• 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.

Invitation to Derek Johnson to discuss his ideas

ImANiceGuy said:
I do not immediately accept things that are told to me, I prefer to come to my own conclusions. If you think I'll cease my line of questioning based upon your opening statement, you might want to reconsider.
Click to expand...

Listening and asking on-topic questions for answers you don't understand would be nice and it would distance yourself from every Twoofer in the world.
 
.

The relevance of molten metal/steel is that it could possibly be evidence of additional incendiary used in addition to the plane crashes to collapse the towers.
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]

How? We all know the building was on fire when it collapsed and that it contained many substances that would melt well below the melting point of steel and below the estimated temperatures in the pile. How could reports of molten metal, none of which made any attempt to test what the "metal" was, possibly be used as evidence? evidence of what? That fire is hot???:rolleyes:
 
In my opinion, the fires in the towers should have been extinguished during the collapse. They would not spread throughout the rubble in oven-like scenarios.

The fires, although sufficient to cause local structural failures(is this an acceptable description?), were not Madrid Tower-esque infernos. I have a hard time wrapping my head around the extended heat present in GZ.
 
BigAl said:
Listening and asking on-topic questions for answers you don't understand would be nice and it would distance yourself from every Twoofer in the world.
Click to expand...

I suppose this is the reason why JREF skeptics are so anti-just asking questions; classical truthers are usually asking questions to which they already have determined their answer.

I ask questions to obtain new information that can be assimilated into my opinion; not as a roundabout way of trapping skeptics.

This shift went by in a flash....I'll read more NCSTAR tonight and hopefully have some new-ish topics for discussion.

Bon soir mes amies.
 
ImANiceGuy said:
In my opinion, the fires in the towers should have been extinguished during the collapse. They would not spread throughout the rubble in oven-like scenarios.
Click to expand...
Unless you have some education or practical experience on which you base this opinion, it's less then useless. This is a serious subject, it's not sports or entertainment, and I think the rational approach would be to either research enough to have an informed opinion, or STFU. Of course you're welcome to have an opinion, I simply think on a topic like this an ignorant opinion is best left unsaid.
ImANiceGuy said:
The fires, although sufficient to cause local structural failures(is this an acceptable description?), were not Madrid Tower-esque infernos. I have a hard time wrapping my head around the extended heat present in GZ.
Click to expand...
I suggest you recognize the argument from personal incredulity fallacy before you type it and either educate yourself or again, STFU.

Sorry for being blunt, but quite honestly, I'm sick of ignorance being celebrated and justified when honest research, simply a matter of effort, is ignored.
 
ImANiceGuy said:
The relevance of molten metal/steel is that it could possibly be evidence of additional incendiary used in addition to the plane crashes to collapse the towers.
Click to expand...

The problem is that, without a plausible chain of reasoning from additional incendiaries assisting the collapse to molten steel present for many weeks in the rubble pile, then even the presence of molten steel would not be evidence of additional incendiaries. The whole 'molten steel proves incendiaries' line of argument is missing both its premise and its substance, and it seems rather pointless obsessing about proving the premise when there isn't even a suggested line of plausible reasoning from there to the conclusion.

ImANiceGuy said:
In my opinion, the fires in the towers should have been extinguished during the collapse. They would not spread throughout the rubble in oven-like scenarios.
Click to expand...

Your opinion is thermodynamically unsupportable. We know that there were elements in the towers, immediately prior to the collapse, at temperatures sufficiently high to initiate combustion of hydrocarbon fuel in the presence of sufficient air, in fact very much higher. Many of these elements had very large thermal masses. Even if the flames were extinguished during the collapse itself, these elements could not possibly have lost sufficient heat in the 15 seconds or so that they were falling for their temperatures to drop below the point of ignition. Therefore, once in the rubble pile, they would have re-ignited the fires even if they had been extinguished. Once re-ignited, of course, the rubble pile fires were a heat source, and would easily have spread.

ImANiceGuy said:
The fires, although sufficient to cause local structural failures(is this an acceptable description?), were not Madrid Tower-esque infernos.
Click to expand...

Perhaps it should be pointed out that this too is your opinion, and one completely at odds with all informed and unbiased opinions on the subject. The fires were in fact sufficient, according to all the competent analyses that have been carried out, to cause global structural failure; claiming that they were not is akin to begging the question.

ImANiceGuy said:
I have a hard time wrapping my head around the extended heat present in GZ.
Click to expand...

However, drawing conclusions from this difficulty is the very definition of the argument from ignorance fallacy.

Dave
 
Last edited:
Fonebone said:
Several JREF "sceptics" have made references to the year " 2006 ".
What happened in 2006 and how does it affect the 9/11/2001 truth quest
today ?
Click to expand...

Truth(TM)wise nothing significant happened in 2006. The world has moved on, but a handful of truthers, who keep repeating the same claims, that were long debunked in 2006, over and over again.

Why do you want to know? Do you have something new to bring to the Truth(TM) table?
 
ImANiceGuy said:
In my opinion, the fires in the towers should have been extinguished during the collapse.
Click to expand...

Why is this your opinion?

What have you done to confirm that your opinion is a realistic reflection of fact?

Have you ever considered, for example, that when a large house or small factory collapses following a fire, the fire crews will damp-down for many hours after the fire is apparently out, because re-ignition is a very real danger? And that a much larger fire (such as WTC) buried under vast amounts of rubble is much harder to put out in the first place, what with no direct route to extinguish the burning material? And that some of this burning material may have made its way into car park areas with a large amounts of petrol to add to the effect?

Sorry to be so blunt, but your 'opinion' is worth diddly-squat. Stop making an idiot of yourself by parading worthless opinion in public. Learn something about the subject.
 
ImANiceGuy said:
I suppose this is the reason why JREF skeptics are so anti-just asking questions; classical truthers are usually asking questions to which they already have determined their answer.
Click to expand...

No...it's because they present what they clearly believe are facts in the form of questions so they don't have to take responsibility for them. "Asking Questions with a Hidden Agenda" is a well-known verbal trick that reveals the intellectual cowardice of the speaker.
 
ImANiceGuy said:
In my opinion, the fires in the towers should have been extinguished during the collapse. They would not spread throughout the rubble in oven-like scenarios.
Click to expand...
Your opinion is noted, and it is 100% wrong.

The fires, although sufficient to cause local structural failures(is this an acceptable description?), were not Madrid Tower-esque infernos. I have a hard time wrapping my head around the extended heat present in GZ.
Click to expand...
Maybe it would be easier if you looked at the Madrid Tower next to WTC 1, 2, or 7. Those 3 buildings dwarf the Madrid Tower. The fires were much, much larger.
 
ImANiceGuy said:
In my opinion, the fires in the towers should have been extinguished during the collapse. They would not spread throughout the rubble in oven-like scenarios.

The fires, although sufficient to cause local structural failures(is this an acceptable description?), were not Madrid Tower-esque infernos. I have a hard time wrapping my head around the extended heat present in GZ.
Click to expand...


The fires were fully as bad as at Madrid (the police helicopter photos show files over at least 10 floors of WTC1. If the fires had been at night then they would have looked much more like Madrid.
Why would collapse have extinguished the fire rather than start more?:confused:
 
Last edited:
Truthers reliabaly fail to realize that the steel-frame portions of the Madrid Windsor (perimeter on upper floors) DID collapse - it was the reinforced concrete core and lower stories that withstood the fire.
 
ImANiceGuy said:
What does this even mean in the context of my post? You can't just throw this saying around when you hear something that you don't agree with...

We would have to have first set the goalposts in order to move them right?
Click to expand...

Ah but you DID move the goal posts.

You asked if there was any recovered formerly molten metals of any sort.

I provided you with the knowledge that there was molten aluminum recovered from the debris and was on display.

You then shifted the goalposts to LARGE amounts of molten metal.

You asked, I answered, and you shifted.

As to your shift, I do not know of any large pools of solidified molten aluminum, tin, zinc, bronze, brass or copper that was found. But since any solidified pools of those metals would easily remelt to be removed, I don't think it would have been considered a big deal.

But large pools of solidified STEEL would have taken quite a bit of cutting to remove.

I'd wager that any solidified pools of formerly molten metals would have solidified on structural steel members, or would have gathered in low points at the bottom of the piles.
 
ImANiceGuy said:
In my opinion, the fires in the towers should have been extinguished during the collapse. They would not spread throughout the rubble in oven-like scenarios.

The fires, although sufficient to cause local structural failures(is this an acceptable description?), were not Madrid Tower-esque infernos. I have a hard time wrapping my head around the extended heat present in GZ.
Click to expand...
Fires should be extinguished. No wonder the flaming arrow fails to work. Oops. You are making fun of 911 truth; right? You are doing a parody of stupid ideas from 911 truth; right?

Madrid fires were smaller, you are fooled again due to the night and lack of a big bright light called the SUN that overpowered the light from the flames. At night the WTC fires would look big and 911 truth would not make up lies due to ignorance. If you disagree then present the math. The Madrid fire destroyed the building, the building was totaled by fire; no aircraft impacts, no 10,000 gallons of flaming fuel to start fires on multiple floors in seconds! lol, this is cool you debunk 911 truth and do a parody at the same time. (the Madrid fire totaled the building, it was too weak to use due to fire)

When you bring up the Madrid fire you prove you are a 911 truth cult member.

Go start a big fire in your back yard during a clear sunny day in the clear area where the sun beams in at 10am (use dry leaves); now do the same thing at night. Which was the bigger fire based on simple observation using the same size pile of the same dry leaves. Have your parents supervise.
 
Derek?

Where are you Derek?

Are you going to address Tom's or anyone else's points?

These things need to be addressed if you are going to continue speaking as a truther....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom