• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

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

that is clearly not aluminium.
Click to expand...

You have ZERO experience to back that up. None whatsoever.

"Debunkers" however, may not all be metalurgists, but we can made an educated guess:

- The aircraft came to rest in that corner of the building. This is a fact. It cannot be debated.

- There were tons of UPS equipment (Read : Lead) in that area. This is also a fact that cannot be debated.


Both lead and aluminum have lower melting points than steel.

With me so far? You don't need to be an expert in anything to know that the above items are true. Well, maybe common sense.


THEREFORE:

It is VERY likely that the material flowing out of the building there is either lead, aluminum, or a combination of both. As a layperson, I'm 99% sure of that.

It makes all the sense in the world, and a therm*te reaction taking place at that location makes no sense whatsoever. None.
 
tmd2_1 said:
I'm claiming victory because I did. Look all this about Molten steel, just one point and all I said was possibly...and it's only strengthed my point.
Click to expand...

Wow.

You really don't know how science, physics, facts, and evidence work, do you?

It wasn't molten steel. Period.

Unless you provide proof to contradict that statement, you are still victory-less.
 
tmd2_1 said:
The challenge is not a fair one and you know that. Different temperatures different colors. Even if it were more fair..I may not get it right I'm not ashamed to admit it. We know the temperatures the WTC was supposed to get to. Forgot about any of the pictures...look at the video before the south tower falls..that is clearly not aluminium. What other possibilty for there to be that much of it besides steel.

Look at this video tell me there is not a huge difference. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30OVAvg1aGQ
Click to expand...

How does that prove anything about molten metal in the WTC? Why do you continue to post these silly links?
 
tmd2_1 said:
The challenge is not a fair one and you know that. Different temperatures different colors. Even if it were more fair..I may not get it right I'm not ashamed to admit it. We know the temperatures the WTC was supposed to get to. Forgot about any of the pictures...look at the video before the south tower falls..that is clearly not aluminium. What other possibilty for there to be that much of it besides steel.Look at this video tell me there is not a huge difference. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30OVAvg1aGQ
Click to expand...
Could be aluminum mixed with lots of other crap. The aircraft was made primarily of aluminum

Could be lead mixed with lots of other crap. The UPS was primarily lead.

Sorry, you haven't convinced me that it HAS TO BE steel.

ETA: You also haven't convinced me that it PROBABLY WAS steel.
 
Last edited:
NoahFence said:
You have ZERO experience to back that up. None whatsoever.

"Debunkers" however, may not all be metalurgists, but we can made an educated guess:

- The aircraft came to rest in that corner of the building. This is a fact. It cannot be debated.

- There were tons of UPS equipment (Read : Lead) in that area. This is also a fact that cannot be debated.


Both lead and aluminum have lower melting points than steel.

With me so far? You don't need to be an expert in anything to know that the above items are true. Well, maybe common sense.


THEREFORE:

It is VERY likely that the material flowing out of the building there is either lead, aluminum, or a combination of both. As a layperson, I'm 99% sure of that.

It makes all the sense in the world, and a therm*te reaction taking place at that location makes no sense whatsoever. None.
Click to expand...

Actually it makes the most sense. Where the plane hit...charges started going off early. Explain how that could have been lead? Anythings possible I can't prove it was steel..it seems the most likely though.
 
tmd2_1 said:
Non sequitur. A child asking "Why? Why? Why?" can get to people. It doesn't make the child right. But I can see based on your other nonsensical points how you would make that assumption.



Man I love intellectual narcissists. We have already covered the properties of aluminum and how it can glow orange. We have also covered how molten metals are common in fires. We have also covered how you have yet to provide 1 shred of evidence for what you believe is steel in the pictures you posted, let alone molten. We have also covered how steel can bend even when not molten. In fact if steel is molten it ceases to bend because liquids do not bend. God I hope you don' t direct people you know in real life to these threads.
Click to expand...

This thread has been nothing but a total victory. Think about the molten steel was only one point of many in the initial post. And i said possibly. All this dialogue has done is to reinforce that there probably was molten steel. People resorting to nothing more then personal attacks, while I stick to the evidence, and experiments. In essence if you disagree with me or the people in the videos or to any think I have linked...go out and prove us wrong. Anyone can sit here and write anything.[/QUOTE]



I love twoofers like this.....if anyone has doubts they are crazy these threads remove all doubts :D

They take delusion to a whole new level.

Is their a "delusion" animated GIF? There should be.
 
tmd2_1 said:
Actually it makes the most sense.
Click to expand...
To you perhaps. Not to me.

Where the plane hit...charges started going off early.
Click to expand...
What charges?

Explain how that could have been lead?
Click to expand...
There was a UPS composed of lead batteries in that area.

Anythings possible I can't prove it was steel..it seems the most likely though.
Click to expand...
If anything's possible, why does steel make the most sense? Seems contradictory.
 
Last edited:
Mr. Skinny said:
Could be aluminum mixed with lots of other crap. The aircraft was made primarily of aluminum

Could be lead mixed with lots of other crap. The UPS was primarily lead.

Sorry, you haven't convinced me that it HAS TO BE steel.

ETA: You also haven't convinced me that it PROBABLY WAS steel.
Click to expand...

What are the chances aluminium mixed with anything will look that much like molten steel? Not great I'd imagine. Coupled with all the testimony, all the witnesses who said they saw it, including Leslie Robertson who would then lie about it. Witnesses who have no reason to lie literally saying beams were melting. What other conclusion is there?
 
tmd2_1 said:
Actually it makes the most sense. Where the plane hit...charges started going off early. Explain how that could have been lead? Anythings possible I can't prove it was steel..it seems the most likely though.
Click to expand...

What charges? Proof that there were charges? Who placed them? How many tons? How were they placed without anyone noticing? What were the charges made of? You are doing the truth movement no good at all. Any lurking fence sitter will conclude that trutherism is a form of insanity.
 
Last edited:
Explain how that could have been lead?
Click to expand...

You ask that question in a reply to a post where I told you how it could have been lead.

There are no words. No amount of facepalm is enough to adequately detail how FRIGGIN STUPID you're being.
 
tmd2_1 said:
For all your questions about thermite/thermate see the cole videos. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g
http://www.youtube.com/user/physicsandreason#p/u/3/VvQDFV1HINw
Click to expand...

I asked you a direct question and you send me to him?

He does not even attempt to answer any of those questions. If you disagre please tell me the timestamps where he answers them and do this for every single question I asked you in turn.

Or, explain your answer using what is contained in the video. You can even refer to the video and as a reference, but don't just fob me off to something that doesn't explain a damn thing you wish it did.

He has a total of 7 I suggest checking them all out.
Click to expand...

Ive already seen them, as I recall he isn't even he is making the ridiclous claims you are making. Hence my questions lie unanswered. Address it, they are to the heart of why you're claims are logically absurd. If you even considered how much thermite woudl be needed to melt a steel beam to "river" and then keep it molten you'd realise how much would be needed to fulfill your theory and therefore reject it but you don't want to deal with tough questions like that.

Check out this video.. tell me most of the witnesses don't look like they care.
Click to expand...

Once again...

Not a single person in the peer reviewed literature and professional commentary has mentioned it as being strange. The only people that have an issue with this stuff in a tiny fringe group of nobodies. You have to believe everyone else is either too stupid or they are in on it.
 
Last edited:
tmd2_1 said:
For all your questions about thermite/thermate see the cole videos. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g
http://www.youtube.com/user/physicsandreason#p/u/3/VvQDFV1HINw

He has a total of 7 I suggest checking them all out.
I do suggest Robertson way lying...apart the conspiracy no. But it takes and awful lot of guts to come out and question the official story being the position he is in.

Check out this video.. tell me most of the witnesses don't look like they care.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-XA0Rv1Ng8
Click to expand...
I've watched all of those videos and I can categorically tell you that Jon Cole doesn't know what he is talking about. There is no such thing as "eutectic steel".

The iron-carbon phase equilibrium diagram has a eutectic at 4.3wt% C and 1147°C but no alloy let alone steel is used at this composition - very brittle. But of course you have no clue about that diagram, you have no clue about metallurgy and you certainly don't understand what a eutectic system is.

So bearing in mind that you didn't know this what do you say to that?

Jon Cole has not subjected his steel that he has done his poor experiments on to any metallurgical analysis. Therefore he has no conclusion yet you continue to trumpet him. It's worthless.

I've linked dozens of times to the report that explains heavily corroded steel, but you refuse to acknowledge its findings even though it was written by professionals. This says everything about you; you would rather believe someone who is wrong and has no experience over people who are right and have huge experience.

Your complete lack of any qualifications means you don't have the knowledge or ability to assess anything to do with 9/11. You are gullible and easily persuaded.
 
tmd2_1 said:
Actually it makes the most sense. Where the plane hit...charges started going off early. Explain how that could have been lead? Anythings possible I can't prove it was steel..it seems the most likely though.
Click to expand...


sigh, what do you think is the main component in a lead acid battery? next what do you think is the main component in an office sized UPS facility? next what is the melting point of lead (hint: its low)

And how is it remotely possible for it to be steel, is it not twoofers that keep telling us the jet fuel and office fires can't melt steel?????

So it cannot be steel, there is lots and lots of both Al and Pb in that building and in that corner, both melt easily at office temps, lead very very easily (add all the energy in the cells as well when they get shorted.....) so lets see, you think its likely to be Steel???????:jaw-dropp

and of course we don't even know that its even really molten metal at all and not just burning embers sliding off a sloping floor........
 
dafydd said:
What charges? Proof that there were charges? Who placed them? How many tons? How were they placed without anyone noticing? What were the charges made of? You are doing the truth movement no good at all. Any lurking fence sitter will conclude that trutherism is a form of insanity.
Click to expand...

Quite to the contrary...I'm doing an awful lot of good. Prooving people like you are liars.
 
Sunstealer said:
This says everything about you; you would rather believe someone who is wrong and has no experience over people who are right and have huge experience.

Your complete lack of any qualifications means you don't have the knowledge or ability to assess anything to do with 9/11. You are gullible and easily persuaded.
Click to expand...

The truth movement in a nutshell.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom