Coast to Coast AM Debate, August 21 2010

[Christopher7]

Just because some of them said that it LOOKED LIKE (similie) doesn't constitute them as being explosives.

Ignoring or hand waving these numerous statements constitutes a cover up.

Oh did I hurt your feelings about calling you a liar? Well you are a liar so put up with it!

You repeatedly ignore the rules because you know you will be allowed to do so.

A lie! Rust was found, not nano-thermite.

Denial

No they can't! I can find rust on anything that has iron oxide (rust) on them.

More denial. Nano particles of iron oxide and aluminum, intimately mixed, were found in the WTC dust.

How come nothing you said is made true?

You are talking to yourself.

This is the denier gang barrage of abject denial. You simply deny all the evidence and then call me a liar. Pathetic.

You claim that there's iron spheres, alright. Then where's the aluminum spheres that go with the iron ones??

The nano particles of aluminum were not spheres, They were intimately mixed with the nano sized iron oxide spheres. This can only be accomplished in a high tech lab.

You will persist in denying but that's OK. It is obvious to the objective reader that you are consistently denying the evidence.

Have a nice day.

 

[triforcharity]

Please verify with a reliable source. The hottest temperatures I have seen from a reliable source are ~1,800^oF

http://www.promat-tunnel.com/en/fire-curves.htm Easy enough.

The hotter a fire burns, the faster it uses up it's fuel supply. An office fire can only burn at max temperatures for about 20 minutes.

Wow, you got something semi-correct! But you see, the 20 minute figure is for small, partitioned offices. Not wide open offices like what was found in the WTC.

How long would would it take to heat up a steel column?

Depends on the steel size.

 

[bill smith]

False.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fs_ogSbQFbM

Leslie Robertson later denied he said this but the others have not. They are qualified to say there was molten steel and you are not qualified to say they don't know what they are talking about. Your denial is just that, denial.

Robertson didn't deny saying that he had seen molten steel. He said that he 'could not recall ' having said that he did. So without the positive denial it is clear enough for most people that he did say it and only feared that an outright denial might produce a video or an audio recording that would put him on the spot.

 

[triforcharity]

Not.
The people who make jet fuel say it burns at ~500-600^oF in open air.
JET A-1
Flash point 38°C
Auto-ignition temperature 210°C
Freezing point -47°C (-40°C for JET A)
Open air burning temperatures 260-315°C (500-599°F)
Maximum burning temperature 980°C (1796 °F)
Density at 15 °C (60 °F) 0.775-0.840 kg/L
http://mepetroleum.com/jet_fuel.htm

Proof that the NatGeo piece was a fraud.

I did the math a few pages back. I guess you missed it.

About half of the jet fuel burned up in the fireball. That leaves ~5,000 gallons. The area of one floor was ~40,000 sq ft.
5,000 ./. 40,000 = .125 or 1/8 gallon per sq ft.

No, I saw your estimates. They are purely speculation though.

Yes, OPEN air burning. Do you understand how that differs from the WTC? Yeah, go google chimney effect.

 

[beachnut]

Robertson didn't deny saying that he had seen molten steel. He said that he 'could not recall ' having said that he did. So without the positive denial it is clear enough for most people that he did say it and only feared that an outright denial might produce a video or an audio recording that would put him on the spot.

Because Gage was telling a lie; Robertson never said it.

Prove he said it. You can't, so now you are making up more delusions based on lies and fantasy.

 

[Christopher7]

http://www.promat-tunnel.com/en/fire-curves.htm Easy enough.

URL please

the 20 minute figure is for small, partitioned offices. Not wide open offices like what was found in the WTC.

The amount of time it takes to exhaust the fuel remains the same. The only difference is the fire spread faster in an open area with cubicles.

 

[Christopher7]

Because Gage was telling a lie; Robertson never said it.

Prove he said it. You can't, so now you are making up more delusions based on lies and fantasy.

Mr. Gage was quoting this article.

Article in SEAU News by James M. Williams, SEAU President
The Newsletter of the Structural Engineers Association of Utah
Volume VI- Issue II October 2001
“As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running.”
http://old.seau.org/SEAUNews-2001-10.pdf


Thou doth cry "liar" too much. It has become a joke.

 

[beachnut]

Mr. Gage was quoting this article.

