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

[Homeland Insurgency]

Stop lying. It already has been. People like you prefer to believe in stupid fantasies so you ignore reality.

What's taking so long dtugg? I mean you are still here aren't you?

All I claim is that there are still questions about 9/11.

Can't you put it all to bed already?

Why not?

Why are you here?

Help me out.

lol

 

[dtugg]

What's taking so long dtugg? I mean you are still here aren't you?

All I claim is that there are still questions about 9/11.

Can't you put it all to bed already?

Why not?

Why are you here?

Help me out.

lol

I am here because twoofer morons make me laugh.

Otherwise I couldn't care less about moron twoofers' fantasies.

I bet you cannot come up with one legitimate question about 9/11 which hasn't already been answered.

But go for it.

I dare you.

Please.

I am double spacing between sentences for some reason.

 

[TokenMac]

Stop lying. It already has been. People like you prefer to believe in stupid fantasies so you ignore reality.

Well in HI's flawed argument he thinks that we are claiming to know every single detail of 9/11, so he keeps asking stupid questions like "how many plane parts where found" and "Where are those parts being held" like that information would mean anything.

You see in his mind if no one knows how many rats died on 9/11 then we can't know everything about 9/11,there for it could be an inside job.

 

[Carll68]

Do you even understand the metallurgy report presented by FEMA that you presented here?

1st, I thought FEMA was in on it? Or are they not now? Good guys? Bad guys? What?

2nd, what was the maximum temperature that the sample (wtc7) reached?

3rd, is this temprature enough to make structural steel molten?

4th, what do they determine caused this high temperature corrosion?

I know the answer to each one of these questions. You should also.

Each answer, and the report itself, refutes that any Molten Structural steel was present.


I applaud your effort..but quite frankly your execution is lacking......

 

[ImANiceGuy]

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....

OK, whoa.....lets take a deep breath here.

A) In my previous comment I asked if you believed that lack of photographic evidence disproves its existence. I ask this question because there are plenty of eye witness accounts that describe either molten steel or molten metal.

B) I provided you with a link to a FEMA metallurgy report that states that steel had been melted in the debris. And I quote, "Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting..." These small pieces which were recovered, could corroborate the witness reports of molten steel. A series of eutectic reactions on a larger scale could have caused molten steel right?

C) I also provided you a link to a popular debunking site, 911myths.com which states that the thermal imaging done by NASA is limited to the surface materials.

 

[BigAl]

B) I provided you with a link to a FEMA metallurgy report that states that steel had been melted in the debris.

No you haven't. Everything else you claim has zero support in first-hand eyewitnesses or the evidence and physics of the pile.

There is no eyewitness report can't better be explained by hyperbole and metaphor. There was lots of that in use by the witnesses to WTC on 9/11.

 

[Justin39640]

The smoking gun is your fairy tale that will never be confirmed, validated, or proven for a fact.

So much time and so little to do. Wait a minute. Strike that. Reverse it.

lol

 

[beachnut]

OK, whoa.....lets take a deep breath here.

...B) I provided you with a link to a FEMA metallurgy report that states that steel had been melted in the debris.

...

2 samples. Wowzer. What does it mean? Erosion? Is that pools of melted steel? How much steel melted and what does it mean for 19 terrorists and 911?

 

[Carll68]

See post 84

I never said the only way to prove something was with photographic evidence . I asked if you had any. Pretty big distinction, eh?

You do not. Strike one

You do not understand the FEMA report you linked. it shows maximum temps of 1000C. Well below the temp needed to melt annealed steel. Strike 2

We agree that the Thermal imaging results were surface.. because, well, it was. Which is why I clearly asked "if explain why if people saw the substance with the NAKED EYE". Naked eye would equate to a surface temp recognition from the TIP. Strike 3.

So, tell me...why do you believe that any molten material found was indeed molten STRUCTURAL STEEL? What is your evidence?

Is this not a simple, straightforward question?

Please answer accordingly.

 

[ImANiceGuy]

Carl, are you dense?

I asked you if you thought that photographic eveidence was necessary to prove its existence.

The worst part is that you're probably Canadian, as evidenced by your use of "eh".

Ignore the scores of witnesses at this link:

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/12/why-was-there-molten-metal-under.html

 

[Carll68]

beachnut's comments are spot on, enjoyable, and, frankly, very observant.

All the man wants is some evidence, some math, some science...to back up your delusions. You (generalizing 'you' as truthers) make the assertions..is it not fair to ask for evidence to back them?

if you are unable or unwilling to provide evidence, and/or the math and science to add weight to your delusions claims, then, I can see why you would spit a tirade filled rhetoric laden post disparaging him, and stating his comments are worthless.

To you, they are.

He is simply asking for evidence, after all.

Plus, I, for one, never tire of reading the phrase "dirt dumb"

 

[BigAl]

Carl, are you dense?

I asked you if you thought that photographic eveidence was necessary to prove its existence.

The worst part is that you're probably Canadian, as evidenced by your use of "eh".

Ignore the scores of witnesses at this link:

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/12/why-was-there-molten-metal-under.html

None of the people quoted says "I saw". They are all second hand.

Given that there is no science or evidence for molten steel on the pile, the alleged quotes are better explained by hyperbole, metaphor and the exaggeration of the sort generated by the game of Telephone.

 

[Carll68]

Carl, are you dense?

I asked you if you thought that photographic eveidence was necessary to prove its existence.

The worst part is that you're probably Canadian, as evidenced by your use of "eh".

Ignore the scores of witnesses at this link:

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/12/why-was-there-molten-metal-under.html

Champ...I only answered the question numerous times, didnt I?

Nope... photographic evidence is not necessary to prove existence. I never said it was. I asked if you had any. You don't. No one does. Get over it.

Evidence is needed. You do not have that either. The FEMA reports you provided blows up in your face by showing temps not high enough to melt annealed steel. Oooops.

Thermal imaging of surface temps show no temps hot enough to melt annealed steel..but you are relying on testimony from eyewitnesses. Oooops

You do not have a metallurgy report to show what any molten substance was. Oooops

Explain why what people saw could not be Molten glass or any other material that looks bright orange when it is a liquid state?

I am asking a simple question: Why do you believe their was molten structural steel when there is no evidence to support this?

 

[Carll68]

I think that long forgotten recently referenced truther handbook on the protocol used to debate is being put into action here by our friendly neighborhood terrorist apologists..


Lots of ducking and dodging..lots of topic switching, assumptions and goalpost moving.

Good night

 

[beachnut]

Sorry Al, but your first post in this thread voids you from further conversation. Please try again in another thread.

And butternut, you proved yourself to be a very angry person filled with venom long before I ever read this forum. Try incense, and take a break from policing the ct'ers, at the end of the day no one cares who you are, so all you're little worthless comments are just that.

Does this mean you only have two samples of erosion?

I have not found a witness who saw steel flowing. You know glowing steel is called molten. I have see molten steel that was not liquid; it was glowing.

Venom? Is it true you could use your own advice? Thank you very much.

2 samples. Wowzer. What does it mean? Erosion? Is that pools of melted steel? How much steel melted and what does it mean for 19 terrorists and 911?

Venom? lol

Simple questions destroy your delusions? What is your goal? How do your posts tie to some single integrated operations plan for 911? Where are you going with this? What does it mean to 911? Goals?

Carl, are you dense?

I asked you if you thought that photographic eveidence was necessary to prove its existence.

The worst part is that you're probably Canadian, as evidenced by your use of "eh".

Ignore the scores of witnesses at this link:

[URL]http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/12/why-was-there-molten-metal-under.html[/URL]

You make posts but you fail to support your hearsay presentation. You post moronic claims at a nut case truther site; old georgewashington is nuts on 911 and can't support his failed ideas either. You have found your kind of moronic tripe and now you spew it as facts; who is the dense one?


From your post you never checked out and read! This person never said molten steel! Why do you post LIES? You call other people dense?

An employee of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue witnessed "Fires burn[ing and molten steel flow[ing] in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet."

Do you read the false information you post? Why do you propagate lies based on hearsay? Why are you unable to do much but cut and past lies?

You post junk you never checkout and confirm. You cherry-pick and quote-mine idiots who use hearsay, cherry-picked and quote-mined news articles. The news guys added the molten steel flowing beneath her feet. lol

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I am double spacing between sentences for some reason.

Putting more than ten words too close together just comfuses some people around here.

 

[JohnG]

Carl, are you dense?

I asked you if you thought that photographic eveidence was necessary to prove its existence.

The worst part is that you're probably Canadian, as evidenced by your use of "eh".

Ignore the scores of witnesses at this link:

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/12/why-was-there-molten-metal-under.html

Sorry Al, but your first post in this thread voids you from further conversation. Please try again in another thread.

And butternut, you proved yourself to be a very angry person filled with venom long before I ever read this forum. Try incense, and take a break from policing the ct'ers, at the end of the day no one cares who you are, so all you're little worthless comments are just that.

Hey, waitaminute! Why, you're not a nice guy at all!

And you're attempting a "death by mod" to get you out of the corner you've painted yourself into.

Classy

 

[EvilBiker]

OK, whoa.....lets take a deep breath here.

A) In my previous comment I asked if you believed that lack of photographic evidence disproves its existence. I ask this question because there are plenty of eye witness accounts that describe either molten steel or molten metal.

Big difference between molten steel and molten metal.

B) I provided you with a link to a FEMA metallurgy report that states that steel had been melted in the debris. And I quote, "Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting..." These small pieces which were recovered, could corroborate the witness reports of molten steel. A series of eutectic reactions on a larger scale could have caused molten steel right?

Big difference between intergranular melting (which I would expect under the high stress levels during collapse), and pools of molten steel.

To give a simple example: You could achieve localised intergranular melting by bending a steel teaspoon repeatedly until it became plastic at the bending point. While the metal at macro level may be considered "molten" for very small periods, I do not see how you can equate this to pools of molten steel...

 

[Dr. Lao]

The one thing that a Troofer won't do is provide proof.

My tagline says it all.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

The worst part is that you're probably Canadian, as evidenced by your use of "eh".

I'm a Canadian, 24 of my countrymen (including a former player for the Edmonton Oilers) were murdered on 9/11 by the islamo-fascists you are covering for. You insult the honor of the Canadians who serve in NORAD by accusing them of covering up the crime.

Would you be interested in coming up here to Edmonton to discuss your views about Canada and it's servicmen and women with an Afghanistan veteran from the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry or the Lord Strathcona's Horse Armoured regiment?