Molten Steel

Status
Not open for further replies.
Christopher7 said:
Don't tell me what I have to answer.
Click to expand...

I find it funny that you can make up all kinds of facts about the melting point of steel but you can't answer a simple question about who would want to go to the trouble, or why. You don't have to answer my questions, of course- and you've made it clear enough that you can't.
 
Christopher7 said:
Acting in concert with the insulating qualities of the pulverized debris, the smoldering combustibles in the debris would slow the cooling of the molten metal.
Click to expand...
.
And your figures to show that the "insulating qualities of the pulverized debris" and combustibles would have kept the "steel" molten for as long as you claim witnesses have stated are ... ?
.
.
 
Christopher7 said:
Only when forced to do so.
Click to expand...
Thats another lie

C7 said:
Escaped the purge.
Click to expand...

And thats just plain funny. Loizeuax saw them, so how can they be hiding the evidence? Who showed Loizeuax the pics?

C7 said:
I applied 2 years ago and they told me I had to wait until the investigation was finished. I have not re-applied but others have to no avail.
Click to expand...

Who? Source?

C7 said:
No I don't have the money to spare now.
Click to expand...

Instead of Gage and his merry band of clowns raising money for conventions why do they not do this?

C7 said:
There was no reason to collect and keep the photos and videos from the public in the first place and there is no reason they should not release them to their owners now.

Requiring people to go thru the Freedom of Information Act to get the photos is blatant government stalling. They are hiding the evidence as long as they can. You don't have a problem with that because you work for them[there is no other reason to defend this unjustified hiding of evidence]. Any citizen that want's the truth to be known thinks this is BS.

Requiring the public to pay ridiculous amounts to have someone sit at a keyboard for 5 minutes and put together a CD or DVD if a rip-off.
Click to expand...

You have no idea how things work in real life do you? Just your little fantasy world where everthing is public domain. I know its upsetting you have no videos with any explosions on them. This is because there are none.
 
Christopher7 said:
Your inability to understand that the columns in the top section of the trade towers would mostly be pushing down on columns below, and not the floor, has led you to believe that all the weight of the top section could be applied to the floor below, outside the core, and cause the floor supports to collapse. This is physically impossible.
Click to expand...

If the top tilts and the columns break, then what you propose is impossible. You made a stupid claim and its Stundied.
 
Toke said:
If you don´t have a clue, why do you pick termite?
Why not vanilla ice cream?
Click to expand...
Someone here suggested orange sherbet. That's closer to the right color. ;)

C7 said:
Perhaps, but that's not the problem. I am quoting and you are denying witness statements. This is not a language or physics problem, it's either intelligence or honesty.
Click to expand...
I agree completely.:D
Click to expand...
:D :D
You're good. :)
 
Last edited:
TSR said:
.
And your figures to show that the "insulating qualities of the pulverized debris" and combustibles would have kept the "steel" molten for as long as you claim witnesses have stated are ... ?.
Click to expand...
Demanding the impossible will keep your denial safe.

I have explained how the molten metal stayed molten.

Either you believe the numerous witnesses or you are in denial. [or you are getting paid to ask a stock set of stupid questions from Gravy's "Denial, diversion, defimation and doubletalk" handbook] :cool:
 
ravdin said:
I find it funny that you can make up all kinds of facts about the melting point of steel
Click to expand...
Look it up.

but you can't answer a simple question about who would want to go to the trouble, or why. You don't have to answer my questions, of course- and you've made it clear enough that you can't.
Click to expand...
I could only speculate, you will only make asinine remarks. Like a 3 year old, you keep repeating the same question.
 
Christopher7 said:
I have explained how the molten metal stayed molten.
Click to expand...
.
No, you have made bald assertions, apparently based on nothing more than your irrational need that it be so.

If the combustibles are capable of *keeping* the "steel" molten, they are capable of melting it to begin with.

Please feel free to post evidence proving this to be incorrect.
.
.
.
 
Christopher7 said:
Bias? ignoring those properties? What the . . . :boggled::eye-poppi:jaw-dropp
Click to expand...
Issues such as design - the structural frame, floor systems, column grid, construction materials - thing you claim when asked "housewives would know" right off the bat. Things you claim you know but "are not important." The difference between you and myself is I understand that these all are issues to consider when trying to find out why a structure fails, I don't start under the premise that no structure can fail. But don't take my word for it about your lack of experience in this area, you're demonstrating it repeatedly:

Christopher7 said:
Maybe this will help:
Take a cardboard box. Cut it all the way around a bout half way up. Now try and get the top part to fit inside the bottom part. You have to bend the sides in.
Now imagine getting a smaller box [to represent the core columns] to do the opposite and go on the outside the lower part.
Even if you could manage to do both of these simultaneously, which you can't, there is no way to get the dozen or so central core columns to apply their weight to the floor outside the core area as is required in the NIST FAQ hypothesis.
Click to expand...
A card board box does nothing to illustrate your point. Among other things you're literally comparing a monolithic object to an enormous composite system. You start buckling columns in a building like that and it will fail. You also don't understand at all the square cube effect. You're ignoring the same problems with your argumentation in architecture that you have with interpreting witness statements of molten metal/steel. I take all of their statements at face value but there isn't anything supporting that what they are looking at is thermite related. All you've managed to do so far is make bald faced assertions that in their relevant areas they make no sense what so ever.


Christopher7 said:
You know what you can do with that remark.:mad:

and that one :cool:

and this one too.
Click to expand...

If you're not able to make competent statements in an area I'm studying, I'll call you out on it. If you'd rather imply I should shove it into my caverns, that's your call, but you'd likely be more successful in flustering me if you actually come up with a reasonable counter argument based on extensive study in the same area. I may explicitly imply that you're lying with your statements but you have every opportunity to prove me wrong and the best part is I won't ask you to shove it into your "caverns" :)


Christopher7 said:
... Right, Gravy's book of denial, diversion, defamation and double talk.
Click to expand...
No, I've been studying architecture for almost 4 years. If you have a problem with the conclusions I've made based on that education you're best off complaining to those professors I've studied with. While I have read Gravy's work, it's not what I initially derived my conclusion from. Neither is the NIST report.
 
Last edited:
Christopher7 said:
? ? ? :boggled:
I'm not proposing anything. NIST is proposing the impossible.
Click to expand...

Yes you are, you are claiming most of the columns hit full on each other. This did not happen. You admitted yourself that the top tilted and it also rotated slightly. This broke the columns. They did not fall gently down and hit each other square on. The columns on the lowest side fell inside the perimeter and this caused the perimeter columns to peel away during the collapse.

Even if it did, there was enough energy to propogate the coillapse, see Gregory Urich work and Bazant work.

I would like to see your calculations that debunk their papers.
 
Christopher7's claims contain textbook examples of many logical fallacies. It really is all on a par with his near namesake, "he who should be named" of "Realistice" infamy.

For instance:

Argument from Ignorance: It was thermite! Don't ask me how so. I JUST KNOW!

False Dichotomy: The cladding blew up to 600' so none of it could have been under the WTC after the collapse.

Bare Assertion (also Appeal to Authority): Prof. Jones and Kevin Ryan write it on their website. So IT'S TRUE.

False Attribution: Riggs saw "molten steel" Thermite! Although Riggs said no such thing.


Anybody spot any more? It's like a turkey shoot.

BV

 
I never got a serius answer to why termite was chosen over vanilla ice cream.

Neither can burn through vertical steel beams, or keep steel molten for months.

So what is the advantage of using termite over icecream?
 
Christopher7 said:
Actually it's a little under 7,000 photos and a little over 7,000 video clips.

People are trying to get some of them but they ain't releasing diddly-squat.
Click to expand...

What part of the fact that these videos and images are not theirs to release don't you get? You can see them if you want to, just do what they did. Put an add (NY/NJ papers would be best) in the paper requesting any video or photographs and offer to pay to see them. It's called getting off your lazy butt and actually investigating.

Let us know how you make out.
 
What exactly do truthers expect these pictures and video clips to show?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom