sylvan8798
Master Poster
- Joined
- May 25, 2009
- Messages
- 2,847
Is it your studied position that steel is not affected by the increases in temperature accompanying the typical fire?mrkinnies said:
Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread
- Thread starter Cuddles
- Start date
- Status
I will try to address all the posts referring to me here
Well to start with I never mentioned NWO/Illuminati or anything of the sort.
Wildcat asked me to prove thermite could burn for that many days. I was referring him to the Steven Jones article that I think does a pretty good job of at least making a case. I am not shifting gears or anything of the sort. Look through the thread, all I am doing is responding to people. Yeah sure I initially posted stuff, everything starts with that..obviously, but now I am only responding and defending myslef. Oh I think I proved a rather important fact, that John Gross was caught lying. Spin it any way you like...you know this is a big deal. Look through the thread anything I stated as a fact is all true, anything that wasn't I clearly said that it wasn't by using words like could be etc.... I know you like to point out to me to prove thermite can burn for that long. As I said before read Jones' article...but what amazes me is the fact that the fires lasted into February or even if you want to go with 99 days (either one is bad) very high temperatures were recorded throughout....would could have done that? That doesn't bother you? It's just whether or not thermite could burn for that long. Truly amazing. Here's another nice little *fact* for you. The EPA information in Jones report that he had to file a FOIA request for is higher then what was released to the general public in the time after 9/11. Don't believe me, it's all in the his report and referenced. I'm sure the EPA didn't want to hide anything, it couldn't have been something like that.
No he was asked about witnesses to molten steal, and he said he knows of no witnesses that said they saw molten steel. I can't make any clearer then I did in the example.
hmmm no evidence. Take a look at what Lloyde England had to say. Now I am no fan of CIT, I don't believe they follow a scientific process, but that doesn't mean everything they have should be thrown out. I mean you can honestly look at this video and not have questions? Let me save you the trouble...they were not beating up an old man... you can see there was no gun to his head. This is not taken out of context. He clearly says it was planned, and the people that have all the money..this is their thing and he is not suppose to be involved. How much more clear can it get? Even if you want to throw all of his statements, look at the physical evidence. How does a light pole puncture the windshield of a cab...go all the to the back seat and the hood still looks like it came off the assembly line? Then you have and elderly average sized man, removes a 200+ pound light pole by himself from the car. Give me a break. Some might say why would they pick someone like Lloyde yo be involved. I can't answer that, maybe he was in the wrong place at the wrong time, maybe they wanted a sort of "every man" I don't know. But don't take my word for it...he says it right in the video...I'm in it. For these reasons along with way to many to go over here I find the official story at the pentagon highly unlikely. That doesn't mean I say a jet airliner didn't crash into the pentagon..sure it could have, just because *some* jet air liner crashed into the pentagon it still doesn't mean the official story is true. Simple way to make me and others a believer though...just release the other footage...strange how they won't do that. But I'm sure all of this is just another paranoid delusion of mine.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GHM5f9lVho
Yes I've already stated, I in no way want the official story to be false...think about what that means? But if the evidence points that way( and to me the evidence is against the official story), I accept it and try to do something about it.
People keep asking me questions and challenging me, it really doesn't matter to me, the ADMINs can move it if they want.
Well to start with I never mentioned NWO/Illuminati or anything of the sort.
Wildcat asked me to prove thermite could burn for that many days. I was referring him to the Steven Jones article that I think does a pretty good job of at least making a case. I am not shifting gears or anything of the sort. Look through the thread, all I am doing is responding to people. Yeah sure I initially posted stuff, everything starts with that..obviously, but now I am only responding and defending myslef. Oh I think I proved a rather important fact, that John Gross was caught lying. Spin it any way you like...you know this is a big deal. Look through the thread anything I stated as a fact is all true, anything that wasn't I clearly said that it wasn't by using words like could be etc.... I know you like to point out to me to prove thermite can burn for that long. As I said before read Jones' article...but what amazes me is the fact that the fires lasted into February or even if you want to go with 99 days (either one is bad) very high temperatures were recorded throughout....would could have done that? That doesn't bother you? It's just whether or not thermite could burn for that long. Truly amazing. Here's another nice little *fact* for you. The EPA information in Jones report that he had to file a FOIA request for is higher then what was released to the general public in the time after 9/11. Don't believe me, it's all in the his report and referenced. I'm sure the EPA didn't want to hide anything, it couldn't have been something like that.
No I don't "believe" he lied. I know he lied. Read through the thread I showed a video of him lying, not because he said there was no molten steel, but because he said he knows of no witness reports who said they saw molten steel.
No he was asked about witnesses to molten steal, and he said he knows of no witnesses that said they saw molten steel. I can't make any clearer then I did in the example.
Yeah except when the job is done and you want to destroy the evidence of the HQ's. See Barry Jennings and Michael Hess' account. Is it 100% proof of anything...no...but it is interesting to say the least. I'll save you the trouble though I'm sure they were mistaken...or they are just kooks, it had to be something like that right?
hmmm no evidence. Take a look at what Lloyde England had to say. Now I am no fan of CIT, I don't believe they follow a scientific process, but that doesn't mean everything they have should be thrown out. I mean you can honestly look at this video and not have questions? Let me save you the trouble...they were not beating up an old man... you can see there was no gun to his head. This is not taken out of context. He clearly says it was planned, and the people that have all the money..this is their thing and he is not suppose to be involved. How much more clear can it get? Even if you want to throw all of his statements, look at the physical evidence. How does a light pole puncture the windshield of a cab...go all the to the back seat and the hood still looks like it came off the assembly line? Then you have and elderly average sized man, removes a 200+ pound light pole by himself from the car. Give me a break. Some might say why would they pick someone like Lloyde yo be involved. I can't answer that, maybe he was in the wrong place at the wrong time, maybe they wanted a sort of "every man" I don't know. But don't take my word for it...he says it right in the video...I'm in it. For these reasons along with way to many to go over here I find the official story at the pentagon highly unlikely. That doesn't mean I say a jet airliner didn't crash into the pentagon..sure it could have, just because *some* jet air liner crashed into the pentagon it still doesn't mean the official story is true. Simple way to make me and others a believer though...just release the other footage...strange how they won't do that. But I'm sure all of this is just another paranoid delusion of mine.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GHM5f9lVho
Yes I've already stated, I in no way want the official story to be false...think about what that means? But if the evidence points that way( and to me the evidence is against the official story), I accept it and try to do something about it.
People keep asking me questions and challenging me, it really doesn't matter to me, the ADMINs can move it if they want.
Last edited:
Clayton Moore
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2008
- Messages
- 7,508
http://www2.ae911truth.org/newsletter/2011/07/index.php
Another Expert Blasts Official WTC Conspiracy Theory: Stephan Barasch, High-Rise Architect
http://ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/541-barasch.html
Watch for Barasch in the DVD
“9/11: Explosive Evidence – Experts Speak Out”
Premieres Everywhere September 7-11
http://www.ae911truth.net/store/product_info.php?cPath=27&products_id=145
Another Expert Blasts Official WTC Conspiracy Theory: Stephan Barasch, High-Rise Architect
http://ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/541-barasch.html
Watch for Barasch in the DVD
“9/11: Explosive Evidence – Experts Speak Out”
Premieres Everywhere September 7-11
http://www.ae911truth.net/store/product_info.php?cPath=27&products_id=145
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
Ah so they have some explosive residue to show us. Without that you're pretty well sunk. You're up against the Law of Conservation of Matter here. Run along and find it now.
I'll say this one more time...Gross is lying (or grossly negligent) not because he said there was no molten steel..but because he said he knows of no witnesses that said they saw molten steel. This is clearly lie, and one has to wonder...why didn't he say something yes I know of witnesses but what they actually saw was....blah blah blah. I would not say he was a liar if he said that. I believe the evidence points to there being molten steel but I can't say for 100% certainty that there was. As for your last point about Gage's career, I can't speak for that. What I can say is there are 1500+ well qualified architects and engineers, who have nothing to gain...and an awful lot to lose, who say the official story is false.
Yes I was...I was told there were no flashes at the WTC. I figured since the NIST report is pretty much the bible, everything in it must be 100% true, and any opinion that differs if wrong by default, that I would use to in fact show there were flashes.
Last edited:
Dash80
Rave on, Not Fade Away
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2011
- Messages
- 2,189
Typical truther, eyewitnesses are only useful if you can twist their words to fit your theories, and dismiss other parts of their testimony you can't make fit.
Mince
Master Poster
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2006
- Messages
- 2,009
The collapse of both buildings intitated at the precise point of aircraft impact. I'd start (and end) my examination there. Since the the collapses intiatied at the precise point of aircraft impact, how did the explosives at the precise point of aircraft impact survive the aircraft impact and subsequent fires?
Also, why shoot down Flight 93 when they needed it to hit Building 7?
Last edited:
tmd,
First question, tm: How old are you? I'm guessing pretty young.
I'm a lot older (approaching 60 way too fast for my own taste). In my generation, one called another person "a liar" with great trepidation. It was a great way to get your light punched out.
Second, you haven't the slightest clue as to whether Dr. Gross was lying or not. You haven't the slightest clue what he knew, or didn't know, at that time about other peoples statements.
I'll give you a little clue: very, very, very few working engineers bother with this crap. I know. I are one.
And I keep this personal little fascination with spectacularly dysfunctional epistemologies as quiet from my engineer / scientist / professional friends as some would keep an embarrassing drinking problem. When I (rarely) bring up the subject, I generally get a "you're not still wasting time on that crap, are you?" response.
When I was working for myself (i.e., at my own company), I posted more often here. My time was my own to devote to whatever I chose. Since the beginning of the year, I've been working a consulting gig for another company. I put in about 65 - 70 hours / week. There ain't enough time in the day to waste a couple hours reading the rantings of the utterly clueless.
This is exactly the situation that Gross was in, in the midst of the preparation of the final NIST reports. I am certain that he'd heard that there were a bunch of lunatics, running around saying that the buildings were blown up with explosives. I am also certain that he had all the engineering knowledge & insider info (ie., no detonators, no explosive remnants, no trivial evidence (unmistakeable from 20 feet away) that any column had been blown up or melted.
He wasn't shocked at the punk's accusations. He was utterly disdainful of stupidity.
My kinda guy...
Perhaps, just perhaps, he didn't spend his time watching brain dead Youtube crap while the nation waited impatiently for his group's overdue report. Maybe he was too busy, you know, working.
Just a thought...
You're wrong. You're completely wrong.
The evidence points to there being little to no molten steel in the debris. You do know what "molten steel", "running down channels like lava", turns into over time, don't you? Please tell me.
And tell me whether or not this was found in the debris.
You do know what a massive steel column looks like if a portion of it has melted, don't you? Please describe it to me. There are tens, perhaps hundreds, of thousands of pictures on the internet of the columns in the debris. And then stacked at Fresh Kills. There is not ONE that shows evidence of a portion of the beam having melted. (And that includes Beiderman, Barnett & Sassoon.)
Please think about what this means.
You haven't a clue what constitutes a "well qualified" individual to answer these questions.
Architects are out.
Physicists are out.
Chemical engineers are out.
Electrical engineers are out.
Computer engineers are out.
Sanitation engineers are out.
Most civil engineers are out.
Mechanical engineers (like me) are getting closer, but still no cigar.
Structural engineers are closer yet, but not automatic authorities.
The above eliminates about 1450 of your "1500+ well qualified" individuals.
The people that are real experts are structural engineers with extensive experience in very large buildings. (I'll give you one guess as to the specific expertise of the 200+ engineers from academia & industry that NIST hired to help them with this task. C'mon, tm, one guess.)
And the amazing thing about AE911T…? None of the 50 or so structural engineers have produced squat for analyses.
Those few informed individuals have published … zippo.
They have released … nothing.
On a question that they all state is of crucial importance to the US & the world, in a field in which their expertise & knowledge might contribute enormously to society, they have done … nothing.
Care to try to explain that, tm?
Are they lazy? Are they uncaring? Are they unmotivated? Are they incompetent?
Answers: Maybe. Maybe. Maybe. Yup.
And the rest of the engineering world, the REAL engineering world, ignores these boobs.
Care to try to explain that one, tm??
First question, tm: How old are you? I'm guessing pretty young.
I'm a lot older (approaching 60 way too fast for my own taste). In my generation, one called another person "a liar" with great trepidation. It was a great way to get your light punched out.
Second, you haven't the slightest clue as to whether Dr. Gross was lying or not. You haven't the slightest clue what he knew, or didn't know, at that time about other peoples statements.
I'll give you a little clue: very, very, very few working engineers bother with this crap. I know. I are one.
And I keep this personal little fascination with spectacularly dysfunctional epistemologies as quiet from my engineer / scientist / professional friends as some would keep an embarrassing drinking problem. When I (rarely) bring up the subject, I generally get a "you're not still wasting time on that crap, are you?" response.
When I was working for myself (i.e., at my own company), I posted more often here. My time was my own to devote to whatever I chose. Since the beginning of the year, I've been working a consulting gig for another company. I put in about 65 - 70 hours / week. There ain't enough time in the day to waste a couple hours reading the rantings of the utterly clueless.
This is exactly the situation that Gross was in, in the midst of the preparation of the final NIST reports. I am certain that he'd heard that there were a bunch of lunatics, running around saying that the buildings were blown up with explosives. I am also certain that he had all the engineering knowledge & insider info (ie., no detonators, no explosive remnants, no trivial evidence (unmistakeable from 20 feet away) that any column had been blown up or melted.
He wasn't shocked at the punk's accusations. He was utterly disdainful of stupidity.
My kinda guy...
Perhaps, just perhaps, he didn't spend his time watching brain dead Youtube crap while the nation waited impatiently for his group's overdue report. Maybe he was too busy, you know, working.
Just a thought...
You're wrong. You're completely wrong.
The evidence points to there being little to no molten steel in the debris. You do know what "molten steel", "running down channels like lava", turns into over time, don't you? Please tell me.
And tell me whether or not this was found in the debris.
You do know what a massive steel column looks like if a portion of it has melted, don't you? Please describe it to me. There are tens, perhaps hundreds, of thousands of pictures on the internet of the columns in the debris. And then stacked at Fresh Kills. There is not ONE that shows evidence of a portion of the beam having melted. (And that includes Beiderman, Barnett & Sassoon.)
Please think about what this means.
You haven't a clue what constitutes a "well qualified" individual to answer these questions.
Architects are out.
Physicists are out.
Chemical engineers are out.
Electrical engineers are out.
Computer engineers are out.
Sanitation engineers are out.
Most civil engineers are out.
Mechanical engineers (like me) are getting closer, but still no cigar.
Structural engineers are closer yet, but not automatic authorities.
The above eliminates about 1450 of your "1500+ well qualified" individuals.
The people that are real experts are structural engineers with extensive experience in very large buildings. (I'll give you one guess as to the specific expertise of the 200+ engineers from academia & industry that NIST hired to help them with this task. C'mon, tm, one guess.)
And the amazing thing about AE911T…? None of the 50 or so structural engineers have produced squat for analyses.
Those few informed individuals have published … zippo.
They have released … nothing.
On a question that they all state is of crucial importance to the US & the world, in a field in which their expertise & knowledge might contribute enormously to society, they have done … nothing.
Care to try to explain that, tm?
Are they lazy? Are they uncaring? Are they unmotivated? Are they incompetent?
Answers: Maybe. Maybe. Maybe. Yup.
And the rest of the engineering world, the REAL engineering world, ignores these boobs.
Care to try to explain that one, tm??
Last edited:
Animal
Master Poster
I always love it when troofers grasp the building code "high rise" definition to slap a label on a so called "expert" By troofer standards, I to am a "high rise expert" since I have design buildings exceeding the "high rise" definition in the building code. Barasch like all troofers is talking out his rear.
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,961
OK, Bill. I gather that you really believe in your little fairy tale. Well, there is something you can do then, to take it just one step out of never-never land, since you actually have a testable hypothesis in there: The termite-filled columns.
Go out and get a hollow steel beam. Doesn't have to be full-scale, a 5' by 5' will do nicely. Smear it with the type of fireproofing they used in the WTC (yes, it's smear-on stuff), fill it with as much termite as you think necessary, place it vertically on the ground, light the fuse, and stand clear. Remember to video from at least one camera.
If it really melts the steel down to a pool inside the fireproofing, without smoke, flames, and sparks coming out all over the place, then that part of your tale will be plausible (not proved, but ... plausible).
I don't know if you can get NoahFence to accept it for his challenge, but you will gain eternal fame in the Truth Movement and your video will draw a million hits a week on u-tube. (It will draw quite a few too if you fail, I expect).
So, you have had your fairy tale, now for some action!
Hans
bill smith
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2009
- Messages
- 8,408
I'm a analyst Hans, not a doer. In any case we already know how hot thermite and it's far more concentrated cousin NANOthermite can burn at. We also know the melting point of steel. The rest is just technicalities.
You think the hypothesesis works then I take it ?
Sunstealer
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2007
- Messages
- 3,128
Firstly it would be observed in the same way that other heat sources would be observed. Secondly when they removed all the debris and put in the foundations for the new tower they would find two massive chunks of solidified steel that would have taken months to remove.
You also don't understand how quickly steel will cool. Just go to a foundry or steel mill.
If you want us to believe that 15,000 tonnes of liquid steel was found in the basement then you will have to provide physical proof. Have you got a photo, a video or a sample of this previously liquid steel? Nope - you have anecdotes from people who cannot possibly identify a material just by looking at it.
You are living in la la fantasy land where everything you can imagine is true.
Sunstealer
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2007
- Messages
- 3,128
Concentrated nano-thermite!
You really are a card Bill. You have absolutely no idea what thermite or the thermite reaction is do you? You have no idea about chemistry. How is nano thermite more concentrated? lmfao.
bill smith
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2009
- Messages
- 8,408
I alraedy told you Sunstealer. My hypothesis says that the bulk of the steel was in the two cavities UNDER the lowest baseament floor, one on each side of where the core used to stand. They blew away parts of the lowest basement floor to access the cavities which were built in at the time of construction at the behest of the insurers and opwner They are almost certainly stiill there. Any excess would have been cut out with thermal lances.and the two appproximately 7.500 ton ingots concreted over. Nothing to see any more.
Last edited:
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
Concentrated nano-thermite!
You really are a card Bill. You have absolutely no idea what thermite or the thermite reaction is do you? You have no idea about chemistry. How is nano thermite more concentrated? lmfao.
D'uh! Sunny, concentrated nano-thermite is what we use to melt concentrated nano-steel, don't you know?
Nano-steel: You grind steel into nano-sized paricles, then pack them back together. The result often also called super-steel, because it is extremely dense, light-weight, ultra-hard, as flexible as you wish, a superconductor with incredible resistivity, easy to weld, and has a melting point way above 10,000°F. It tastes great with maccaroni, too, even without cheese!
bill smith
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2009
- Messages
- 8,408
Concentrated nano-thermite!
You really are a card Bill. You have absolutely no idea what thermite or the thermite reaction is do you? You have no idea about chemistry. How is nano thermite more concentrated? lmfao.
In nanothermite, just as in any material that is reduced to nano-sized proportions the surface area of each particle becomes much larger, effectively concentrating the product. Or so I've heard. Is that not true ?
Last edited:
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
You probably misheard. No, that is not true.
bill smith
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2009
- Messages
- 8,408
D'uh! Sunny, concentrated nano-thermite is what we use to melt concentrated nano-steel, don't you know?
Nano-steel: You grind steel into nano-sized paricles, then pack them back together. The result often also called super-steel, because it is extremely dense, light-weight, ultra-hard, as flexible as you wish, a superconductor with incredible resistivity, easy to weld, and has a melting point way above 10,000°F. It tastes great with maccaroni, too, even without cheese!
You disappeared rather sharpish yesterday ? So do you need to know anything else about 9/11 ?
bill smith
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2009
- Messages
- 8,408
So correct me then .Be more specific. Keep it simple for the readers.
Sunstealer
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2007
- Messages
- 3,128
Oh dear. For someone who is proposing nano-thermite you don't actually have any idea why reducing the particle size isn't such a good idea. Now that's not surprising.
Aluminium forms a passive oxide layer (Al2O3) on it's surface. If you reduce the particle size then the ratio of this outer layer to aluminium increases. This means that there is actually LESS aluminium to react with the iron oxide. Yes the reaction will proceed faster due to the increase in surface area but you are actually reducing it's effectiveness.
- Status