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

reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain


I think Lee knew that the war had to end soon. I think it was his compassion that drove him to take a risk such as that battle.

I think he told himself, either we win it here or lose it here. One way or the other this war will end soon.

That's just my assumption however. Nothing factual to base it off other then what I've read about General Lee. I don't think he enjoyed the war at all.

reply to post by Ciphor


This is a pretty weird series of posts, considering that you can differentiate iron from steel by the carbon content, not chromium.

Care to show us the lab tests? I have no doubt in fact that the towers were not made of stainless steel.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Three new 9/11 research organizations have formed in the fight for 9/11 truth. They include military officers, scientists, and actors.

If you are a degreed scientist, a military officer, or an actor/artist, please take the time to view the information that your peers now have available at these new organizations. Once one takes the time and dedicates themselves to researching what these organizations have to say, most will see that a new international 9/11 investigation is needed.

So, you're looking for scientists regardless of their fields of study or knowledge of the subjects involved, military officers despite their lack of scientific or educational credentials, and actors/artists.

Yep. This will do it.

Let me know when you get at least a quarter of the ASCE and we'll consider it legitimate.

Then again...you've got Charlie Sheen...

Okay, get a couple of Wayans brothers and perhaps a Baldwin and you'll have the legitimacy you need.

It would have been more believable had just a chunk of the WTC collapsed (broke off near the damage)

and if you want to really push the envelope they could have said something like this.

We had the towers rigged with explosives because we didnt want the buildings toppling like they tried to do with the first bombing attempt in 93.


Either way this would have pretty much put to rest any questions about the collapses. However there is a whole bunch of other damaging info surrounding 911.

star and flag to the op
the os requires debunkers
the truth stands on its own two feet
anyone claiming the official story answers all questions is bias
anyone claiming to know what happened is also biased

who can say what really happened but i will say this

no one has anything to fear from revisiting the truth if they have no ajenda

do you have an ajenda?

if you have faith that the os is the truth then you should not fear an investigation

xploder

well i like these actors in this Movie Clip to Join in 9/11 research Organizations !


MSNBC To Mark 9/11 Anniversary With Reflections From ... Samuel L. Jackson?
www.mediabistro.com...

Public Enemy 911 LOL Sam Jackson there in the vid

Samuel L. Jackson was in the music video for “911 is a Joke” by Public Enemy?!?
theblarg.wordpress.com...

and
Geena Davis

Hell the whole cast and crew of Long Kiss Goodnight

1996 action film provides yet more anecdotal evidence of government complicity in 9/11 ?
www.infowars.com...

World Trade Center Attack Confirmation in 1996


was it a Fund Raiser ? War makes Money !

Was Vietnam a Fund raiser ? Oliver Stone thinks so Well war makes money Business
JFK. Mister X. 2


We just need another Mr X to come out !

2.3 TRillion $$ of the TAXPAYER's MONEY IS MISSING

Originally posted by exponent
reply to post by Ciphor

 

This is a pretty weird series of posts, considering that you can differentiate iron from steel by the carbon content, not chromium.

Care to show us the lab tests? I have no doubt in fact that the towers were not made of stainless steel.

The FEMA lab tests have been posted about 20 times. They have their results posted.

To be honest I'm not the wisest in this expertise. However anytime I heard anyone make note or mention of it, they always referred to a lack of chromium and not carbon.

You some how derived from my posts that I said 10%-18% chromium? Pretty sure I did not and 10% or greater is what makes stainless steel. Believe copper is used as well.

You can alloy steel with a lot of things, and chromium is often used in structural steel as it raises the melting temperature, and I believe the boiling temp. as well. It also reduces corrosion.

From MIT

web.mit.edu...

You are correct exponent, you CAN differentiate steel by carbon content. You are incorrect to assume you can not differentiate it by other alloys as well.

High carbon steels are known as "cast iron" 2-3% or greater carbon I believe? Don't quote me =)

The name is fitting as it is great for casting. The downsides to high carbon steel are corrosion, and a lowered melting temperature.

I think it's weird you called my posts weird, when you seem to have a less educated understanding then me, and I'll admit, I'm not confident in anything like this. I am open to being proven wrong about the specifics of Iron/Steel identification, I just don't think you are the right man for the job. Maybe I'm wrong, prove me wrong. Source material or don't bother. Youtube and blogs are not sources of anything.

Originally posted by bsbray11

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.

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

Agreed?

The apendix that you referenced says that the eutectic melt was intergranular. It does not say the steel melted. Read your own reference.

The steel had holes due to high temperature corrosion. It did not have holes due to melting. Read your reference and look at the photomicrographs.

Originally posted by Wolfenz
2.3 TRillion $$ of the TAXPAYER's MONEY IS MISSING

No it is not actually, that is just yet another lie put forward by truthers who have not bothered to actually research that claim

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by Wolfenz
2.3 TRillion $$ of the TAXPAYER's MONEY IS MISSING

No it is not actually, that is just yet another lie put forward by truthers who have not bothered to actually research that claim

I guess Rumsfield is lying when he say it right from his own mouth 2.3 trillion at the 1:00 to 1:05 mark exactly

I Guess you did not watch the video more like the famous slip up of the Shot down of light 93

its Probably more than 2.3 trillion Right !? Please show where.. Guide ME to a legit Website thanks

Remember 1:00 mark


to add as i notice yuor Profle is practaly nothing but debunking 911 with not much evidence to prove your self..

Yet no Threads at all in your profile

Originally posted by Wolfenz
I guess Rumsfield is lying when he say it right from his own mouth 2.3 trillion at the 1:00 to 1:05 mark exactly

What did he actually say - in context, not just a sound bite:

"The technology revolution has transformed organizations across the private sector, but not ours, not fully, not yet. We are, as they say, tangled in our anchor chain. Our financial systems are decades old. According to some estimates, we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions. We cannot share information from floor to floor in this building because it's stored on dozens of technological systems that are inaccessible or incompatible."


In fiscal 1999, a defense audit found that about $2.3 trillion of balances, transactions and adjustments were inadequately documented. These "unsupported" transactions do not mean the department ultimately cannot account for them, she advised, but that tracking down needed documents would take a long time. Auditors, she said, might have to go to different computer systems, to different locations or access different databases to get information. www.defenselink.mil...

If you want more details go to www.911myths.com...

reply to post by dereks


care Answer the 25% Spending they the US Government cannot account for! ?

Originally posted by Wolfenz
care Answer the 25% Spending they the US Government cannot account for! ?

Show us where that was stated so I can get the context

Originally posted by pteridine
The apendix that you referenced says that the eutectic melt was intergranular. It does not say the steel melted. Read your own reference.

Inter-granular means between the grains. Steel has "grains" in it. Did you know that?

And where is your proof that there was no "bulk" molten anything? I notice you dropped that. What a surprise. You've been making garbage claims left and right and then ignore me when I ask for proof.

The steel had holes due to high temperature corrosion. It did not have holes due to melting.

It had holes due to intergranular melting. YOU read it.


Iron melted -- check.

The iron that melted was from WTC steel -- check.

The WTC steel was structurally compromised due to this -- check.


The only thing left is your stubborn denial which in all honesty you will probably take to your grave. And that's your call. Why don't you just tell us all you'll never change your mind and leave it at that? You might as well, it would just as good of an "argument" at this point.

Most people in the US are completely ignorant of all of this information. Because of this, you look at them and conform your own opinions to fit theirs because that's apparently how you "think." But anyone of any independent mind that looks at this stuff has to face the facts. That difference, between being independent, and following the herd, really is the heart of this discussion. All the semantic word game arguments you are making are completely ridiculous. Whatever happened to this steel still obviously destroyed it. That is beyond doubt. You are just arguing petty semantics, as if they change something about the former fact, which they obviously don't.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by pteridine
The apendix that you referenced says that the eutectic melt was intergranular. It does not say the steel melted. Read your own reference.

Inter-granular means between the grains. Steel has "grains" in it. Did you know that?

And where is your proof that there was no "bulk" molten anything? I notice you dropped that. What a surprise. You've been making garbage claims left and right and then ignore me when I ask for proof.

The steel had holes due to high temperature corrosion. It did not have holes due to melting.

It had holes due to intergranular melting. YOU read it.

The reference, your reference, said that the eutectic iron-oxide-sulfide was the liquid phase between the grains of the steel. This liquid phase does not diffuse very far from the surface because it is forming at the surface. That liquid phase, which was NOT molten iron as you falsely claimed, accelerated the high temperature corrosion. Your reference said that high temperature corrosion, and not melting, is what resulted in the holes in the metal.

Based on YOUR reference, there is no evidence of molten iron.

Originally posted by pteridine
The reference, your reference, said that the eutectic iron-oxide-sulfide was the liquid phase between the grains of the steel.

And the primary elemental component of this eutectic, iron, came from....? (The steel.)


Again, to the point: the steel was structurally compromised by what happened to it, there is no explanation for what happened to it, and there is no evidence it happened in the rubble pile.

The iron in the steel was rendered into a liquid eutectic. There was intergranular melting, in the steel.

reply to post by bsbray11


The eutectic formed on the surface of the steel and diffused inward. It did not diffuse far; see micrographs in your reference. This allowed a more rapid high temperature corrosion which is what thinned an perforated the steel. This is what your reference says.

What don't you understand about your reference?

Originally posted by pteridine
The eutectic formed on the surface of the steel

...using elements from within the steel itself.

and diffused inward.

Just like you would expect it to in any case.

It did not diffuse far

Far enough to destroy the integrity of the steel.

What don't you understand about your reference?

That's what I keep asking you.

I have to break it out into baby steps in each one of these responses to you, remember?

1) "Something" melted according to FEMA.

2) The molten solution consisted "primarily of iron" and then the other elements. The iron came from the steel itself.

3) Many of the other components came from the steel itself too, further evidence of what was actually being melted.

4) The steel's integrity was destroyed.


When I lay all of these out in every single post and you have nothing to debunk, and keep posting these cute rants pretending like you're showing me something when you're just talking to yourself... Well we can keep doing this forever pterry, it's no skin off my back.

reply to post by bsbray11


The steel was eroded by high temperature corrosion. No mention is made of a bulk liquid phase. The report concluded, "The thinning of the steel occurred by high temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation."

Do you agree with this statement?

Originally posted by The Baby Seal Club
Good job Bones!!!,

When the debunkers show up I would just like them to address the one question of why they are against a new and independent investigation. That's what these organizations are asking for.

"Dear debunkers, What do you have against a new investigation? Are you that worried about having your blinders removed?"

it has nothing to do with blinders and everything to do with preventing the below avg intelligence americans still
in ignorance from ever making the connection between the 911 mass murder event and the criminal government
of israel and its big stupid dog....the american military and pnac gallery