Molten Steel

[Christopher7]

Christopher, I can care less what a conspiracy theorist with no experience in the relevant field thinks of me.

You are a conspiracy theorist too. "Bin Laden and 19 hijackers did it." is a conspiracy theory.

You've essentially negated structural failure altogether, I don't have the time to teach trolls at this level the material mark by mark.

You are the one ignoring the simple fact that it is physically impossible for all the weight of the top section to be applied suddenly to the intact floor below.

 

[Christopher7]

Mark is on record as not seeing melted steel.

Precisely the point. Mark Loizeaux accepts that there was molten steel based on what he was told by contractors he had worked with and the photos and videos.

Call Mark and ask him and stop telling lies.

I am quoting witnesses. Your request for me to call him is just a denial tactic. Someone wrote and asked him about the molten steel and he reiterated that there was molten steel. There is no doubt in his mind so why are you lying to yourself?

 

[beachnut]

Precisely the point. Mark Loizeaux accepts that there was molten steel based on what he was told by contractors he had worked with and the photos and videos.

I am quoting witnesses. Your request for me to call him is just a denial tactic. Someone wrote and asked him about the molten steel and he reiterated that there was molten steel. There is no doubt in his mind so why are you lying to yourself?

No, he does not. You are making that up.
Hearsay again used by you.

It is a fact 19 terrorist did it; proven fact. So you have delusions on 911, the facts are there you need to work harder.

 

[Christopher7]

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/steel1200f.jpg

Taken minutes ago at 1200 degrees F; steel the red part, that the chart says 1800 degree; bad chart? The other stuff is organic stuff, just like seen by people who mistakenly said molten steel.

If I take this pan and drop the organics, it looks just like the false evidence spewed by 911Truth for melting steel.

[FONT=&quot]
NIST FAQ August 30, 2006
Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, [/FONT]

This is baseless speculation. There is no case of this occurring and no scientific evidence to establish that it can occur.

 

[Christopher7]

Mark Loizeaux accepts that there was molten steel based on what he was told by contractors he had worked with and the photos and videos.

No, he does not. You are making that up.

No, you are denying what he said in his response to Mr. Brian.

It is a fact 19 terrorist did it; proven fact.

That is a matter of opinion and a subject for another thread. The OCT is that OBL was behind the attacks despite the FACT that the FBI has not charged Bin Laden with 9/11 because there is no hard evidence connecting him to 9/11.

That part of the Official Conspiracy Theory is based on supposition.

 

[BigAl]

No, you are denying what he said in his response to Mr. Brian.

That is a matter of opinion and a subject for another thread. The OCT is that OBL was behind the attacks despite the FACT that the FBI has not charged Bin Laden with 9/11 because there is no hard evidence connecting him to 9/11.

That part of the Official Conspiracy Theory is based on supposition.

You are wrong. There is lots of information connection the 19 hijackers to bin Laden. James Bamford covers just one aspect in his book, The Shadow Factory: The Ultra-Secret NSA from 9/11 to the Eavesdropping on America. His book explains how we know.

A PBS online Video on covers the same information.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/spyfactory/program.html​

 

[Christopher7]

There is lots of information connection the 19 hijackers to bin Laden.

But there is NO hard evidence that OBL had anything to do with the attacks.

Therefore, the official story is a theory.

 

[BigAl]

But there is NO hard evidence that OBL had anything to do with the attacks.

Therefore, the official story is a theory.

You haven't read the book or watched the video. How would you know what I am referring to?

Here's more reading material that goes into all aspects of the 19 Islamist hijackers. We really do know lots about who they were and how they were connected to bin Laden.

The Looming Tower: Al Qaeda and the Road to 9/11 by Lawrence
Perfect Soldiers: The 9/11 Hijackers: Who They Were, Why They Did It by Terry McDermott
Spying Blind by Amy Zegart
​

C7, do you have a problem with the fact that some Muslims committed the 9/11 hijackings without getting into who they were and why they did it?

 

[beachnut]

But there is NO hard evidence that OBL had anything to do with the attacks.

Therefore, the official story is a theory.

Your no theory melted steel with no conclusion is pure theory backed with hearsay and some insane idea that thermite was involved.

The 19 terrorists doing 911 is fact. Do you have delusions that keep you from understanding this?

 

[TjW]

Precisely the point. Mark Loizeaux accepts that there was molten steel based on what he was told by contractors he had worked with and the photos and videos.

I am quoting witnesses. Your request for me to call him is just a denial tactic. Someone wrote and asked him about the molten steel and he reiterated that there was molten steel. There is no doubt in his mind so why are you lying to yourself?

You are perfectly willing to accept Mark Loizeaux's opinions regarding the presence or absence of molten steel, a subject on which he is unqualified to speak professionally and did not witness personally, and yet utterly reject his professional opinion on whether the failures of the buildings at the WTC were the result of a controlled demolition, a subject on which he is qualified.

Could you explain briefly, why?

 

[Christopher7]

You are wrong. There is lots of information connection the 19 hijackers to bin Laden. James Bamford covers just one aspect in his book, The Shadow Factory: The Ultra-Secret NSA from 9/11 to the Eavesdropping on America. His book explains how we know.
A PBS online Video on covers the same information.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/spyfactory/program.html

You are ignoring the FACT that none of that amounts to enough evidence to get a indictment.

 

[Christopher7]

Your no theory melted steel with no conclusion is pure theory backed with hearsay.

It's a conclusion based on the numerous witness statements. You can't deal with the consequences so you talk in circles trying to get around what all the witnesses said.

 

[beachnut]

You have zero witnesses you have hearsay and lies. (Mark Loizeaux never saw melted steel, anything he says about other people is called hearsay.)


19 terrorists acted alone and are solely responsible for killing Americans on 911.

 

[BigAl]

It's a conclusion based on the numerous witness statements. You can't deal with the consequences so you talk in circles trying to get around what all the witnesses said.

All of which are second-hand and/or unconfirmed. Given that there is no physical evidence or theory that would explain how molten steel would exist on the pile, second-hand eyewitness accounts are the weakest form of evidence. They don't prove anything.

 

[funk de fino]

I read the irrelevant material.

You cannot accept that the core columns were applying most if not all their weight to the core area and the NIST hypothesis says all the weight of the top section was applied to the floor outside the core area.

What was in the core area that these columns were applying their weight to?

The NIST FAQ hypothesis is a joke and you refuse to see that. Either you are dumber than a brick or you are getting paid to deny anything that disproves the OCT.

Paranoia is a dreadful trait, what a sad case.

 

[funk de fino]

Yes! You are correct. The CTs keep ignoring that there have been at least two pancake collapses in the US prior to 9/11.

C7 will avoid all those posts and will not retract false claims because he is a liar.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

You are the one ignoring the simple fact that it is physically impossible for all the weight of the top section to be applied suddenly to the intact floor below.

Structural failure has a habit of doing exactly what you claim it cannot possibly do. Especially when a section the size of an average building is descending as a direct result of such failure. Again, you've been here more than 2 years, you don't understand the concept and another 2 years of repetition clearly won't offer any learning benefit you could have taken advantage of already. My optimism in your ability to learn the material was clearly misplaced.

It's a conclusion based on the numerous witness statements. You can't deal with the consequences so you talk in circles trying to get around what all the witnesses said.

I'll raise the bar, and for hell of it believe you. Sure... let's say molten steel was there.

Now for your end of the argument:

Convince me that thermite is capable of burning for periods ranging from 7 days, to 8 months.

Convince me that thermite can magically remain usable after enduring a collapse you and thousands upon thousands of other conspiracy theorists claim pulverized 110 floors of concrete to talcum powder.

Give me evidence that during ALL OF THESE MONTHS not a single witness reports witnessing a spectacular fireworks display.

Give me this evidence and you'll have a convert. You have my undivided attention, I'm waiting. If you are unable to demonstrate a plausible scenario in which thermite performs this magic then I will be forced to conclude that your assumptions about infallible witness knowledge, accounts, and otherwise are wrong and that every molten steel account has a plausible explanation that does not necessitate thermite.

 

[Christopher7]

You are perfectly willing to accept Mark Loizeaux's opinions regarding the presence or absence of molten steel, a subject on which he is unqualified to speak professionally and did not witness personally, and yet utterly reject his professional opinion on whether the failures of the buildings at the WTC were the result of a controlled demolition, a subject on which he is qualified.

Could you explain briefly, why?

Fair question.
There are numerous other witnesses who say there was molten steel. Those statements support Mark Loizeaux's statement.

Now I will ask you the same question in reverse.
Why do you believe Mark when he says the buildings were not CD's but you don't believe him when he says there was molten steel?

 

[beachnut]

I found a photo of molten steel. (took it)

Warmth, brilliance, glowing. I introduce molten steel: not melted, molten.
Steel pan glowing, molten (not melted) steel pan at 1200 degrees (glowing parts). Bright yellow organic coals.

Glowing steel; the truth.

 

[BigAl]

Fair question.
There are numerous other witnesses who say there was molten steel. Those statements support Mark Loizeaux's statement.

Now I will ask you the same question in reverse.
Why do you believe Mark when he says the buildings were not CD's but you don't believe him when he says there was molten steel?

Because he was an eyewitness to the collapse of WTC7.

Because he wasn't an eyewitness to molten steel on the pile.

Because Loizeaux's statement that he wasn't an eyewitness to molten steel is consistent with everything else we know about WTC; the physical evidence, the physics and the chemistry of the pile and the eyewitnesses and all the video.