Liability concerns discourage thorough investigation into 9/11

omegablue said:
Molten Aluminum is not bright yellow. It´s silvery. That E. Jones demonstrated it on his pappers and videos. Has it been debunked? Where? (the specific issue on the color of molten aluminum). Serious indications that the case is for molten steel.
Click to expand...

I don't know who "E. Jones" is.

The problem with trying to identify materials through color is that it is dependent on several factors. The temperature of the material determines the black body radiation, but this is not the only form of radiation from a surface. You also have the possibility of transmission (radiation that travels through non-opaque materials) and almost certainly reflection. More importantly, your "data collector" needs to be calibrated, which I'm guessing wasn't done for the cameras filming the event. If you're trying to determine temperature and composition of a material from visible spectrum collected with a non-calibrated device, you're going to have difficulty convincing anyone knowledgeable of your conclusion.
 
omegablue said:
Face it, some things can be grasped without a physics M.D. There are things that even my decrepit granny should be able to figure out. The role of the lay truthers as to prove anything is not the problem. The whole scenario might not be the way you think it is. People are free as to speak their minds anywhere. But do not pretend the lay people is proving anything just by debating it. But there are professionals, with every kind of qualifications possible, who blatantly disagrees with the official reports.
Click to expand...
One of your professionals is a dead person who used a Star Trek analogy to explain why the building wouldn't collapse.
 
omegablue said:
Face it, some things can be grasped without a physics M.D. There are things that even my decrepit granny should be able to figure out. The role of the lay truthers as to prove anything is not the problem. The whole scenario might not be the way you think it is. People are free as to speak their minds anywhere. But do not pretend the lay people is proving anything just by debating it. But there are professionals, with every kind of qualifications possible, who blatantly disagrees with the official reports.
Click to expand...

A "physics M.D." would certainly have a unique take on the September 11th attacks, that's for sure. But you'll need to provide evidence of these "professionals, with every kind of qualifications possible, who blatantly disagrees with the official reports."

It would be nice if you didn't bring up the usual suspects - let's see some actual professionals (note - Richard Gage doesn't know his rear from his ear). I don't care what a doctorate in divinity thinks.
 
Omega, if the towers weren't an inferno, why were people jumping out the windows?
 
Pardalis said:
Omega, if the towers weren't an inferno, why were people jumping out the windows?
Click to expand...

Hmm there are many possibilities. If there were explosions to weaken the building structures, indeed there is room for many fires and debris that could make anyone nearby insane! I shiver for merely thinking about being trapped by debris without any chance at all for being rescued. Plus, add some fire, even if weak to this equation and you would see me eventually jumping for my life/death.

Some people were shown making signals nearby ( some stories below) the plane crashing. That site was really destroyed, they were trapped by debris as it indicates. I think the building was not this inferno some hypothesize. A true inferno was that spanish building that really sustained about 20 hours of pure inferno and which the structure was standing when the fires was off. Face it man, this fuel fire hypothesis is bunk.
 
omegablue said:
A true inferno was that spanish building that really sustained about 20 hours of pure inferno and which the structure was standing when the fires was off. Face it man, this fuel fire hypothesis is bunk.
Click to expand...

You really ought to quit blindly following your masters, they never tell you sheep that the steel section of that building actually collapsed.
 
Skibum said:
And other 5 members are just plain nucking futz.
Click to expand...

This is a nice point to make another point. A common mistake skeptics on truthers do is to mix them all and put them on the same sack.

Every kind of crazy and nut person can loudly cry: "IT WAS A CONSPIRACY, THATS THE NEW WORLD ORDER" and bla bla bla.

But just pretending everyone who do not corroborate the official accounts is nutty like them, is a little too much isnt it?
 
omegablue said:
There would be no reason for anything pouring from any place friend. This is myth! It could not happen, the WTC was no furnace at that time. I guess also, that account of the fireman speaking about two isolated pockets of fire being able to be knocked down by water lines is discredited all the way huh? Oh I know the poor guy was stressed, it makes him not being able to judge anything!
Click to expand...

The firemen were on the 78th floor of WTC2, which was hit only by a wingtip of Flight 175. It was a skylobby floor with little combustible material. The NIST fire simulations only showed a small amount of fire on 78. Floors 79,80,81,82 and 83 were also on fire. It is pure ignorance to bring out the crappy old arguments you display here. You've got nothing.
 
omegablue said:
Hmm there are many possibilities. If there were explosions to weaken the building structures, indeed there is room for many fires and debris that could make anyone nearby insane! I shiver for merely thinking about being trapped by debris without any chance at all for being rescued. Plus, add some fire, even if weak to this equation and you would see me eventually jumping for my life/death.

Some people were shown making signals nearby ( some stories below) the plane crashing. That site was really destroyed, they were trapped by debris as it indicates. I think the building was not this inferno some hypothesize. A true inferno was that spanish building that really sustained about 20 hours of pure inferno and which the structure was standing when the fires was off. Face it man, this fuel fire hypothesis is bunk.
Click to expand...
Exactly like the I-95 fuel fire. The fire was so intense that the bridge buckled.
 
omegablue said:
Hmm there are many possibilities. If there were explosions to weaken the building structures,
Click to expand...

Are you saying there were explosions above the impact floors? (this is where the people jumped, btw)

indeed there is room for many fires and debris that could make anyone nearby insane!
Click to expand...

Are you saying the people who jumped were insane?

Some people were shown making signals nearby ( some stories below) the plane crashing. That site was really destroyed, they were trapped by debris as it indicates.
Click to expand...

Again, the people who jumped were above the crash site.

I think the building was not this inferno some hypothesize.
Click to expand...

Nobody cares what you think.
 
omegablue said:
So it was about time your arguments should end, and the old rhetoric would take place! :)

I know, your next move is calling me a liar!! I´d like to anticipate that one. ;)
Click to expand...
Your the one trotting out dead people with Star Trek metaphors as irrefutable proof. Your the one using examples of building infernos and didn't even realize the building did collapse.
So let´s take a look. Care to give me some reference? I do not doubted it happened, but I just want to take a look, in order to compare to what happened on WTC
Click to expand...
I-95 bridge fire. It doesn't really compare to the WTC because this was just a tanker fire.
 
Skibum said:
You really ought to quit blindly following your masters, they never tell you sheep that the steel section of that building actually collapsed.
Click to expand...

But it didnt crumble into dust. It was there standing by its most strong structure.
 
Mancman said:
The firemen were on the 78th floor of WTC2, which was hit only by a wingtip of Flight 175. It was a skylobby floor with little combustible material. The NIST fire simulations only showed a small amount of fire on 78. Floors 79,80,81,82 and 83 were also on fire. It is pure ignorance to bring out the crappy old arguments you display here. You've got nothing.
Click to expand...

I don´t but all the professionals that are debunking that NIST and CM nonsense are fine and working.
 
omegablue said:
I think the building was not this inferno some hypothesize.
Click to expand...

10252462f1fb5349c7.jpg


3517km8.jpg


2cntx7p.jpg


Large photos:
http://pics.xbehome.com/albums/userpics/10001/GJS-WTC19.jpg
http://pics.xbehome.com/albums/userpics/10001/GJS-WTC27.jpg

Do you see that orange stuff?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom