• 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.

9/11 Truthers... What is your smoking gun?

I suppose. I also suppose that such high temperatures would cause fires to flare right back up as they became exposed to air again.
 
ImANiceGuy said:
This reply displays inferior comprehension skills.
Click to expand...
You have some evidence to prove the towers did not collapse due to impacts and fires? No


Do you have the molten metals you talk of? Are they steel? What do fires in the WTC rubble fire have to do with 911? Al wheels (cars in the parking lot below the WTC) and other metals could melt in the fires; SO?

911TruthLies has nothing; are you here to support their lies? You are not doing a good job.
 
ImANiceGuy said:
You seem very confident that a collapsing building will cause these types of fires. Flowing molten metals, weeks after the collapses; many, many witnesses.
Click to expand...

yes i believe its possible
i also believe under the right conditions you could melt steel in a sustained fire (weeks not hours)

Wouldn't these fires way down below have trouble getting oxygen? You stated they were incredibly dense.
Click to expand...

i said the fuel sources were dense and readily available
please dont take me out of context ty

the pile wasnt an airtight cap
it has many gaps
fire pulls air violently (watch backdraft)
i could see it pulling enough air to feed the fire through the gaps
Wouldn't the concrete and steel, as well as creating some "oven-like areas", also separate and smother the fires somewhat?
Click to expand...

again it wasn't a uniform air tight cap
 
ImANiceGuy said:
Has anyone been able to explain how the fires in the two towers were only hot enough to cause structural failure(ie. not melt steel),
Click to expand...

Common house fires can reach 1700F, structural steel loses more than 80% of it's strength at that temperature.

ImANiceGuy said:
yet molten metals were found in the rubble piles?
Click to expand...

The towers were clad in thousands of tons of aluminum panels. Aluminum melts at 1200F.

ImANiceGuy said:
Why was the steel hot enough to melt the worker's boots in the weeks post-collapse?
Click to expand...

The materials used to make work boots don't melt per se, but they break down chemically at 350F to 660F depending on the make and model.
 
If your smoking gun is 'Molten metal", you truly need to do a better job firing the proverbial gun to make it smoke.

You see....Molten metal has never been proven, and, if it was, it would not prove any 'foul play', as molten metal is not indicative of a CD in the first place. It is, however, indicative of fires and building material.


So, in an effort to be fair, and allow you to present your 'smoking gun' or whatever the term du jour is, here is a challenge to all truthers:

Please show me:

A) A pic or video of Molten Steel, or what you claim to be Molten Steel. Molten = liquid state, FYI.
B) The metallurgy report on said 'steel' that shows it was indeed annealed steel, and not any of the other material in the WTC, such as Glass (looks like steel when molten) Copper, Lead, standard steel, aluminum et. al.
C) Explain why, if people are 'seeing' this 'molten structural steel' with the naked eye, that the Thermal imaging does not show temperatures that support this condition.

A+B+C = well, nothing really, in this case. But, it would be a good first step. Start investigoogling truthers.....
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
Common house fires can reach 1700F, structural steel loses more than 80% of it's strength at that temperature.



The towers were clad in thousands of tons of aluminum panels. Aluminum melts at 1200F.



The materials used to make work boots don't melt per se, but they break down chemically at 350F to 660F depending on the make and model.
Click to expand...

Well put sword. This information has been available to twoofers for how many years now?
 
Yes there was a truther debating "handbook". If i recall one was posted in a members only forum directory over at the old loose change forums. (previous to invisionfree?) Someone over there copied and pasted it into a public thread and all hell broke loose.

That was a few years ago. The details are kind of foggy.Anyone else remember?
 
ImANiceGuy said:
You seem very confident that a collapsing building will cause these types of fires. Flowing molten metals, weeks after the collapses; many, many witnesses.
Click to expand...


Hyperbole, metaphor, simile and the child's game of Telephone caused the towers to collapse, at least according to the quotes provided (or not provided in this case) by people that parrot "Truth Movement" assertions.

9/11 was executed by 19 English majors under the evil control of a Professor of English in his ivory tower.
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
The materials used to make work boots don't melt per se, but they break down chemically at 350F to 660F depending on the make and model.
Click to expand...

yeah i guess we kinda throw the term melt around loosely as i didnt have material dripping off my foot
i should take the oxy-acetylene to an old pair and utube it, see what happens at 6000 degrees lol
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
The materials used to make work boots don't melt per se, but they break down chemically at 350F to 660F depending on the make and model.
Click to expand...

How hot does the ground get in a grass fire?

I've had work boot soles chemically decompose (melt) from walking around smoldering dead grass when burning brush. I was not walking in actual fire, just smoldering embers from where the brush fire had spread onto dead grass.
 
alienentity said:
Oh, thanks! Well, the Jones paper was in fact peer reviewed, I don't think it's fair to characterize the chip testing as junk science,
Click to expand...


I do respect your opinion, and your YouTube work, however, to term BOA as a legitimate 'peer reviewed publication' is a bit (or a lot, depending upon your perspective) naive. Fact is, it amounts to nothing more than a vanity publication, with little to no merit in the scientific community.

It is akin to the Author self publishing his work at a vanity press, so that he can show a published novel on his resume.

It is a degree at Almeda University..nothing more, nothing less.

The chain of custody on the samples immediately disqualifies the paper, and, thus, throws the title into a perpetual tailspin of fraud.

I call it junk science. you call it less than that. I agree to disagree.

So I ask, what does it matter when the subject being tested is not proven to be from the location the authors(s) claim it was from, wherein that location is the onus for the sinister conclusion they are trying to project?
 
Carll68 said:
If your smoking gun is 'Molten metal", you truly need to do a better job firing the proverbial gun to make it smoke.

You see....Molten metal has never been proven, and, if it was, it would not prove any 'foul play', as molten metal is not indicative of a CD in the first place. It is, however, indicative of fires and building material.


So, in an effort to be fair, and allow you to present your 'smoking gun' or whatever the term du jour is, here is a challenge to all truthers:

Please show me:

A) A pic or video of Molten Steel, or what you claim to be Molten Steel. Molten = liquid state, FYI.
B) The metallurgy report on said 'steel' that shows it was indeed annealed steel, and not any of the other material in the WTC, such as Glass (looks like steel when molten) Copper, Lead, standard steel, aluminum et. al.
C) Explain why, if people are 'seeing' this 'molten structural steel' with the naked eye, that the Thermal imaging does not show temperatures that support this condition.

A+B+C = well, nothing really, in this case. But, it would be a good first step. Start investigoogling truthers.....
Click to expand...

A) No pictures exist that I know of. Are you saying that unless a picture or video exists, then it (molten steel) did not exist? Is eyewitness testimony in conjunction with physical evidence (see below), not sufficient?
B) http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf
c)The thermal imaging was limited to the surface materials. see 911myths.com

Quad - I didn't ask the reason why alternate theories were quickly disseminated. My original statement was in criticism of the double standard that exists in this forum. If you had comprehended my statement, you would have replied as such.
 
rmcc4444 said:
Post the single piece of evidence that you believe proves 9/11 was an inside job. I've seen a lot of information that is suspicious, but what is your smoking gun?
Click to expand...

The smoking gun is your fairy tale that will never be confirmed, validated, or proven for a fact.
 
ImANiceGuy said:
A) No pictures exist that I know of. Are you saying that unless a picture or video exists, then it (molten steel) did not exist? Is eyewitness testimony in conjunction with physical evidence (see below), not sufficient?
B) http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf
c)The thermal imaging was limited to the surface materials. see 911myths.com

Quad - I didn't ask the reason why alternate theories were quickly disseminated. My original statement was in criticism of the double standard that exists in this forum. If you had comprehended my statement, you would have replied as such.
Click to expand...

No I think my statement pretty much covers it. The reason a handbook could be used for you twoofers is because you keep spouting the same exact nonsense over and over again that has been tirelessly debunked. For example:

ImANiceGuy said:
Has anyone been able to explain how the fires in the two towers were only hot enough to cause structural failure(ie. not melt steel), yet molten metals were found in the rubble piles? Why was the steel hot enough to melt the worker's boots in the weeks post-collapse?

Could the fires that burned in the damaged sections of the towers spread as the building collapsed, and then grow into larger fires below the rubble that reached hotter temperatures?
Click to expand...

These are questions that have been debunked for many years, yet here you are asking them again. Do you understand why a handbook or guide can be applied to you twoofers? You are so predictable. My guess is that any evidence presented to you that answers your questions will be quickly ignored.
 
No pictures exist that I know of. Are you saying that unless a picture or video exists, then it (molten steel) did not exist? Is eyewitness testimony in conjunction with physical evidence (see below), not sufficient?
B) http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf
c)The thermal imaging was limited to the surface materials. see 911myths.com
______

Are you saying if no pictures exist of FL77 impacting the pentagon, that it did not happen? JAQ

Lets see.....where did I say that unless a picture or video exists, that molten steel does not exist? Thats right...I never said that. Oh well. What I was asking for was if you could present any. I will take your lack of a photo or video as a resounding "No".

So you can't give me A,B & C then? fair enough. I knew you would not be able.

I am 100% sure molten metal was found. I heard the testimony. Now, please prove that any molten material was indeed Structural steel... just a simple metallurgy report will do.

Whats that? You don't have one? My My My..then how are you show sure that any Molten material was Molten Annealed Steel? Faith? Speculation? What?

So, let me recap:

You don't have a pic or video of liquid metal, and none is forth coming

You do not have a metallurgy report to show what any liquid metal (that you don't have a pic of) actually is, and none is forthcoming.

And you are unable to explain why if people saw the substance with the naked eye..that the thermal imaging did not register tempratures indicative of Molten Structual steel.

Good job....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom