• 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

I entered the the room, and then there was like a big explosion. I was driving along and a car like came out of no where.

Did this guy just equate the way a valley girl talks to similes? It would be shocking had I not been following this thread.


That's right then how did one turn into a horse shoe after the event...see my other posts not going to post again.

I asked about this a while ago, and you dodged it. How does bent steel = molten steel? All you have done is demonstrate your gross willful ignorance. Its one thing to not know better, but to maintain such ignorance with a complete lack of evidence & avoidance of facts is pathetic.
 
Last edited:
You aren't "knowledgeable".

You aren't knowledgeable enough to judge who else is "knowledgeable".
Truthers have no filter to differentiate the [feces] from shinola. A product of deep ignorance and unbridled arrogance.
 
  • He is a member
  • He does not think 9/11 was an inside job.
  • He does not think the WTC's were any type of C.D.
  • He does not think thermite was used in the collapse of the WTC's.
  • He does not want the steel tested because he thinks it is thermite residue.
 
One thing that's become apparent to me from reading this thread, that wasn't before, is that many people will describe steel beams that have been bent, as "melted."

For those experienced with the physical properties of actual heated and/or molten metal, this is a ridiculous notion. But people whose experience with molten materials is limited to cheese (or plastic, or glass, or chocolate bars on a hot day) might be forgiven for believing that melting would cause steel beams to bend, and that bent beams are therefore evidence of melting. Especially when they're looking at the aftermath of an event in which they know the steel would have gotten hot, or perhaps even saw the steel heated to incandescence, and where the pieces did end up bent.

What they're overlooking is their own real-world experience with ice. If I asked people to draw what an icicle would look like after it melted, most would draw a puddle of water and not a bent icicle. What they might not realize is that metals including steel melt like ice, not like cheese or chocolate bars.

This probably explains many of the bizarre dialogs that take place here, along the lines of "Look at all the melted steel in this picture." "There's no melted steel in that picture." (In unison...) "Are you blind, or just in total denial?"

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
One thing that's become apparent to me from reading this thread, that wasn't before, is that many people will describe steel beams that have been bent, as "melted."

For those experienced with the physical properties of actual heated and/or molten metal, this is a ridiculous notion. But people whose experience with molten materials is limited to cheese (or plastic, or glass, or chocolate bars on a hot day) might be forgiven for believing that melting would cause steel beams to bend, and that bent beams are therefore evidence of melting. Especially when they're looking at the aftermath of an event in which they know the steel would have gotten hot, or perhaps even saw the steel heated to incandescence, and where the pieces did end up bent.

What they're overlooking is their own real-world experience with ice. If I asked people to draw what an icicle would look like after it melted, most would draw a puddle of water and not a bent icicle. What they might not realize is that metals including steel melt like ice, not like cheese or chocolate bars.

This probably explains many of the bizarre dialogs that take place here, along the lines of "Look at all the melted steel in this picture." "There's no melted steel in that picture." (In unison...) "Are you blind, or just in total denial?"

Respectfully,
Myriad
roflmao! I see how people can think that now. It's completely alien to me of course.

For those that need more info - http://www.engineersedge.com/material_science/cold_hot_working.htm

Cold Working and Hot Working
 
Yeah, they are so knowledgeable that one of them says, "it bent like this without a single crack"...
... while his hand is resting on a rather large crack on the inner surface.

The other one is so expert that he comments that he would especially expect to see damage on the outside of the beam ...
... when most engineers who work on bending & forming of metals (like me) know that, in extreme bending, the inner surface of the beam undergoes considerably higher stress than the outer fiber.

Yeah, they sure sound knowledgeable ...
... to you.

Are you getting the picture yet?
YOU ARE UNQUALIFIED TO JUDGE WHO TO BELIEVE.

You aren't "knowledgeable".

You aren't knowledgeable enough to judge who else is "knowledgeable".

Most of the previous quotes are complete nonsense (as yours are as well) but I figured with you being a big smart engineer and all I would address it. First of all you no absolutely nothing...not a thing of my qualifications...not one thing...keep that in mind. Secondly where is that video "debunking" Cole? As I said it should be no problem for somewhat of your genies, and given all the science is on your side. One little video is all I ask. Just one? Until then...until you prove anything by experiment...you have no basis to talk of anything. I know I get to you...and I know it is because I am right. Take a look at these two videos...and tell me they look anything like what's experienced at WTC. We'll just say the south tower, clearly something Molten was coming out of that before it collapses. You see maybe you can do what the one guy did (quite easily to I might add) and prove something with experiment. Not just go on and on about how smart you think you are, and how dumb others are. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30OVAvg1aGQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XVUbjgQ4ik
 
Now I'm really confused.

tmd is using Mackey as an expert, right? If he's got questions about Ryan, why not ASK Ryan?

:confused:

I don't think he is going to waste his time on this crap. He probably has 3/4ths of the truthers on this forum on ignore, and this doesn't appear to be an exception.
 
Most of the previous quotes are complete nonsense (as yours are as well) but I figured with you being a big smart engineer and all I would address it. First of all you no absolutely nothing...not a thing of my qualifications...not one thing...keep that in mind.
Know but we can tell from your mistakes that either you are a) lying and never were qualified or B) now mentally ill and can no longer function as a well as you once could or C) that your "qualification" is not from a real college. or some combination of a), B) and C)


clearly something Molten was coming out of that before it collapses.

Who said it wasn't??? obvious candidates are Al and lead with assorted flaming debris. IIRC there was a large UPS on that floor in that corner.
 
One could and should realistically conclude that if one was to call into question the findings of dozens of the worls finest experts in their respective fields, who comprised a brilliant report viewed and accepted by the overwhelmingly vast majority of the rest of the worlds relevant professionals encompassing/regarding the findings in said report....that the one calling into question these findings would be equally educated and adept at the relative fields.

One could further conclude that the person calling the reports into question would have at the very least a fundemental high school level understandign of basic physics principles.

Can we all agree?

I hope so.

So my question is to TMD: Do you have a high school level understanding of physics?

A) Yes
B) No

I am at work and will get back follow up with this as time permits.
 
Most of the previous quotes are complete nonsense (as yours are as well) but I figured with you being a big smart engineer and all I would address it. First of all you no absolutely nothing...not a thing of my qualifications...not one thing...keep that in mind. Secondly where is that video "debunking" Cole? As I said it should be no problem for somewhat of your genies, and given all the science is on your side. One little video is all I ask. Just one? Until then...until you prove anything by experiment...you have no basis to talk of anything. I know I get to you...and I know it is because I am right. Take a look at these two videos...and tell me they look anything like what's experienced at WTC. We'll just say the south tower, clearly something Molten was coming out of that before it collapses. You see maybe you can do what the one guy did (quite easily to I might add) and prove something with experiment. Not just go on and on about how smart you think you are, and how dumb others are. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30OVAvg1aGQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XVUbjgQ4ik

From the 9/11 video we can conclude that something orangish was falling out of the building, but nothing else. For all we know from that clip it could be flaming carpet, or molten lead carrying flaming carpet, or anything.

Concluding that the falling stuff is evidence of therm*te is two different wrong conclusions, one drawn from the other, with the second wrong conclusion supposedly proving the first that's drawn from the second.

Your second video, f'rinstance, zooms menacingly on the famous angled-cut column image, as if that's some kind of evidence of something, usually therm*te. I've done rather detailed analysis of that specific image using the best resolution I could find and I can clearly identify that it was cut using an undersized torch for the thickness of metal, and that the user changed position several times.
 
Has tmd2_1 explained how he thinks thermite can sustain steel melting temperatures for weeks?

Has tmd2_1 been alterted to what a landfill fire is?

Has tmd2_1 explained why a structrual engineer is better qualfied than a veteran firefighter in what metals melt in a fire?
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom