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

Originally posted by flamingmonkey
reply to post by The Ghost Who Walks

 

I already exaplined the Clelland thing.
My point is that they've vreatea website called military officers for 9/11 truth, they've created a subpage called signatories and put Wes Clarke on that page.

Yes, they did put a label on the subsection, pointing out that the people on the signatories page weren't all signatories, but the damage is done.

IT's leading, it's OBVIOUSLY leading in fact and that makes it doshonest.

SOOO much of their approach is dishonest as well, so I;ve stopped giving them any benfit of the doubt.

They did not put him as a signatory nor did they put Max Clelland as a signatory.
It is not a subpage. Scroll down and you will see for yourself.

It is pointless continuing this debate with you. Your final two statements tell me you can not debate this without bias.

reply to post by SphinxMontreal


Then again , maybe all that gold and silver being removed beforehand , is just one more lie that was started by the truth movement .

I'm really surprised there are still those of you who are still promoting this falsehood .

www.wtc911coins.com...

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by _BoneZ_

 

It looks like many of the same people from other organizations. Do you think the tactic of subdividing will build membership numbers?

Hilarious. That this post was made and star'd 5 times. With no factual data, whatsoever.

Please, provide a list of cross-polinated members. Thanks in advance.

reply to post by SphinxMontreal


The only way to maintain the high temperatures for weeks is underground fires. Your incredulity is not an explanation. Maybe some of those scientists in the new organzation can explain it to your satisfaction. I look forward to it for the entertainment value.

Originally posted by pteridine
I look forward to it for the entertainment value.

It's a sad time we live in when individuals use 9/11 research or anything 9/11-related as "entertainment value". You really should talk to someone about that because that's not normal.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by pteridine
I look forward to it for the entertainment value.

It's a sad time we live in when individuals use 9/11 research or anything 9/11-related as "entertainment value". You really should talk to someone about that because that's not normal.

It is a sad time we live in when those who choose to debate technical matters have little to no technical skills. It is a sad time we live in when those who claim to search for the truth are only seeking to bolster their preconceived notions that their own people were responsible for said disaster.

"You really should talk to someone about that because that's not normal."

reply to post by Ciphor

Originally posted by Ciphor
reply to post by JohnJasper

 

I do feel however that ATS shifted over the years and is now also as a leading conspiracy site, taken on a certain responsibility to steer away from speculation on sensitive and important subjects such as doing right by the thousands that died on sept 11th. We especially owe them more on the anniversary. I know you agree with me, you just didn't give it much thought. Something we are all guilty of at what time or another. We owe them more then a discussion about speculations. 9 years has taken to long, and in regards to this topic, I think we have had enough time to talk about the conspiracy sides of it. It's always been senseless bickering anyway.

We have a lot of momentum right now, yahoo news articles, growing numbers of supporters, broadcasted national press club conferences. Don't you agree? Believe me John, I would love nothing more then a long conversation about other things, but as batman would say, "We have more important business to attend to today robin".

With respect, I don't see ATS as a "truth" organisation but as a forum for informing and discussing an ever-widening range of subjects. I also don't see myself as a member of any "Truth Movement." As for 9/11, I'm a relative newcomer as I only woke up about 18 months ago. Every time I start thinking that I've heard it all, I run across something new usually while searching for something unrelated and then I'm back to researching this subject again.

I'd be happy to never hear the word conspiracy again but, unfortunately, every crisis happening in the world today is interrelated and 911 was used to justify many of them. In the lead up to the anniversary, the movies and documentaries pushing the OS have been very much in evidence. Mirroring this, dozens of threads popped up on ATS reflecting continued public interest in uncovering the truth about the attacks. I believe that we do the victims credit by keeping the discussion and the search for truth alive.

Having decided against the "ignore" button after a brief flirtation with it earlier this year, I've decided to use it again. Already it's cut down the wasted time skimming over certain members useless posts. Now, if only I can find a way to ignore the posts that are only replies to people on my ignore list!

I see nothing has changed, pteridine. If anything your arguments are less intelligible than ever:

Originally posted by pteridine
There is no proof of molten iron

I can't believe you actually posted that. I know for a fact you had seen FEMA appendix C before you posted this. It's probably the most well-known chapter of the entire FEMA report, because it establishes the fact that steel from the WTC was in fact melted. I have been posting about it for years.

And you were immediately contradicted with it:

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
Liar.

...A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron

www.fema.gov...

A cut-and-dry refutation, with information you should know very well by now, yet *somehow* you don't....

So now pteridine will be mature and admit he made a rash statement, and retract it:

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain

 

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?

.....

....Really????

Let me guess, you will be back tomorrow claiming once again that no molten iron was ever proven to exist. Please tell me you have learned something for once. Imo you ARE a liar, and this proves it.

Why is this allowed on ATS? Not only blatantly ignoring facts but then your response focused on Virginia's avatar instead of what was actually in his post. Are you normally distracted from the topic this easily my old friend? :shk:

We need a tribute to this classic exchange. You can't sum up the blatant denial any better than this.

Originally posted by pteridine
It is a sad time we live in when those who claim to search for the truth are only seeking to bolster their preconceived notions that their own people were responsible for said disaster.

Even though those same "people" conspired to create other terrorist attacks, fake and real, in an operation called "Northwoods"? You're not fooling anyone here, pteridine.

Originally posted by pteridine
It is a sad time we live in when those who choose to debate technical matters have little to no technical skills. It is a sad time we live in when those who claim to search for the truth are only seeking to bolster their preconceived notions that their own people were responsible for said disaster.

Wow, you really can't be serious.

Someone just flat-out debunked one of your statements and your response was to call him insecure and then bring up the American Civil War, totally abandoning your original claim that no molten iron was proven.

I would call that QED, that you are the one choosing to debate technical matters with little to no skill.


And btw I really want to know pteridine....

Does the FEMA report say that there was a liquid mixture consisting primarily of iron, or not?

I don't want to log on here next week and see you making the same ignorant statements when this information has existed since.... May of 2002. This information is EIGHT YEARS OLD in the government reports! I am at a loss for words.

reply to post by pteridine


I am still waiting for evidence of how these massive long lasting underground fires that burn hotter than when the towers were still standing truly existed, we see no flames at any point.

And how would a fire survive through all the dust and massive pulverization , it was very likely snuffed out on the way down, furthermore, how would these fires get underneath the pile when they clearly should be on top.

Some kind of amazing fires that have no flame yet burn hot enough to need hosing down for more than a year.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


fire sciences, firefighters for truth org jumps on board:

how did President Bush see the first plane hit the first tower on live TV when there was no such coverage????

reply to post by _BoneZ_


Northwoods was a contingency plan that was never executed. It is not indicative of anything other than that contingency plans are made for.....contingencies. If you have evidence of a plan that was executed on 9/11 or even one that was planned for 9/11, this would be important. As you can only trot out "Northwoods" again, one can only assume you have no such evidence.

reply to post by GrinchNoMore


If the fires are underground you would not see flames, would you? Do you have another explanation for long term heat?

"Fires continued to burn far down in the rubble piles for over 100 days after the attack, despite the spraying of water on the rubble for extended periods. The temperatures inside the rubble piles can only be estimated.

One source of data is a thermal map of Ground Zero created from infrared data collected by a NASA plane that overflew the site on September 16. The map, created by the U.S. Geological Survey, shows hot spots on the surface of the rubble that were above 700ºCelsius. After five days of cooling and despite being sprayed with water, they were still above the melting point of aluminum. The temperatures deep in the rubble pile, and their decline over time, can only be guessed."
911research.wtc7.net...

reply to post by pteridine


I hope you are ignoring the other posts because you're racking your brain trying to think of a way to dig yourself out of making such blatantly wrong assertions.

You still haven't answered,

Does the FEMA report describe finding a liquid eutectic mixture consisting primarily of iron, or not?

reply to post by bsbray11


BS,
Calm yourself. What I said was, "If we assume that the molten metal was steel, although the firefighters did not sample it, my previous statement still applies; this only shows how hot underground fires can be and is not indicative of anything else."

The rubble on the surface was 700 C; internal temperatures were undoubtedly higher. Any aluminum would have been melted. Lead from the UPS would have been melted. If the temperatures were high enough, even the steel would have been melted. We see reports of bulk molten metal but have no proof that it was steel. Hot corrosion would not be surprising in such conditions.

Originally posted by pteridine
BS,
Calm yourself.

I am always calm when you tell me this. God, you are bad enough at judging so many other things, just please stop trying to assess how I feel. You are awful at it.

What I said was, "If we assume that the molten metal was steel, although the firefighters did not sample it, my previous statement still applies; this only shows how hot underground fires can be and is not indicative of anything else."

So... You never said this?:

Originally posted by pteridine
Sulfur lowers the MP of iron. There is no proof of molten iron

www.abovetopsecret.com...


I am asking you something very simple.

Did FEMA describe finding evidence of a liquid mixture consisting primarily of iron, or not?

It's a "yes" or "no" question pterry. Don't hurt yourself.


(Here's a hint:

...A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron

www.fema.gov... )



Edit to add... I will be advertising this blatant lie in every post until you admit you were wrong.

I have never seen you admit you were wrong about anything, EVER on these forums. And you just made the most blatant and ignorant mistake, claiming something quoted above that has been proven false ever since May of 2002. Instead of learning more accurate information you are just denying more and more that has already been long proven. It's very sad to watch. All I'm looking for is an admission that you were wrong, and I'll drop it.

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by pteridine

 

Does the FEMA report describe finding a liquid eutectic mixture consisting primarily of iron, or not?

I believe that they never found a liquid eutectic mixture consisting primarily of iron. They may have found evidence of such as a solid material. As far as I know, there is no proof of bulk molten iron but the firefighters say that there was molten metal of some sort. If it was iron, the only way for it to remain molten over weeks would be heat from underground fires.

Originally posted by bsbray11
I am asking you something very simple.

Did FEMA describe finding evidence of a liquid mixture consisting primarily of iron, or not?

It's a "yes" or "no" question pterry. Don't hurt yourself.

This clearly is a yes or no question, and the answer would be yes. However this is quoted from a summary, and not really an accurate reflection.

Discounting that though, this still does not provide evidence of the apparent 'tons of molten metal' claimed by some truthers. The amount of metal would have been very small in total, and the estimates of temperature are well within the expected range for a normal office fire.

So yes, they did find evidence of an iron rich liquid, however that is a simplification of the situation, and it does not provide any proof to any conspiratorial claim.