Molten Steel and 9/11: The existence and implications of molten steel in "the pile".

page: 31
86
<< 28  29  30    32  33 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 4 2010 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 

This is what i find totally ridiculous about the supposed 'debunkers' or 'trusters'. An once in a million anomaly occurs....not once, but twice...and they claim this 'proves' its plausibility...when in fact it is just the opposite.




posted on Nov, 4 2010 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 


I doubt you'll see evidence to back up the claims. Apparently you have to have "special eyes" to support the conspiracy theories... oh wait, they're not conspiracy theorists, they're "truth seekers."

I full-heartedly support the idea of debating the theories and finding out if they are true or not. I full-heartedly oppose the ignorant and blind following of a theory without any corroborating evidence. "Because I want it to be so" is not a good enough reason to believe something, unless you are talking about religion, which I'm pretty sure we're not.

This thread has veered off course anyhow, and I'd like to re-address the original issue. It is known from eyewitness reports and imagery of dripping metal that something was molten in the debris pile. According to what I've heard and read, it was located mostly in the basement many weeks after the event. Given enough time, fires will do this (I'd think). It's difficult to find information on it because when I do a google search ALL it brings up is 9/11 and it gets ridiculous. I've tried exclusionary searches and there are no comparative sites about how unfought underground debris fires get. Now, this isn't saying it's necessarily steel that is melting, because there are a lot of other metals, but it definitely supports, say, softened steel underground, and maybe red hot.



posted on Nov, 4 2010 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by jambatrumpet
reply to post by okbmd
 

This is what i find totally ridiculous about the supposed 'debunkers' or 'trusters'. An once in a million anomaly occurs....not once, but twice...and they claim this 'proves' its plausibility...when in fact it is just the opposite.


You make it sound as though it was some weird freak of nature, an incredible conjunction of cosmic forces.

Fact is human beings planned to fly fuel-laden Boeing 767's into the towers, at least in the hope they would bring the towers down.



posted on Nov, 4 2010 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by jambatrumpet
 

Yes, exactly.
They always ask for "credentials", yet they bring none of their own. When confronted with the conclusions of real professionals that differ from their fantasy, they either ignore them or attempt to trash the person or organization. They come at you like little bees swarm, patting each other on the back.
Pathetic.



posted on Nov, 4 2010 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by jambatrumpet
 


If you can show me where , prior to 9/11 , planes were flown into the towers and the towers caught fire , and remained standing , then I will take your position a bit more seriously .

Empire State Building does not count , as it was not the same design . Show me any other buildings , constructed exactly like the towers , that were impacted by planes and sufferred massive fires , that remained standing .

You can't so , your "one-in-a-million" rings truer than even you , imagine .

As has been stated before , 9/11 was the rule , not the exception .
edit on 4-11-2010 by okbmd because: corrections



posted on Nov, 4 2010 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stewie
reply to post by jambatrumpet
 

Yes, exactly.
They always ask for "credentials", yet they bring none of their own. When confronted with the conclusions of real professionals that differ from their fantasy, they either ignore them or attempt to trash the person or organization. They come at you like little bees swarm, patting each other on the back.
Pathetic.


Your post is most humorous as you and Jambatrumpet are swarming and patting each other on the back while you condemn others for doing so.Those "real professionals" are professional snake oil salesmen who have parted the gullible from their cash on many occasions.
You still have not shown that the molten material in the rubble was steel ; all you have is speculation and an incorrect thread title.



posted on Nov, 4 2010 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 

Yes...and the plane caused a fire...and then caused a steel high rise to collapse..for the first time in history...yes, this result was a freak of nature, as you put it...the fact that is occurred twice, rules out the 'freak of nature' possibility...and places it into the 'man made' category.

The intentions of the hijackers have no bearing on what occurred...One steel skyscraper imploding on itself because of fire is, as you say, 'an incredible conjunction of cosmic forces'...two steel skyscrapers imploding on themselves because of fire...simply impossible.

You might win the lottery at 10am....but you're not gonna win it again at 11...

As i said before..the fact that an against all odds anomaly occurred not once, but twice, does not prove your case. It disproves it.



posted on Nov, 4 2010 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stewie
reply to post by jambatrumpet
 

Yes, exactly.
They always ask for "credentials", yet they bring none of their own. When confronted with the conclusions of real professionals that differ from their fantasy, they either ignore them or attempt to trash the person or organization. They come at you like little bees swarm, patting each other on the back.
Pathetic.



Professionals aren't fake just because they disagree with you. However much you may not like it, the engineers who put a lot of work into figuring out what happened on 9/11 to come up with the "official story" were, in fact, qualified individuals, and they have a very large support base.

Here's one Journal of Engineering Mechanics from 2007 which agrees with the "official story."
www.civil.northwestern.edu...

This is the page about the journal:
www.asce.org...

And from that journal info link are two links LISTING the people who review the papers before they get published. (you did want a list, I'm sure).

This one's the long one, lots and lots of professionals:
www.asce.org...

And this one's a little shorter, two names, a man and a university:
www.asce.org...

Edit: By the way, just counted (with Microsoft Word), and there are 400 people on that list.

edit on 4-11-2010 by Varemia because: fixed a word
edit on 4-11-2010 by Varemia because: added a line.



posted on Nov, 4 2010 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 

A pat on the back is a "star" Sir Pteridine.

(Light goes off in Pteridines head)



posted on Nov, 4 2010 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stewie
reply to post by pteridine
 

A pat on the back is a "star" Sir Pteridine.

(Light goes off in Pteridines head)


You still have not shown that the molten material in the rubble was steel ; all you have is speculation and an incorrect thread title.

All lights go off in Stewie's head.



posted on Nov, 4 2010 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by jambatrumpet
reply to post by Alfie1
 

Yes...and the plane caused a fire...and then caused a steel high rise to collapse..for the first time in history...yes, this result was a freak of nature, as you put it...the fact that is occurred twice, rules out the 'freak of nature' possibility...and places it into the 'man made' category.

The intentions of the hijackers have no bearing on what occurred...One steel skyscraper imploding on itself because of fire is, as you say, 'an incredible conjunction of cosmic forces'...two steel skyscrapers imploding on themselves because of fire...simply impossible.

You might win the lottery at 10am....but you're not gonna win it again at 11...

As i said before..the fact that an against all odds anomaly occurred not once, but twice, does not prove your case. It disproves it.


You seem to have misunderstood my post. I wasn't saying that the towers collapse was a freak of nature.

I was saying that it was a man-made event and , by that, I mean a terrorist attack. The fact that no-one had deliberately flown airliners into skyscapers before, or since, is no evidence it didn't happen.



posted on Nov, 4 2010 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 

That is what is ridiculous about the OS claims...that the fact that the fires were caused by terrorists, and airplanes, that they make two buildings collapse in a manner completely inconsistent with reality...

The whole 'debunker/truster' argument is that the unique nature of what 'caused' the fire should be evidence enough to suspend all rational thought on how a high rise should behave.

We are asked to believe a 'first time in history' anomaly occurs twice..simply because we have never seen airplanes fly into skyscrapers before.

oky doky...



posted on Nov, 4 2010 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by jambatrumpet
 


Well, the fact that what caused the fire was able to dislodge the steel, it is obvious to assume that fireproofing was not staying quite firm on the damaged area. That makes the fire more effective. Plus, the ONLY building that truthers have to offer which was a steel high-rise which had a massive fire just happened to be a building that was designed after 9/11 with the flaws of the towers taken into consideration. Then, you also have the fire from early on in the trade center history which led to the installation of sprinkler systems. They were able to fight that fire, still, and the fireproofing was very much intact.

The fact is, 9/11 was unique, however much people want to deny it. Ignoring the uniqueness of the event is being ignorant of all the factors, IMO.



posted on Nov, 4 2010 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by jambatrumpet
 


You say that the towers collapsed " in a manner completely inconsistent with reality " but whose reality is that ? You and Stewie and a miscellaneous bunch at AE9/11t who include such as electricians and landscape gardeners ; or NIST, the American Society of Civil Engineers and other professional engineering bodies around the world. Can you point to any professional engineering bodies anywhere who agree that the collapses were inconsistent with reality ?

You keep banging on about how strange that it should happen twice in a day but the simple fact is that was the plan. Hi-jack two planes and fly one into each tower; no lottery odds about it. The buildings were pretty much exact same size and the aircraft were exactly so. As a result, both buildings collapsed. As okbmd pointed out earlier there would surely be much more crying about " anomaly" if only one had collapsed.



posted on Nov, 4 2010 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by jambatrumpet
 


So the argument is that because never before steel skyscrapers collapsed because of airliners crashing in to them, there must have been another cause for their collapse. And when you are confronted with the fact that never before airliners crashed into steel skyscrapers, you hand-wave that away? It really amazes me that you are not noticing this totally obvious logical fallacy. If this is really the argument you base your position on, then there isn't anything left to say. The saying goes that you can drag a horse to the water but you can't make him drink.

As for Stewie accusing me of ignoring the scientific proof that the buildings could not have collapsed as result of the planes, in order for me to ignore that, you will first have to post it. Thus far you have neglected to post it. In fact, you ignored any question I asked.



posted on Nov, 4 2010 @ 08:13 PM
link   
It gets really quiet on a 911 thread when there is no "truther" to bash. it seems there is no discussion about the particulars of the "official story" conspiracy between those that BELIEVE it. None at all.
Strange.
When we "truthers" leave, the lights go out.
So funny, yet true. All of the 911 threads are that way.



posted on Nov, 4 2010 @ 08:16 PM
link   
31 pages later: Do we have any metallurgic tests as proof that molten steel was found in the first place? Or was it merely a metallic substance, which could have been just about anything.



posted on Nov, 4 2010 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by jambatrumpet
 



We are asked to believe a 'first time in history' anomaly occurs twice..


No other space shuttle had ever blown up on take-off , before the Challenger . No other space shuttle had ever disintegrated upon re-entry , before the Columbia .

Both were space shuttles , both were in flight when they blew up . First time in history , for either event .

There's a first time for everything .



posted on Nov, 4 2010 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by okbmd
reply to post by jambatrumpet
 



We are asked to believe a 'first time in history' anomaly occurs twice..


No other space shuttle had ever blown up on take-off , before the Challenger . No other space shuttle had ever disintegrated upon re-entry , before the Columbia .

Both were space shuttles , both were in flight when they blew up . First time in history , for either event .

There's a first time for everything .

Exactly...Let's suppose TWO space shuttles had blown up on takeoff, within hours of each other...

Would that raise any questions/concerns for you?



posted on Nov, 5 2010 @ 03:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by jambatrumpet

Originally posted by okbmd
reply to post by jambatrumpet
 



We are asked to believe a 'first time in history' anomaly occurs twice..


No other space shuttle had ever blown up on take-off , before the Challenger . No other space shuttle had ever disintegrated upon re-entry , before the Columbia .

Both were space shuttles , both were in flight when they blew up . First time in history , for either event .

There's a first time for everything .

Exactly...Let's suppose TWO space shuttles had blown up on takeoff, within hours of each other...

Would that raise any questions/concerns for you?



This is ridiculous ! It is not like the same guy getting struck by lightning twice in a day. There were two planned attacks.





top topics
 
86
<< 28  29  30    32  33 >>

log in

join