• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Molten Steel

Status
Not open for further replies.
bill smith said:
This gives the gist though the video has gaphs and so on.

If you spray water from an vapouriser you get a fine mist of droplets. ...
Click to expand...

The last thing I want is the abstract of an alleged technical paper with said abstract being done by someone that is ignorant of the topic.
 
BigAl said:
Got a transcript? Real academics and research scientists and engineers don't work primarily in video. If they do a video it's a lecture that is summary of a publication.
Click to expand...

No-no transcript.Have a look on the net and you might find one.
 
bill smith said:
This gives the gist though the video has gaphs and so on.

If you spray water from an vapouriser you get a fine mist of droplets. If you look at the droplets under a microscope they show up as tiny spheres as we have all seen on TV at one time or another, If steel is vaporised by extreme temperatures (way above what you need to melt steel) you get exactly the same tiny spheres, except that these harden and stay as tiny spheres. The dust from the WTC has these tiny balls of steel in abundance. Now Professor Stephen jones says he has recovered trace amounts of UNREACTED Thermite from the dust and steel sphere samples. He can even make these live traces 'flare' or 'flash' when he subjects them to a directed and concentrated heat source. This really is evidence that Thermite was used at the WTC on 9/11
Click to expand...

er, his heat source was around 3500C Idoubt there's much material around me at the moment that wouldn't flare at that temp.
 
MikeW said:
It wasn't 400. More like 14, and even there we have to trust Hilton. He eventually denied he'd ever said that, although even Abel Ashes (who he represented in a later version of the suit) said that was a lie (see http://www.ubl.com/artists/abelashes/profile/).

Hilton also told us he had a document showing that George Bush signed off on 9/11. Sounds plausible, doesn't it, something you'd put in writing? I thought it was nonsense at the time, and sure enough, despite Hilton's claims of evidence, he's made none of it public.

Anyone who's interested can Google for Stanley Hilton to find out more. This post (from a truther) at abovetopsecret.com shows what even some true believers think of him, and his "case".
Click to expand...
I listened to a half-hour interview with Hilton where he said 400 family members. He only referred to 'documentary evidence ' in that interview. He also said his offices were broken into several times and documents were stolen. Fortunately tey were only copies. His staff were threatened too.

Do you have a link showing his reference to the Bush signing off document thing ?
 
bill smith said:
No-no transcript.Have a look on the net and you might find one.
Click to expand...

The next-last thing I want is to play 21 questions about whether we are all looking at the same words. Anyone that says "google it" for a transcript deserves the confusion they get if what I find doesn't match what you have.

The chance of finding a transcript for anything produced by Gage or Jones is approximately zero. It's too easy to fact-check and quote text. It's really hard for video. One might wonder why the "Truth Movement" pretty much gave up on text and went to YouTube years ago.
 
BigAl said:
The next-last thing I want is to play 21 questions about whether we are all looking at the same words. Anyone that says "google it" for a transcript deserves the confusion they get if what I find doesn't match what you have.

The chance of finding a transcript for anything produced by Gage or Jones is approximately zero. It's too easy to fact-check and quote text. It's really hard for video. One might wonder why the "Truth Movement" pretty much gave up on text and went to YouTube years ago.
Click to expand...
Our back office in the Truth Movement is not very developed actually. We find video works well enough. If people don't want to watch.....wel what caan we do aout that. Truth be told, they could always make their own transcript.
 
bill smith said:
This gives the gist though the video has gaphs and so on.

If you spray water from an vapouriser you get a fine mist of droplets. If you look at the droplets under a microscope they show up as tiny spheres as we have all seen on TV at one time or another, If steel is vaporised by extreme temperatures (way above what you need to melt steel) you get exactly the same tiny spheres, except that these harden and stay as tiny spheres. The dust from the WTC has these tiny balls of steel in abundance. Now Professor Stephen jones says he has recovered trace amounts of UNREACTED Thermite from the dust and steel sphere samples. He can even make these live traces 'flare' or 'flash' when he subjects them to a directed and concentrated heat source. This really is evidence that Thermite was used at the WTC on 9/11
Click to expand...

Jones doesn't actually rule out paint and is quite careful to do so in his initial presentation and report on the chips which suggests to me he knows what he's suggesting isn't true.
 
bill smith said:
I think he made it clear that he thinks it's thermite. But of course it would be more scientific to wait for independent confirmation before making a definite statement
Click to expand...
hmmm, from his wording and jumping away from thinking it might be paint with no explanation I think he made it clear that he wants others to think it's thermite. What his motives are though are unclear.
 
bje said:
Please refer to Steven Jones paper:
Quote:
The following photograph has become available, evidently showing the now-solidified metal with entrained material, stored (as of November 2005) in a warehouse in New York:
Click to expand...



Anyone with half a brain can see that it's a hunk of formerly molten steel, nay, iron.

3323702037_c0ac5f3e2b_o.jpg


3323702033_b3ca51352a_o.jpg


Now go remove half your brain so you'll understand like Jones does.


Is any more evidence needed that it took "thousands of degrees" of heat to bend this beam?

3323702041_bc7a66ae26_o.jpg
3323702047_c1f7087a1e_o.jpg
 
Last edited:
Gravy said:
Anyone with half a brain can see that it's a hunk of molten steel, nay, iron.

[qimg]http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3113/3323702037_c0ac5f3e2b_o.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3311/3323702033_b3ca51352a_o.jpg[/qimg]

Now go remove half your brain so you'll understand like Jones does.


Is any more evidence needed that it took "thousands of degrees" of heat to bend this beam?

[qimg]http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3389/3323702041_bc7a66ae26_o.jpg[/qimg][qimg]http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3415/3323702047_c1f7087a1e_o.jpg[/qimg]​
Click to expand...

Of the parts of steel/Iron in that lump there's no parts that have been patially liquified, only bent, folded or twisted. If the greyish material contained iron then surely it would show signs of iron oxide/ be orange/red like the other iron containing components.

edit: ah, some of it might although still not a conclusive sign that it's been molten iron/steel.
 
Last edited:
Gravy said:
Rust stains.
Click to expand...

An acquaintance is a retired NY fireman that worked on the pile looking for his friends.

One of the bits of info he volunteered is the observation that is obvious in hindsight; that chunks of concrete found in the pile that had been exposed to elevated temperatures had the water cooked out of them and they became almost styrofoam-like. The concrete lost any structural strength it had to start with.

That makes the "meteorite" and the guns embedded in concrete less strange.
 
bill smith said:
Our back office in the Truth Movement is not very developed actually. We find video works well enough.
Click to expand...


Given the consensus is that the Truth Movement is shrinking, and given you believe video presentations are working "well enough", apparently not presenting a convincing case is your goal. Congratulations on your ongoing success!
 
Gravy said:
Christopher has yet to point out what I get wrong. Who is full of hot air?

Here are the first content links on my site:



I wonder what benefit people like Chris Sarns derive from lying about things that are so easily checked? They must get something out of it. Is it just attention they need, no matter the cost to their credibility? I wish I knew, so I could know how better to deal with adults who make claims that children would be ashamed to make.


And yet Chris has never pointed out anything I get wrong. It makes me sad to see so much misplaced anger.
Click to expand...
Whenever someone gets something wrong you call them a liar. It makes me sad to see so much misplaced anger. You do that a lot. I guess it's because you see in others what you are yourself.

Just what is it you think I am lying about?


I clicked on the first link and followed it to your post about Richard Gage. Referring to the corroded beams in the FEMA C report he said: "It's nowhere to be found in the NIST report."
You noted that they were in the NCSTAR 1-3C report so I checked it out.

It seems you were a bit disingenuous yourself when you said:
" [FONT=&quot]Not only did NIST discuss that, the report spends several pages on it, and NIST did an independent analysis of the samples[/FONT]"

and:

[FONT=&quot]Not only are these strangely-eroded pieces discussed for several pages in NCSTAR 1-3C, but NIST did their own analysis that resulted in several different conclusions from FEMA's analysis. [/FONT]

As it turns out, only Sample #2 was analyzed. Sample #1 from WTC 7 was not. The descriptions of the corrosion were different for the two samples but I don't know if that is important or not. NIST did not analyize Sample #1 for the Final WTC 7 report nor did they mention it.

If someone else said "NIST did an independent analysis of the samples" and only one piece was analyzed, you would call them a liar.

I'm just going to say you are wrong.
 
Christopher7 said:
Whenever someone gets something wrong you call them a liar. It makes me sad to see so much misplaced anger. You do that a lot. I guess it's because you see in others what you are yourself.

Just what is it you think I am lying about?


I clicked on the first link and followed it to your post about Richard Gage. Referring to the corroded beams in the FEMA C report he said: "It's nowhere to be found in the NIST report."
You noted that they were in the NCSTAR 1-3C report so I checked it out.

It seems you were a bit disingenuous yourself when you said:
" [FONT=&quot]Not only did NIST discuss that, the report spends several pages on it, and NIST did an independent analysis of the samples[/FONT]"

and:

[FONT=&quot]Not only are these strangely-eroded pieces discussed for several pages in NCSTAR 1-3C, but NIST did their own analysis that resulted in several different conclusions from FEMA's analysis. [/FONT]

As it turns out, only Sample #2 was analyzed. Sample #1 from WTC 7 was not. The descriptions of the corrosion were different for the two samples but I don't know if that is important or not. NIST did not analyize Sample #1 for the Final WTC 7 report nor did they mention it.

If someone else said "NIST did an independent analysis of the samples" and only one piece was analyzed, you would call them a liar.

I'm just going to say you are wrong.
Click to expand...

yep, i caught him and mackey (i think) doing the same to me. all i found was when nist mentions the steel from wtc 7, they referred the reader to the fema bpat report sample 1.
 
compare to gravies "meteorite", check out the area where this guy is pointing. if u follow it to the left, it looks as though there are swirles in the "meteorite". maybe it was once molten. this is on ae911truth website.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom