Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[BStrong]

Would YOU work in a building that was already wired for demolition ?No, they would have kept it behind closed doors.

Since no such situation is possible in reality, I'll never have to make that choice.

Your construct is based in popular fiction, not reality.

 

[Sunstealer]

A typical large blast furnace, such as the one at Redcar in the UK, will produce around 10,000 tonnes of iron per day. You are talking about more than two weeks worth of material. You have no idea how large that actually is, all of it at temperature greater than 1540°C and you expect all of this to go undetected? And you wonder why we laugh and point at you.

/shakes head.

 

[tmd2_1]

I will try to make my posts more readable. The question was (I'm paraphrasing) What about the eyewitnesses who saw molten steel? His answer was I am aware of no eyewitnesses who saw molten steel.

He said nothing about confirmed reports, the word used was witness. There clearly were, and he is most likely lying or at best grossly negligent.

 

[The Platypus]

My "delusion" (sarcasm) about John Gross lying comes from that video

A guy from a cult of constant liars accusing someone else of lying... now that's rich...

If we should discount all of NIST because of your single accusation towards this one guy, why should i even entertain anything any 911 kook says, when i have seen so many of you lie so often it's pathetic?

PS: I just watched the video, and it's the usual mix of quotemining and dishonest 911 kook cult propoganda tactics... hardly convincing. Only the gullible, the stupid and the paranoid mentally ill will find this to be solid evidence. Also gotta love too how it pumps a bunch of major conspiracy sites in the description... Gee go figure

 

[DGM]

I will try to make my posts more readable. The question was (I'm paraphrasing) What about the eyewitnesses who saw molten steel? His answer was I am aware of no eyewitnesses who saw molten steel.

He said nothing about confirmed reports, the word used was witness. There clearly were, and he is most likely lying or at best grossly negligent.

He's right. Unless solidified steel was found, no witnesses saw "molten steel". Understand? Witnesses heard "freight trains", were there freight trains? How is he lying?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I will try to make my posts more readable. The question was (I'm paraphrasing) What about the eyewitnesses who saw molten steel? His answer was I am aware of no eyewitnesses who saw molten steel.

He said nothing about confirmed reports, the word used was witness. There clearly were, and he is most likely lying or at best grossly negligent.

Or that he's aware there are people who aren't versed in metallurgy in general and are prone to mis-classifying metals when thry aren't highly knowledgeable it the topics. Seeing molten metals is reasonable; there were metals that bhave relatively low melting points that can be explained. There were no such temperatures for melting steel, therefore witnesses decribing metal as steel are in most cases wrong, and them being wrong doesn't require that they be liars.

 

[bill smith]

A typical large blast furnace, such as the one at Redcar in the UK, will produce around 10,000 tonnes of iron per day. You are talking about more than two weeks worth of material. You have no idea how large that actually is, all of it at temperature greater than 1540°C and you expect all of this to go undetected? And you wonder why we laugh and point at you.

/shakes head.

It represented only a fraction of the steel in the building. !5,000 tons from a total of 100,000 tons
It wasn't undetected as you well know.Ask any fireman who was there even months after the collapse. Do you want some videos of them ? Bet you don't. Ask the satellite that measured surface temperstures in the thousand or fifteen hundred degree range weeks after the collapses. Always remembering that the surface was 70 feet above the molten steel of course.

 

[twinstead]

Look at the picture of the situation room during the Osama Bin Laden raid. That picture is of a room full of Americans, some of whom also happen to be Jewish.

America First

Focus indeed.

Jesus, you sure have the ideologue blinders on now. Can't you focus on the debate on hand without resorting to some idiotic irrational non sequitur?

 

[WildCat]

I will try to make my posts more readable. The question was (I'm paraphrasing) What about the eyewitnesses who saw molten steel? His answer was I am aware of no eyewitnesses who saw molten steel.

He said nothing about confirmed reports, the word used was witness. There clearly were, and he is most likely lying or at best grossly negligent.

You have yet to explain how molten anything weeks after 9/11 should have been something Gross needed to know.

You claim it's evidence of thermite, but it can't possibly be evidence of thermite because thermite can't burn that long nor can it keep anything molten once it stops burning.

Your issue is with your own delusions and ignorance, not with Gross.

 

[Sabretooth]

I will try to make my posts more readable. The question was (I'm paraphrasing) What about the eyewitnesses who saw molten steel? His answer was I am aware of no eyewitnesses who saw molten steel.

He said nothing about confirmed reports, the word used was witness. There clearly were, and he is most likely lying or at best grossly negligent.

And it's been explained to you more than once in this very thread...

There wasn't any molten "steel". Your supposed "witnesses", who may or may not have seen anything, are not qualified to make such statements.

If anything, there very likely could have been molten aluminum, lead, glass...or, though less likely, sheet metal. All of which have lower melting points than steel.

Here are some melting points for items could feasibly be the source of your "molten steel" as described by your "witnesses":


Tin - 230^OC
Lead - 330^OC
Aluminum - 650^OC
Plate Glass - 830^OC
Bronze - 910^OC
Brass - 960^OC
WTC Fires - ~1000^OC
Copper - 1080^OC
Steel - 1500^OC

Notice anything, tmd? Or are you still going to harp on some "he lied" BS versus arguing real facts?

 

[tmd2_1]

Let me address whether he was lying or not by giving this example. If I were to say the Earth is the biggest planet in the solar system. And someone were to say...what did he (meaning myself) say in regards to the size of the earth. Then the reply given is he (meaning me) didn't say anything about it. That is a lie. If the reply were...he said the earth is the largest but he is wrong about that...it is not a lie..merely correcting what I said.

Note I am not saying there was not molten steel, just using this as an example. The fact he wouldn't address that there were eye witnesses is both a lie (or grossly negligent) and I would even say suspicious.

 

[Sabretooth]

Let me address whether he was lying or not by giving this example. If I were to say the Earth is the biggest planet in the solar system. And someone were to say...what did he (meaning myself) say in regards to the size of the earth. Then the reply given is he (meaning me) didn't say anything about it. That is a lie. If the reply were...he said the earth is the largest but he is wrong about that...it is not a lie..merely correcting what I said.

Note I am not saying there was not molten steel, just using this as an example. The fact he wouldn't address that there were eye witnesses is both a lie (or grossly negligent) and I would even say suspicious.

BFD

I wouldn't care if he lied to my face...it does not change the facts and/or evidence of what happened on 9/11. Get over it.

 

[tmd2_1]

@ Wildcat...

Here is a link to Steven Jones article about the subject. He gives a good case. I will save you the trouble...your reply will be he is a kook, it's all been "debunked" he only wants money...etc etc. Believe it or don't believe it...that is up to you.

But let me ask you what exactly was burning and causing fires and very high temperatures despite literally millions of gallons being dumped on the site, along with several rain falls, into February?

I apologize...forgot the link.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/f67q6272583h86n4/

 

[Sabretooth]

@ Wildcat...

Here is a link to Steven Jones article about the subject. He gives a good case. I will save you the trouble...your reply will be he is a kook, it's all been "debunked" he only wants money...etc etc. Believe it or don't believe it...that is up to you.

But let me ask you what exactly was burning and causing fires and very high temperatures despite literally millions of gallons being dumped on the site, along with several rain falls, into February?

I apologize...forgot the link.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/f67q6272583h86n4/

February?

9/11/2001 + 99 days = 12/19/2001

You're two months off...about par for the course, eh?


ETA: oh, yeah...and Jones is a kook and a moron.

 

[Sunstealer]

It represented only a fraction of the steel in the building. !5,000 tons from a total of 100,000 tons
It wasn't undetected as you well know.Ask any fireman who was there even months after the collapse. Do you want some videos of them ? Bet you don't. Ask the satellite that measured surface temperstures in the thousand or fifteen hundred degree range weeks after the collapses. Always remembering that the surface was 70 feet above the molten steel of course.

I know full well that 15,000 tonnes of liquid steel were not observed. It's absurd to even suggest it. Temperatures in the rubble pile were from combustibles burning, 1000°C is not unlikely. The rubble pile was over a significant area. If 15,000 tonnes of steel were in the basement then we wouldn't see random areas of the rubble pile at high temperatures. It would all be seen within your hypothetical, laughable basement.

Your problem is you have to believe in nonsense for some unknown reason.

 

[tmd2_1]

Read Steven Jones article...anomalies occurred into February.

 

[Sabretooth]

Read Steven Jones article...anomalies occurred into February.

So he says.

So what?

I'm curious...you don't want to trust Gross because of what could be a lie...but yet, Jones has blatantly lied more than once and you're ready to bet the farm on his ramblings.

Your "logic" is dizzying. Good luck.

 

[tmd2_1]

Regardless of what you think of Jones, this data is from the EPA, whom they had to file a FOIA request just to get it.

But it is nice to hear that the lead NIST investigator could lie right to your face, the man who's suppose to be responsible for supplying these facts and evidence, and you wouldn't have a problem with it.

 

[The Platypus]

As usual 911 kooks instantly trust only the word of people within the cult without even considering how pathetically weak such sources are, or the dishonest tactics they use... Nor do they want anyone else to consider these things...

 

[The Platypus]

Regardless of what you think of Jones, this data is from the EPA, whom they had to file a FOIA request just to get it.

But it is nice to hear that the lead NIST investigator could lie right to your face, the man who's suppose to be responsible for supplying these facts and evidence, and you wouldn't have a problem with it.

Your not fooling anyone, we can tell that the ones lying to our faces are you 911 cult kooks.