• 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.

Reasonable doubt...All truthers(and whoever esle) please read

jaydeehess said:
Watched one that included the 'little rivers' statement last week. Watched the one you lnked to before responding to your post.

Yet I still ask the question,"By what technical method was it determined that any molten substance was steel?"
Click to expand...

You don't need a technical method...when the beam is dripping as has been reported. As those pictures sure look like are saying. I mean the one guy says two beams melted together to form a cross...what method do you need when something like that happens?
 
TexasJack said:
Dunning and Kruger would expect that response from you. In fact, I think they would be thrilled.
Click to expand...

You guys amaze me...look at 90% of what is here all simply "twoofers dumb twoofers can't be right" and I'm the one suffering from what ever the hell you want to call that?
 
tmd2_1 said:
You don't need a technical method...when the beam is dripping as has been reported. As those pictures sure look like are saying. I mean the one guy says two beams melted together to form a cross...what method do you need when something like that happens?
Click to expand...

First there were no steel "beams"at the WTC. They used trusses, not beams. The "columns" look nothing like the picture you posted. The look identical to the aluminum cladding in respect to color, shape, and length. Your own source doesn't refer to it as steel, yet here your are running around in circles with your fingers in your ears.

tmd2_1 said:
You guys amaze me...look at 90% of what is here all simply "twoofers dumb twoofers can't be right" and I'm the one suffering from what ever the hell you want to call that?
Click to expand...
So basically you are saying we're wrong about something you have no understanding of; Dunning Kruger an effect of ignorance & over confidence. Oh dear someone get the snorkels the irony is getting deep. Stundied!
 
Last edited:
Grizzly Bear said:
Corrosion, chemical reactions, oxidation, etc.
Click to expand...

Yeah that's why Frankn Greening (when he staunchly supported the official story) Ryan Mackey, and FEMA themselves wanted NIST to run more tests...They of course didn't.
 
tmd2_1 said:
uhhhh no since there was no testing done on the metal in that sample ETA I meant pictures....what would that suggest. Look at this and tell me you aren't pretty convinced there was molten steel. One is right from the FEMA report, with a steel beam with a giant hole in it, the other is a video you will find very interesting. Really now I want you to watch and read...it is very intriguing stuff. Then tell me you're not a little skeptical.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm
Click to expand...
Dude, your own source identifies this as eutectic corrosion.

Is that what thermits does to steel? The fail is strong in you!
 
grandmastershek said:
First there were no steel "beams"at the WTC. They used trusses, not beams. The "columns" look nothing like the picture you posted. The look identical to the aluminum cladding in respect to color, shape, and length. Your own source doesn't refer to it as steel, yet here your are running around in circles with your fingers in your ears.


So basically you are saying we're wrong about something you have no understanding of; Dunning Kruger an effect of ignorance & over confidence. Oh dear someone get the snorkels the irony is getting deep. Stundied!
Click to expand...


You just proved my point...does it matter what you call them? All that matters is people, who have absolutely no reason to lie reported they were melting, and yet that means nothing. All that is important is what they are called?
 
tmd2_1 said:
I'm sorry it's kind of hard when there is double digit of you guys and one of me.
Click to expand...
granted

look at the video, and go here...I don't know you yet...but I have an idea of what your response would be...What could do this to steel...besides extreme heat?

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm
Click to expand...

I already said I watched the Robertson video, and that I had seen a simlar one last week,

Eutectic mix and high, but well within the range of office structure fires, heat.

A common, related phenomena are alloys such as 50/50 tin/lead solder which melts at 183 C, but tin melts at 232 C, and lead at 327 C.
 
WildCat said:
Dude, your own source identifies this as eutectic corrosion.

Is that what thermits does to steel? The fail is strong in you!
Click to expand...

Yeah that's why Frank Greening (when he staunchly supported the official story) Ryan Mackey, and FEMA themselves wanted NIST to run more tests...They of course didn't. Nothing unusual about that at all.
 
tmd2_1 said:
What don't you understand...I was told once that cat was out of the bag bin laden didn't care. Well that video was just found, it's not he made it and mailed it in. Speaking of videos how's yours coming along?
Click to expand...

I posted one of my videos in the closed thread and you pissed all over yourself (evidently shooting a binary explosive with a Barrett out in the desert constitutes a threat in trutherbot world) asserting "that's (the video) why I don't identify myself" in these threads.

Get your head straight - you're making assertions, you need to provide facts and evidence supporting your assertions.

The only thing I'm asserting is that truthbots are delusional fundementalists, and I believe your posts alone prove it.
 
tmd2_1 said:
You just proved my point...does it matter what you call them? All that matters is people, who have absolutely no reason to lie reported they were melting, and yet that means nothing. All that is important is what they are called?
Click to expand...

Yes it does matter what you call them, especially if there are similar looking elements that are comprised of aluminum rather than steel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom