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

[dafydd]

A little caused the towers to collapse.

After they collapsed, workers went underneath the rubble, through the subway system with pallets of thermite and planted them in the rubble, and remotely detonating them one after another for 99 days, just to piss off the firefighters who didn't die that day.


/twoffermode off

That's as plausible as anything that the truthers come up with. Post it in on a truther site and I bet that some of them would believe you.

 

[WildCat]

I don't think it was the 'government' per say..a relativily small cabal inside of it...trying to get cart blanh hatred for muslims, as well as bring in a police state.

But you've already implicated United Airlines, American Airlines, the FDNY, the Port Authority police, NIST, FEMA, the ASCE, the FBI, multiple first responders from dozens of municipalities around the Pentagon, the FAA, air traffic controllers, and countless others... how small is "small" in your world?

 

[Edx]

I never said any such thing about rivers of steel for weeks...

Yes you did, you claimed Robertson really saw rivers of steel, you claimed pictures of a crane holding red hot material with some molten material dripping off it was steel, you have been insisting for pages and pages and pages that a picture with some kind of yellowish glowing material lying around what appear to be aluminium cladding is molten steel.

I again ask you the same questions:

Unreacted thermite continuing to react and creating "rivers of molten steel"?

1. Can you suggest how many tons of this stuff was in the building?
2. Can you suggest to us why we didn't see thermite pouring from absolutely everywhere? (one single corner of one building is nowhere near enough for what you're claiming)
3. Can you suggest as to how many pounds of thermite is required to melt a single piece of steel into a "river"?
4. If there was so much thermite and so much molten steel, why isn't there any physical evidence of it whatsoever apart from 1 single dodgy picture from someone that has used touched up pictures in the past?
5. Why would they use so much of something that is according to you going to be so suspicious afterwards? Why did they include more than was necessary to bring down the towers so that people could find it later?

For example:

3. Can you suggest as to how many pounds of thermite is required to melt a single piece of steel into a river?

So you claim you didn't mean for weeks, so how about a few days? Please tell us how many tons or pounds it would take to accomplish this.

Here's another:

You claimed you only need a small amount of thermite to destroy connections with some kind of shaped charge, so wheres all this unreacted thermite coming from feeding the fire for weeks melting steel?

Are you aware that Building 6 had molten metal running down the walls and that debris around the columns was red-hot, molten and running? You must therefore either claim WTC6 was a demolition with tons and tons of thermite as well, or you must think tons of burning steel and thermite rained down onto and into Building 6 all over the place.

yes shaped charges. I was saying fires lasted for weeks...un reacted thermite could be causing the fires..if I misspoke I apologize...this what I meant. Follow what cole says about it (not saying that in an arrogant way) that is what I believe happened

Lets talk a bit about LANDFILL FIRES:

You claimed oxygen couldn't get into the WTC pile and balked at the idea that the pile could remain that hot for weeks, yet this is exactly the trouble they have with landfill fires with NO THERMITE REQUIRED. They have great trouble stopping the oxygen getting into it. For example in the Vancouver Landfill fire in 2000 they continued applying water around the clock but it still took a week before they saw oxygen levels dropping,

To cut off the oxygen supply to the fire, additional clay intermediate cover was placed on the side slopes of the burning cell over the weekend. Water application continued around the clock. Within a week the monitoring results conclusively demonstrated that carbon monoxide, temperature and oxygen levels were dropping.

Or this one, where 2,000 gallons per minute quickly ran off the surface and didn't extinguish the fires deep inside.

Initially, water was applied to the fire in high-pressure streams in excess of 2,000 gallons per minute (gpm). This extinguished flames at the surface but did not quell the fire brewing deep in the landfill. In fact, most of the water quickly ran off the surface, draining to the landfill toe where pools of toxic black leachate were form

The first one took 10 days to extinguish, the second took 2 months! Here's two examples of a landfill fire that took weeks to extinguish , the first of which says it smoldered for many months more:

On January 26, 1998, an employee at Richard DeCoite’s construction and demolition (C&D) landfill in Ma’alaea, Maui, noticed an odd odor, which led to the discovery of a fire 15 to 20 feet underground. Attempts were made to smother it with injections of more than 1,000 pounds of liquid carbon dioxide. The fire was eventually
deemed to be extinguished in a matter of weeks, although it continued to smolder for 4 months.4

S An underground landfill fire that was discovered in December of 1=1996 in Dan-bury, New Jersey, caused an unpleasant odor (which smelled like rotton eggs due to the high concentration of hydrogen sulfide in landfills). The odor spread into two surrounding neighborhoods. The fire lasted for weeks and the town was forced to install a gas recovery system, whose cost exceeded $1 million.

And this one took nearly two months

Restoring the Land Nearly two months after the firefighting began, the landfill was finally extinguished on Jan. 18, 2000.

EDIT: Thanks to WildCat I'll add this one as well:

This one is still smouldering with "intense heat" after 13 years

Whoever set fire to the huge Heyope tyre dump near Knighton, Powys, in 1989 could have had little idea that the action would enter the record books. Almost 13 years later, Britain's longest burning tyre fire smoulders gently on.

...


Here's some facts for you.

FACT: Common landfill fires can be very hard to extinguish, can rage for months and there was more than enough fuel in the WTC to feed the fire.
FACT: You only need 845oC to 1040oC to explain glowing steel.
FACT: Other metals will melt at far lower temperatures than steel
FACT: You cannot tell what metal it is just by looking at it
FACT: Reports of molten steel and metal are common and expected in a normal fire.
FACT: Professional resources on fire explain what metals will melt in a fire and how steel can appear melted when it oxidises.
FACT: A veteran firefighter is far more qualified than a structural engineer to know what melts in a fire and I had given you an example where Fire Commissioner Raymond Orozco reported molten steel in a 1996 fire.
FACT: Leslie Robertson said he didn't see molten steel anyway and we know his exact words were "LIKE" a river of steel. In the same way as many people reported the collapse was "LIKE" a freight train.
FACT: No molten steel melting temperatures were recorded.
FACT: No one reported that it shouldn't have been there or saved any because it was strange
FACT: No professional commentary and no peer reviewed articles mentioning that it was strange
FACT: Apart from one corner of one building we don't see anything that looks like molten metal falling from them

So then...

1. We know the pile being hot and with fires for months is completely understandable
2. We know the glowing debris and steel can occur at expected temperatures in the fires
3. We know that other metals, alloys and even wood (for glowing sparks like a river) can create molten metal at far lower temperatures than steel melts.
4. We know that people reporting to see molten steel and metal is expected and common in a fire.
5. We know that steel can look melted when it oxidises
6. We know that no one relevant cares about this molten metal apart from a ridiculously tiny fringe group of nobodies.

And lastly, we also know that this can happen to steel in a fire:

 

[WildCat]

That's as plausible as anything that the truthers come up with. Post it in on a truther site and I bet that some of them would believe you.

No, it must be on teh youtube!

 

[dafydd]

But you've already implicated United Airlines, American Airlines, the FDNY, the Port Authority police, NIST, FEMA, the ASCE, the FBI, multiple first responders from dozens of municipalities around the Pentagon, the FAA, air traffic controllers, and countless others... how small is "small" in your world?

And he wonders why we don't take truthers seriously. They change their story from one post to the next.

 

[dafydd]

No, it must be on teh youtube!

A link to a fake youtube video would clinch it for them.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

And lastly, we also know that this can happen to steel in a fire:

That can also happen to structural steel when you drop a skyscraper on it, without any additional heat.

 

[Oystein]

No... all the points were not worth addressing, some have been already answered and made no sense what's so ever.

You with your well established record of incompetence at everything are not the judge of that.

Yeah I'm sure the average person can tell the difference between a military A/C and civilian especially when it's going 500 mph.

a) Yes.
b) Which military A/C are you even talking about? Was there a military A/C? Do you, the defense attorney, have a theory you want to present to the jury that involves military A/C? Then please do now tell the jury your alternative theory of what happened at the Pentagon that involves a military A/C instead of AA77, or shut up!

You better make sure you have any evidence at all for that story, that might sway the jury which is already aware og

1. the many eye witnesses that specifically described a civilian airliner, one in American Airlines colours, or a Boing 757
2. The remains of all passengers who boarded AA77 at Dulles were found insinde the Pentagon, some of them still strapped to the seats
3. The destruction pattern inside the Pentagon has been thoroughly stidied. It matches perfectly with the flight path as recreated from radar data and FDR data
4. Oh and of course the FDR, as well as thousands of other parts of a civiliain 757, were found and identified
5. American Airlines agrees their plane ended inside the Pentagon; they even payed damages to some employes at the Pentagon
6. etc
7. etc
8. etc

Also all the eyewitnesses of explosions I guess you now have to be an expert to know what an explosion sounds like as well?

Everybody is very much familiar with the look of common airliners.
Very few people are familiar with explosions and their various sources in largfe building fires.
Again, your comparison limps.

YES, youi better be an expert to identify the source of the sound of an explosion.
NO, you don't need to be an expert to tell a civilian from a military A/C.

In terms of molten steel or aluminum go to this video here it says it all http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30OVAvg1aGQ

No. YOU say it. Youtubes are a waste of time.

Lloyde said what he said...all I can really say about that.

You are the little child with fingers in ears that goes LALALALALAAAAA because you don't want to be taught a lesson. Hopeless.

WTC 7. Give up this is a building as you and others put it "everyone" knew was going to come down. Yet NIST (the experts) were baffled to explain it for years,

The level of explanation relevant for NIST is totally different from that of the FDNY. You quite obviously understand neither.

and when they do...it has way to many holes for me to mention.

Name one!

Go here he does a good of explaining it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ArnYryJqCwU

Waste of time. You do the explaining here!

Aziz is in the annex that picture is him looks just like him wearing the same thing...

Yeah, could be him, could be someone who looks similar.

but you miss the bigger point, that this doofus, comes walking into the studio with a piece of evidence for a crime of this magnitude...and that is all ok? Why would the studio even let that guy in?

D'uh! What a stupid stuopid stupid question! Because they are thrilled he brings a piece of the plane, of course, and is willing to tell his story! News orgs DIE for this sort of stuff!

As for the hijackers still being alive go here...http://911review.org/Wget/members.fo...kers-alive.htm

http://allafrica.com/stories/200109240325.html

*slapping forehead*

Molten steel weeks later..thermite reactions that didn't react, are now reacting...

Why should it all of a sudden react?
Have you seen thermite react? It comes with a blindingly bright white shine. Has anyone reported that? NO!
How much unreacted thermite would you need to explain your stuff?
You are grasping at straws!
There is zero (0) evidence for thermite.
Oh, which thermite, anyway? Do you, the defense attorney, want to present the jury an alternative theory that involves thermite? Then present it now!

see jon cole he explains it much better then me.

Yes, better than you. Far from good enough

Ceecee lyles...not saying all phone calls were fake, not even saying this one is. Simply saying it casts doubts as to who really made the phone call.

No.

When you a voice at the end...that seems to be saying "testing...testing" it is very suspicious. The first time I heard that after I downloaded myself and amplified it, I literally threw my head phones off....I couldn't believe what I was hearing. Don't believe me or the guy in the video..download it for yourself and see.

I did. Nothing suspicious there, unless you hear what you want to hear.

OJ..was a classic example of what defense attorneys do. They got the trial moved to an area that had a greater percentage of African Americans (please I am not racist don't say so.) Knowing they would be more sympathetic. They always look for jurors who have less education...doesn't matter where, they always do this. Then they admittedly took advantage of police and prosecution mistakes. Now what the police and prosecution did incorrectly, probably would not change the results of their findings. But they used it to cast some doubt on it.

That's your tactic, except for the race card.

One last point about Robertson. First he didn't say the fireman said he saw it.he said the fireman called him over. Then this whole debate, about "like" is absurd...totally absurd. I mean for you guys to go to this extent is unbelievable....see my previous post..i'll paste it for you.

Earlier you explained that "like" can be used as in "this car like showed up out of nowhere". Well, did the car show up out of nowhere?

Final post on Leslie Robertson admitting Molten steel:

I think what I'm about to say will sum it up.