Article in SEAU News by James M. Williams, SEAU President
The Newsletter of the Structural Engineers Association of Utah
Volume VI- Issue II October 2001
“As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running.”
http://old.seau.org/SEAUNews-2001-10.pdf


Thou doth cry "liar" too much. It has become a joke.

If you say Robertson said the quote you are a liar. The statement was made by James Williams, and not Robertson. Williams was not at the WTC, he was spewing some hearsay.

Gage knows he was telling a lie and explains he knows. I posted proof.

The quote you posted is hearsay, no support with facts or evidence. Robertson never said it and agrees with me. Sorry you can't get anything right about 911 after 9 years of failure.

The joke is the failure of 911 truth to produce any evidence or rational claims. The joke is 9 years of failure as you lie about Robertson based on Gage's lie. You post lies from liars on 911. That is all the action you have taken for 9 years; spreading lies due to lack of knowledge and gullibility.

Now you posted proof Roberson never said, "steel was still running". You debunk Gage and yourself. Read the article next time and do some research.

 

[triforcharity]

You are talking potential air temps and air temps do not equate directly to steel temps in a structure which is on fire. Anyone worthy of debating this issue knows that.

If what you are saying occurred it would have been evident on the steel and it is impossible to simply claim it would be regardless.

Why wasn't the steel from the collapse initiation zones saved for analysis in the investigation? Many fire professionals were appalled that it wasn't.

Potential? No, certain. Also, many would have been much higher, given the smokestack effect that occured.

I don't know why more of the steel wasn't saved. Maybe it was dustified? Melted maybe? I dunno.

 

[triforcharity]

You know nothing about what nano-thermite can do so stop making false statements like that.

We know it is not explosive. BTW, neither do you, so STFU.

 

[Christopher7]

If you say Robertson said the quote you are a liar. The statement was made by James Williams, and not Robertson. Williams was not at the WTC, he was spewing some hearsay.

Do you think James M. Williams, SEAU President, is lying?

 

[triforcharity]

That is the proof. .

Here is a picture of Mothra, which was the actual cause of the building collapses.

Where's the proof? It right there.............Because I said so.

 

[Christopher7]

Potential? No, certain. Also, many would have been much higher, given the smokestack effect that occured.

Speculation.

You have not provided the source for your temperature chart. Please do so. A chart without a source is meaningless.

 

[triforcharity]

False.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fs_ogSbQFbM

Leslie Robertson later denied he said this but the others have not. They are qualified to say there was molten steel and you are not qualified to say they don't know what they are talking about. Your denial is just that, denial.

How many other metals could it be Chris? 5? Yeah, at least. All of which melt below or at 1,000 deg. F

 

[Disbelief]

Speculation.

You have not provided the source for your temperature chart. Please do so. A chart without a source is meaningless.

Who are you to talk to others about speculation? You speculate about military grade nanothermite. You speculate about explosives used with nanothermite.

 

[triforcharity]

URL please

Um, that is a URL. Look at it....Jeez!! FFS!!

The amount of time it takes to exhaust the fuel remains the same. The only difference is the fire spread faster in an open area with cubicles.

BZZZZTTTT!!!!! Wrong! Try again!! This time, without the argument from personal IGNORANCE.....

 

[Christopher7]

How many other metals could it be Chris? 5? Yeah, at least. All of which melt below or at 1,000 deg. F

It could have been something else, therefore, it was.

All those professionals were mistaken but the denier choir knows better.

Yippie-ki-yo-ki-yay

 

[beachnut]

Do you think James M. Williams, SEAU President, is lying?

Williams is repeating hearsay, and he never attributed the quote to Robertson. Read the article you posted making Gage a liar, and Gage knowingly making a false statement to NIST and in his presentations.

You posted proof the quote was not from Robertson.

Robertson never said what you and Gage lied about. You have failed to apologize for making up a lie.

 

[Christopher7]

Um, that is a URL.

Very clever. What is the source? What is the URL for document it came from? Who authored the document and what fires are they referring to?

 

[beachnut]

Very clever. What is the source? What is the URL for document it came from? Who authored the document and what fires are they referring to?

The URL is the source, and the source of the source is there!

This is why you can't figure out 911~!!!!




... when you post soruces, they debunk you!