Molten Steel

[Grizzly Bear]

Any way you look at it it was a covert operation. So from your point of view it was a covert operation by cave dwellers and from my point of view it was a covert operation by US military...what you think there are no black ops military groups that would do such a thing?

I know you're busy pushing magical hush-a-booms and you got C7 drooling over your link, all the while we have respondents including myself going at your contention, this thread isn't about explosives... Molten steel is an equally stupid argument but let's stop derailing the thread

 

[ravdin]

Any way you look at it it was a covert operation. So from your point of view it was a covert operation by cave dwellers and from my point of view it was a covert operation by US military...what you think there are no black ops military groups that would do such a thing?

Please elaborate, if you would. Who do you believe pulled the strings behind the operation? Who benefited from it?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Are you a demolitions expert?

Are you up on all the state of the are technology?

Do you know about everything the military had in 2001?

Can you read a decibel scale?

You're the one saying how brilliant SteveAustin's source was. We're simply pointing out that it doesn't say what you think it says, and SteveAustin has misinterpreted it in a rather amusing fashion.

Dave

 

[GStan]

And then sending perfectly timed radio controlled planes into the buildings.

I never did get a straight answer on who pulled this off. I only know it wasn't the Bush administration- they were too incompetent to cover up the outing of a CIA agent or the improper firings of several US attorneys.

Whoever is responsible, I would like to know so I can declare my allegiance to them. They have amply demonstrated their prodigious abilities and their right to rule.

Exactly. **** exposing them! I just want to be on the same team with 'em.

 

[BigAl]

www.prod.sandia.gov/cgi-bin/techlib/access-control.pl/2001/012267.pdf


SANDIA REPORT
SAND2001-2267

Demolition Noise Abatement
Technique Demonstration

Dated August 2001 (Experiements conducted in 2000).

Noise level aside, my quick reading of this report suggests none of the techniques would reduce the seismic signal and might even increase it.

The two seimic systems within range of WTC on 9/11 recorded the impact of the planes and the impact of building sections on the ground but didn't record anything consistent with man-made demolition.

 

[boloboffin]

If there were bomb-sniffing dogs at the Pile, then they did do tests for explosives. Bomb-sniffing dogs would have detected explosive residue. They found nothing. That is positive evidence for no bombs. Together with the Blanchard evidence of no characteristic explosive spike in the seismographs, that is two strong, supporting proofs that no explosives were used to demolish these buildings.

If the fires were hot enough to keep the metal molten, they were hot enough to get them molten in the first place.

No thermite cutter charge has ever been demonstrated to actually exist.

Extensive scientific modeling has shown that the buildings fell due to their damage and the fires (7 due to its unique design and the fires alone).

There is no explanation that fits molten steel under Building 6 other than ordinary fire.

There has never, ever been any scientific proof that anyone saw actual molten steel. It is possible that some steel did go to liquid under the Pile, but as explained previously, liquid aluminum can run over steel and melt it at much lower temperatures. In fact, any element capable of mixing with steel has the potential to alter such things as melting point.

There has never, ever been any evidence whatsoever offered that there were pools of molten steel. There has been one single quote offered in evidence of this and it was fabricated by all honest accounts.

"Molten" is a term applied not only to liquid metal, but any metal that is glowing hot (for example, one witness talks about the metal in a fire truck being molten - if it was liquid, it wasn't a fire truck). So many of the quotes talking about molten steel don't even necessarily mean "liquid."

 

[tsig]

So let me get this straight.

You are resting your case of the WTC building collapse as a controlled detonation based on thermite (the only way, presumably, that witnesses would report molten steel at Ground Zero weeks after 9/11). However, you admit here that you don't understand the properties of the material that was allegedly used. In other words, you're making it up.

You're peeing on your own feet, C7. Stop inventing facts to support your theories.

He's already said it was some super secret thermite developed by the military whose properties we cannot know except it acts like no form of thermite we know of.

It is of course useless to ask "how much thermite" because we don't know it's properties.

 

[BigAl]

Are you a demolitions expert?

Are you up on all the state of the art technology?

Do you know about everything the military had in 2001?

There are a lot of arm chair experts here and the lot of you are blowin smoke.

I can read a db scale. "Two thirds" isn't what you think it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decibel​

As I posted in a separate message, I don't think anything done to reduce the sound level would also reduce the seismic signal and might even increase it.

The two seismic networks in use on 9/11 recorded the impact of the planes and the impact of the buildings on the ground but detected nothing consistent with explosive demolition.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I can read db scale. "Two thirds" isn't what you think it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decibel​

Just to throw this out on the table as well: http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/jw/dBNoFlash.html
Essentially contains the same material but it also provides visual graphics

 

[BigAl]

If there were bomb-sniffing dogs at the Pile, then they did do tests for explosives. Bomb-sniffing dogs would have detected explosive residue. They found nothing.

Would bomb sniffing dogs smell thermite??

(I doubt it. Look for C7 to add that factoid to his list of strawmen.)

My source for the dogs is the book, Bomb Squad by Esposito & Gerstein
(The history of the NY Bomb Squad.)

 

[ravdin]

Thermite was developed by the military I believe. [correct me if I'm wrong] The military has a lot of very advanced stuff they don't talk about. There is no way for us to know the state of the art as to the different types of thermite and applications they have developed. Any speculation as to what thermite can do is grossly uninformed.

Are you a demolitions expert?

Are you up on all the state of the art technology?

Do you know about everything the military had in 2001?

There are a lot of arm chair experts here and the lot of you are blowin smoke.

I just wanted to put these two quotes side by side... no further comment is necessary to make my point.

 

[SteveAustin]

Please elaborate, if you would. Who do you believe pulled the strings behind the operation? Who benefited from it?

I do not need to know what happened in order to know what did not happen.

But this is a common tactic I see from "debunkers" all the time. Ask them to explain what they think happened and then keep showering them with irrelevant questions.

All I have to do is focus on all the myriad mistakes/errors/lies promulgated by the OCT, I do not need to come up with some alternative, that is not my job. That job belongs to a real investigation.

But you can continue to concentrate on my lack of an alternative scenario and see how far that gets you with me.

 

[GStan]

All this talk of decibals should be moved to a new thread. Otherwise when C7 finally gets around to posting evidence of liquid steel, it might just get lost in all the.......noise.

* slaps knee repeatedly *

Thanks, I'm here all week.

 

[ravdin]

All I have to do is focus on all the myriad mistakes/errors/lies promulgated by the OCT, I do not need to come up with some alternative, that is not my job. That job belongs to a real investigation.

Actually, that is your job. You don't have to answer the question of course, if you don't know- but you should not expect anyone to find your vague assertions to be at all convincing. Since you are disputing the commonly accepted version of events, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate otherwise.

 

[stateofgrace]

I do not need to know what happened in order to know what did not happen.

But this is a common tactic I see from "debunkers" all the time. Ask them to explain what they think happened and then keep showering them with irrelevant questions.

All I have to do is focus on all the myriad mistakes/errors/lies promulgated by the OCT, I do not need to come up with some alternative, that is not my job. That job belongs to a real investigation.

But you can continue to concentrate on my lack of an alternative scenario and see how far that gets you with me.

Really ?

Any way you look at it it was a covert operation. So from your point of view it was a covert operation by cave dwellers and from my point of view it was a covert operation by US military...what you think there are no black ops military groups that would do such a thing?

But you do have alternative scenario, you do know what happened, so why are you denying it ?

Why not answer questions on what you have stated?

Maybe you wish to start a new thread and tell everybody how you concluded it was a convert operation, rather than derail this.

 

[boloboffin]

Would bomb sniffing dogs smell thermite??

(I doubt it. Look for C7 to add that factoid to his list of strawmen.)

My source for the dogs is the book, Bomb Squad by Esposito & Gerstein
(The history of the NY Bomb Squad.)

True, but the explosives they are trained to detect can be eliminated, and the argument by C7 that no testing was done for explosives on-site is falsified. Thermite passes through that one argument, but it's caught in others.

 

[Christopher7]

Steve

Be advised:
Rule 12 has a catch 22.
They can and will insult you relentlessly but you will given a warning for "Attacking the arguer" if you return fire.

 

[tsig]

The steel was probably not melted in the debris piles. It was probably melted in the process of the collapse.

So within a matter of seconds thousands of tons of steel liquefied in mid air?

 

[SteveAustin]

Actually, that is your job. You don't have to answer the question of course, if you don't know- but you should not expect anyone to find your vague assertions to be at all convincing. Since you are disputing the commonly accepted version of events, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate otherwise.

"commonly accepted" by whom?

Please provide proof that your version of events is the "commonly accepted version"

And no, just because you say it is my job does not make it my job. I have elsewhere (other than JREF) shown many times all the inconsistencies/errors/lies in the OCT but here on JREF with the constant "requirement" to keep every single thread on a specific topic and not to deviate means you cannot properly debate a "conspiracy" topic. JREF is not a forum to properly debate these topics.

Case in point, someone above brought up the subject of "no one heard explosives, so no explosives were used" (something I've seen mentioned many many times here at JREF), but when I bring up a report that shows there are noise abatement techniques that reduce noise it's called off-topic. So it's not off-topic in a thread about molten steel to mention that "no one heard explosives, so no explosives were used" but it is off-topic to come up with a rebuttal to that.

Hey if you want a real debate you can come over to the BBC blog and we can have a real debate there where you will not be limited to a specific thread topic (you do have to be on topic but in this one we are talking 9/11 conspiracies). However over there you will need to keep it civil, you will not be able to resort to a lot of the tactics you use here.

.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2008/10/caught_up_in_a_conspiracy_theo.html?page=6#comments

so come on over

 

[SteveAustin]

Steve

Be advised:
Rule 12 has a catch 22.
They can and will insult you relentlessly but you will given a warning for "Attacking the arguer" if you return fire.

Yes thanks Chris, I knew that, I lurked here for a few weeks before I started posting and then saw on that other thread how I was censored from responding to their arguments.