Quote mined, debunked.
Besides, molten steel means - what? With regard to the culpability of Al Qaeda? Please elaborate! What part of the official story is in doubt if there was indeed molten steel weeks after?

...I was driving along and a car like came out of no where. To suggest anything else is beyond absurd.

hahaha in your world, cars come literally out of nowhere

 

[tmd2_1]

Yes you did, you claimed Robertson really saw rivers of steel, you claimed pictures of a crane holding red hot material with some molten material dripping off it was steel, you have been insisting for pages and pages and pages that a picture with some kind of yellowish glowing material lying around what appear to be aluminium cladding is molten steel.

I again ask you the same questions.

For example:

3. Can you suggest as to how many pounds of thermite is required to melt a single piece of steel into a river?

So you claim you didn't mean for weeks, so how about a few days? Please tell us how many tons or pounds it would take to accomplish this.

Are you aware that Building 6 had molten metal running down the walls and down that debris around the columns was red-hot, molten and running? You're must therefore either claim WTC6 was a demolition with tons and tons of thermite as well, or you must think tons of burning steel and thermite rained down onto and into Building 6 all over the place.



[qimg]http://www.elementshealthspace.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Landfill-fire1.jpg[/qimg]

Lets talk a bit about LANDFILL FIRES:

You claimed oxygen couldn't get into the WTC pile and balked at the idea that the pile could remain that hot for weeks, yet this is exactly the trouble they have with landfill fires. They have great trouble stopping the oxygen getting into it. For example in the Vancouver Landfill fire in 2000 they continued applying water around the clock but it still took a week before they saw oxygen levels dropping,



Or this one, where 2,000 gallons per minute quickly ran off the surface and didn't extinguish the fires deep inside.




The first one took 10 days to extinguish, the second took 2 months! Here's two examples of a landfill fire that took weeks to extinguish , the first of which says it smoldered for many months more:




And this one took nearly two months



EDIT: Thanks to WildCat I'll add this one as well:

This one has lasted over 13 years




...


Here's some facts for you.

FACT: Common landfill fires can be very hard to extinguish, can rage for months and there was more than enough fuel in the WTC to feed the fire.
FACT: You only need 845oC to 1040oC to explain glowing steel.
FACT: Other metals will melt at far lower temperatures than steel
FACT: You cannot tell what metal it is just by looking at it
FACT: Reports of molten steel and metal are common and expected in a normal fire.
FACT: Professional resources on fire explain what metals will melt in a fire and how steel can appear melted when it oxidises.
FACT: A veteran fireifghter is far more qualified than a structural engineer to know what melts in a fire and I had given you an example where Fire Commissioner Raymond Orozco reported molten steel in a 1996 fire.
FACT: Leslie Robertson said he didn't see molten steel and we know his exact words were "LIKE" a river of steel. In the same way as many people reported the collapse was "LIKE" a feight train.
FACT: No molten steel melting temperatures were recorded.
FACT: No one reported that it shouldn't have been there or saved any because it was stange
FACT: No professional commentary and no peer reviewed articles mentioning that it was strange

So then...

1. We know the pile being hot and with fires for months is completely understandable
2. We know the glowing debris and steel can occur at expected temperatures in the fires
3. We know that other metals, alloys and even wood can create molten metal at far lower temperatures than steel melts.
4. We know that people reporting to see molten steel and metal is expected and common in a fire.
5. We know that no one relevant cares about this molten metal apart from a tiny fringe group of nobodies
6. We know that steel can look melted when it oxidises

And lastly, we also know that this can happen to steel in a fire:

[qimg]http://www.homelandsecuritynewswire.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/standard/twisted_steel-1.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://rustylopez.typepad.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/2007/03/30/g3a.jpg[/qimg]

I don't know how many pounds were used. Couldn't tell you. Cole does explain his theory about thermite continuing to react. Would like to see a picture of the other buildings molten metal. compare it to the south tower. First of all with your land fill fires the longest I saw was 60 days not 99. Second of all the world trade centel was not a land fill...the contents are different...so it may not be a valid comparison. Roberson did say that..what was he comparing it to...why would you use little river of steel? It's absurd to think other wise. If you mean the general population most people would say the towers fell because the steel melted...they aren't aware melted steel would be a big deal...so why would they care? Everything points to steel...people saying it knowledgable people...saying beams were literally melting. The pictures...wha'ts coming out of the south tower. Show me one report of cladding melting...one at all? If I can't prove it's steel you can't prove it's not. You can't say well we know fires can't get that hot, I know that...that's why something else would have had to be involved. That is at least reasonable doubt...at least.

Note I am not saying continious Molten steel...could have been pockets when ever some some un ignited theremite ignited. Really see Cole he does explain this.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

This is all so he can tell his buddies, "I went to JREF and they just called me stoopid n stuff, but I refused to give in so I kept giving them the truth! But they wouldn't listen no matter how many times I proved them wrong!". Its purely intellectual masturbation.

I doubt that he has "buddies" his Mom probably doesn't let him.

 

[dafydd]

I don't know how many pounds were used. Couldn't tell you. Cole does explain his theory about thermite continuing to react. Would like to see a picture of the other buildings molten metal. compare it to the south tower. First of all with your land fill fires the longest I saw was 60 days not 99. Second of all the world trade centel was not a land fill...the contents are different...so it may not be a valid comparison. Roberson did say that..what was he comparing it to...why would you use little river of steel? It's absurd to think other wise. If you mean the general population most people would say the towers fell because the steel melted...they aren't aware melted steel would be a big deal...so why would they care? Everything points to steel...people saying it knowledgable people...saying beams were literally melting. The pictures...wha'ts coming out of the south tower. Show me one report of cladding melting...one at all? If I can't prove it's steel you can't prove it's not. You can't say well we know fires can't get that hot, I know that...that's why something else would have had to be involved. That is at least reasonable doubt...at least.

Note I am not saying continious Molten steel...could have been pockets when ever some some un ignited theremite ignited. Really see Cole he does explain this.

Is that the insane John Cole? The one who raves on about thermite?

 

[uke2se]

Just wanted to let you guys know I won this thread. It is mine now.

TOTAL VICTORY!

Just 'cause I'm awesome.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Fine, take it with you when you go. There's plenty more where this one came from.

 

[Edx]

I don't know how many pounds were used. Couldn't tell you.

Why not? Its critical to your theory. If its a patently absurd amount then you get an idea of how likely your theory is.

You claim that only a small amount is required, yet you claim tons of the stuff was lying around unreacted, reacting, then melting steel, and that it kept the pile hot for months.

I saw you claim several pages ago that oxygen wouldnt be able to get into the pile to keep it hot, yet I showed you this has happened many times before and even one tire fire that still has intense heat inside after 13 years! I showed you other landfill fires that lasted for months is still very hard to extinguish and they have specifically developed ways to try and stop the oxygen from getting to the fire and also that water often doesn't do much to help.

Cole does explain his theory about thermite continuing to react.

Timestamp as requested twice before please.

Would like to see a picture of the other buildings molten metal. compare it to the south tower.

We showed you wood burning being poured that looked like a river of molten metal, thats not even metal burning.

When all this stuff was going off in the towers only one corner of one building do you see any sparks and stuff that looks like molten metal. How is that possible when you claim that there was SO much in the towers for there to be SO much left over that somehow did not react that it fed a fire that melted steel and kept the pile hot for months?

And yes... thats IS a question I want answered please, my questions are not actually rhetorical. I want you to answer them.

First of all with your land fill fires the longest I saw was 60 days not 99.

Except the one I gave that has lasted 13 years and counting..

Why would it matter if its 60 rather than 99 anyway? Why do you think that makes such a big difference The WTC was not a landfill fire, it was LIKE a landfill fire. Different materials, different amounts, different size, different fuel.

Second of all the world trade centel was not a land fill...the contents are different...so it may not be a valid comparison.

It is a valid comparison but you insisting that 99 days somehow means something is absurd. Some last a helleva lot longer than that. Your original claim you are apparently now moving away from here was not just how long it burned, but that it shouldn't have been burning at all or that it shouldn't have been difficult to put out in the first place. Remember when you balked at the idea oxygen could get to the fire to feed it? As it turns out oxygen getting to a fire is a huge problem when fighting a fire like that, as I just showed you.

