sieged, many of whom wanting to continue fighting or resort to guerilla warfare.


Shelby Foote had that problem, too, and hated to admit what happened to the 15th Alabama against the 20th Maine.


Yes, that was the assault on Little Round Top. I have been to Gettysburg. I have walked the three-mile-long battle lines, walked the field of Pickett's Charge, stood on Little Round Top, Devil's Den, all of it. Those men knew before they went in that the assault on Little Round Top was futile and would be extremely costly if not totally useless. If you have ever seen that hill you would realize it too, because it's nothing but a stack of boulders. That was the first time the 20th Maine had ever actually seen a rebel regiment fall back from an assault. But the men did as ordered and tried it anyway. They were Texans and Alabamans. And btw the only reason the 20th Maine was on that hill was because Sickles was such a fool that he actually moved off of it against orders into an open field where he was slaughtered, so Chamberlain was ordered to take that position instead. Talk about incompetent generals. I don't guess you will be talking about that much.


I don't know why it is not just history at this point, but there seems to be great emotional investment by the present Southerners.


You're the one who keeps deciding to avoid my posts about 9/11 by bringing up the Civil War. Stop being so blind to your own behavior. I posted the FEMA report, you brought up the Civil War. Thus you can see who really has the emotional investment here. All I have to say about it is nothing, for you to bring it up. You just have to see my avatar and it apparently puts you in a pretzel. That's why I put it there. That's what proves it still means something, and you show it too without even realizing you are doing it, by avoiding what I say to try to slander it instead. It's not the first time you've been the one to go off-topic about it, and won't be the last I suspect. So we will keep watching this pattern and gauge who really has this emotional investment to the subject.


Did you sign up for one of the new 911 "Research" organizations? You don't fit in as a scientist and unless they accept Conferedate officers, you may have to sign up as an actor.


Ha Ha Ha. You called me a "Conferedate" officer. How witty you must feel. And let me guess, you are a "feredal" officer? Oh, look, now I'm the "witty" one who can't spell now.


And which university is your degree from again, and in what? Well, maybe I should ask if you've even been to college yet first, after all you won't admit your age. You really want to compare credentials? Really? No, you don't.


As promised here is the next period song to go with your history lessons until you feel like getting back onto the topic at hand again.


For the Alabaman brothers and sisters...




If you want to keep talking about the Civil War why don't you u2u me instead of wasting thread space.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 07:54 PM
link   
I also agree that it's good to see the truth movement organizing. It's time we hit back against the blind belief of people like Glenn Beck who deny categorically that anyone other than Radical Islam had anything to do with 9/11.

While it is important to honor those who died, I believe the best way to honor them is to uncover the truth about why they were actually murdered.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
If you want to keep talking about the Civil War why don't you u2u me instead of wasting thread space.


Seconded.

pteridine, you were the one who brought it up. Do you know how to stop something you started?

If you want to turn this thread into an avatar discussion party, there is one thing I have always wondered though. Who is that pompous looking Star Trek extra as your avatar? Maybe I shouldn't have asked...

I know what this is really about. So do you. You just don't want to talk about FEMA appendix C anymore, because your semantic snake oil pitch is so ridiculous that you don't even want to talk about it, so you'd bring up ANYTHING to change the subject. You'd rather bring up something that has nothing to do with 9/11 at all and rant rant rant rant rant, flap those fingers, thinking nothing of what happened on 9/11.

The steel was obviously melted. FEMA talks about inter-granular melting. Anyone who has any reading comprehension at all or even eyes in their head can look at the photos in that report, see the steel that is ate up like swiss cheese, and see that it came from the WTC Towers and that FEMA is talking about "inter-granular melting." What melted? The answer is so obvious that you can only deny it. And further they say there is no proof at all that this happened in the rubble pile, and in fact that theory has since been debunked. That drywall theory is dead, if it was ever "alive" to begin with. It was pure speculation and plenty of people realized it was nonsense and a bunch of convoluted wishful thinking before it even had to be tested.


And what is your response to the melting described in the FEMA report?

'It wasn't pure iron.'

This is completely irrelevant and a straw-man.


Why do you bother arguing at all when your "arguments" are so weak that they consist completely of semantics, straw-men and sarcastic vitriol that amuses no one?



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
If you want to keep talking about the Civil War why don't you u2u me instead of wasting thread space.


That is a fantastic idea!

Lets try and stick to the subject matter folks please, which is...

Scientists, Military Officers, and Actors are among new 9/11 research organizations

Thanks.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Corrosion and erosion do not necessarily mean melting. The mixture of iron sulfides and oxides is not iron and your attempt to turn this into a semantic argument has failed.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
 


You never answered my question about whether you joined a 911 "research" organization.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
Corrosion and erosion do not necessarily mean melting.


Does "inter-granular melting" mean melting?




Sorry, but you have to be able to see what you are doing. This is absolutely ridiculous. Why are you having such a hard time with what FEMA reported? Is it really that hard for you to accept? Is it hard to accept because you can't handle the idea that 9/11 was an inside job, or is it hard to accept because you can't handle the idea that you're wrong about anything?


edit on 13-9-2010 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Does "inter-granular melting" mean melting?


Yes. It means melting in between the grains. The appendix that you referenced says " Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure."

What melted? The way it reads is that the eutectic iron-oxide-sulfide from the corrosive attack formed and melted in between the grains and aided in further corrosion.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by bsbray11

Does "inter-granular melting" mean melting?


Yes.


So you finally admit there was melting.

Hallelujah.

Now all you have to do is put these two disparate thoughts together and form a complete whole:

1) There was melting.

2) It was on a piece of steel that came from the WTC Towers.


We'll get there eventually... Baby steps, we'll just take it in baby steps...



And then we can add a third fact after we get that far, however many thread pages that takes:

3) The steel itself had holes eaten through it and had its structural integrity compromised.


edit on 13-9-2010 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 05:33 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


There was no melt of bulk steel. The melt was of the iron-oxide-sulfide in between the grains of the steel. The corroded steel was just that; corroded. It was not the result of molten metal dripping off the beam.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 06:26 AM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Ah hell.

I might have to turn in my "truther card" now. The actors list reads like a "who's who" of the socialist/communist left.

Gore Vidal? I refuse to agree with anything that pos agree's with and that includes the color of the sky and shape of the earth.

I guess I have to be a "flat earther" now too.


I knew I shouldnt have looked. I knew I shouldnt have looked.

Oh well. I never gave a damn about what a mindless actor thought (short of the Greats like Wayne, Grant,ect.).



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 07:19 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


I find it amusing how you choose to respond to my post with such a nonsensical reply (clearly the firefighters said they saw MOLTEN STEEL that looked like LAVA yet you ignore that and make your OWN assumption about it simply indicating 'things were very hot but we dont know what it was that was hot'..) and then you reply to VirginiaRisesYetAgain's post where he actually quotes FEMA's own report that indicates it was molten iron, with an attack on his character (which I might say having read some of his posts I quite admire lol)..

So..lets try again, assuming your up to it? Heres his quote:

"Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfication with subsequent intragranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron"

www.fema.gov...

And in case you forgot excatly what you said a few pages back heres a reminder -


Originally posted by pteridine

There is no proof of molten iron


I await your response..




edit on 14-9-2010 by Nonchalant because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 08:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Nonchalant
 


The report says the liquid phase was intragranular. That means within the structure of the metal. The liquid was not molten iron but a eutectic of iron, sulfur, and oxygen. The report states that the erosion of the beam in question was due to high temperature corrosion. Corrosion is formation of the oxide which also releases energy, i.e., iron burns. The report does not state that there was bulk liquid metal as a result of high temperature corrosion. Firefighters saw molten metal. Maybe it was molten steel, but this reference is not the pathway to prove such, as much as some people desire it.

It is apparent that many want a reason to find molten steel. I think that this may be due to the erroneous assumption that if there were molten steel/iron, then the reason for such must have been thermite or some demolition material. Thermite, when it reacts, makes molten iron but the iron doesn't stay molten for weeks. It cools like any other hot metal, so the only way to keep metal molten is with the underground fires and the heat of oxidation. If the fires plus oxidation were not hot enough to melt the metal, it would have solidified. This is a quandry for those who need molten iron/steel for their scheme. Either the fires and hot oxidation provided enough heat to melt the steel and keep it melted, or the metal observed by the firefighters was a low-melting alloy or mix of metals. In any case, molten metal is not evidence of a secret demolition material.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
There was no melt of bulk steel.


Prove it.

No "bulk" of melted steel was ever brought to the attention of the general public. That's all that I can verify.



The melt was of the iron-oxide-sulfide in between the grains of the steel


The melting happened "between the grains of the steel" yet you are completely unable to admit the steel itself was melted. Well I guess we are getting there but you are still dragging your feet and clawing the ground aren't you.


Let's go back to the baby steps.


1) There was melting. (Check -- you finally admitted it. It took you 7 years since FEMA reported this.)

2) It was on a piece of steel that came from the WTC Towers. (Check -- from this last post.)


Now let's get this third baby step in...

3) The steel itself had holes eaten through it and had its structural integrity compromised.

Agreed?


edit on 14-9-2010 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


I'm still waiting for you to reply to the fact you were caught out right lying a few pages back.

You are not the least bit creditable. No one, not even the people on your side of the discussion should hear a word from you till you prove yourself to be educated in the topic. You have proved yourself not to be so far.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Seventh
 


Molten Iron*

Not Molten Steel. There was NO MOLTEN STEEL.

So when someone says there was no molten steel they are indeed 100% correct. There was no molten steel

There was an abundance of molten iron. Tons and tons of it. It was sent to labs and tested and shown to be completely absent of an chromium.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 01:41 PM
link   
Just to add to that.

Any intact pieces of a steel girder will contain steel still as it is only intact because the chromium was not reached by whatever incendiary caused this melting.

So again to clarify. Anything not melted = Steel, still contains chromium

Anything melted and bright red, is absent of chromium and is primarily iron.


Also you guys. It is very evident Ptredine or whatever his name is (he is on ignore now for me) is just playing devils advocate and will argue any point you make for the point of arguing.

When a person ignores facts presented to them, facts presented from a government source and they deny them, that is fine. However, when you present facts from a government source that aid your argument, then denounce facts from a government source that do not, you are not worth the time.

I say we all ignore him, and our lives will be far more enlightening on this board, rather then arguing a point for 4+ pages with someone of his caliber.

He was shown the facts, denounces them. Time to denounce him as even being worth your finger stroke.



new topics

top topics



 
121
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join