Roberson did say that..

I know that, pay attention.

what was he comparing it to...why would you use little river of steel?

He said "like" a river of steel the same way people talked about the collapse sounding LIKE a freight train, that doesn't mean they were describing a freight train on 911, or when I said earlier that the rubble pile on 911 was LIKE a landfill fire.

So if I said what Robertson said, I could easily be describing metal around the columns that looked like steel but wasn't. Plenty of other metals melt without being steel and would have been around there especially if the steel around it was already very hot. We already know that plenty of other times people have described seeing molten steel in fires, even veteran firefighters trained and expereinced in what melts in a fire like the example I gave you before said he saw molten steel in a 1996 fire.

Robertson was speaking casually and it was an off hand remark, he wasn't making a big point about steel specificaly he was making the point about there being molten metal, which is why he doesn't even remember saying it and that when asked specifically if he saw molten steel he says he did not.

He didn't realise truthers would be quote-mining every mention of molten metal and molten steel on 911 for ten years and pretending that this was totally strange and uncommon in a fire. He'd have probably chosen his words more carefully if he did. Its similar to when truthers quote-mine every single mention of someone saying "explosion" and they ignore the fact that explosions are common in a fire and not only that people use the word "explosion", "blast" and even phrases such as "sounding like bombs" to describe things that aren't explosives all the time, even when they already know they arent describing explosives before they said it!

If you mean the general population most people would say the towers fell because the steel melted...

Exactly the point.

People who are....

1. Not trying to be specific, talking casually.. OR
2. Who are not experts in metallurgy ...

...will often use the word molten "steel" to refer to any molten metal. I already proved this to you that people do this all the time. I've shown you just a limited amount of quotes from times this has happened.

This is precisely why in normal fires so many people talk about molten steel when there wasn't any, its why Fire Commissioner Raymond Orozco reported molten steel in a 1996 fire and why Robertson said he saw molten steel on 911. They probably didn't in either case.

verything points to steel...

Except that long list of facts I listed prove the opposite.

All you have is Robertson and a dodgy picture from someome who has used touched up pictures in the past. With Robertson all you do is insist that when he said "like a river of steel" he really meant he saw a river of steel, the same way someone insisting that when people said they heard sounds "like" trains on 911 that they really did hear trains, even when you talk to them and they tell you they didn't hear trains. That's how crazy you sound.

people saying it knowledgable people...saying beams were literally melting.

And yet they will tell you they saw no actual molten steel, is that difficult for you to understand?

Maybe this will help. Melting doesnt mean melted. Steel begins to soften around 425oC and looses about half of its strength at 650cC. So imagine the steel is 900oC, red hot and "soft", you could easily describe that as melting.

Once again, they were not being that specific and speaking casually about how hot everything was. It also wouldn't be the first time people have casually descibed steel beams as melting.

The first of the below list describes the beam as melting, yet they meant sagged and weakening. Its just common for people to describe it like that.

"The heat of the fire that erupted when the tanker crashed melted the heavy steel girders supporting the overpass, causing it to sag about 7 feet toward"
-
Bridge repair rushed
Connecticut Post - NewsBank - Mar 27, 2004

A fire in a wrecked chemical truck Friday caused an estimated million damage by melting bridge girders
-
Truck Fire Burns Hole In Bridge .
Youngstown Vindicator - Dec 3, 1977

The massive six-alarm blaze caused by a construction accident, melted steel girders on nearby construction projects
-
Massive Fire Engulfs Several Blocks .
Boca Raton News -May 20, 2000


"PITTSBURGH - A spectacular general alarm fire, its heat so intense that it melted steel girders, has destroyed a vacant warehouse in the city's Strip"
-
Spectacular Fire .
Gettysburg Times Aug 9, 1975



"The fire, fueled by the undersea oil and gas the crewmen worked each day to harness, burned so hot it melted the steel girders. First the derrick collapsed"
-
DISASTERS STRIKE WORLDS APART OIL RIG
Miami Herald - July 8, 1988

And you're going to LOVE this one:

Here's another Firefighting Chief talking about fire melting steel "like butter" after a propane truck exploded:

""You can see what it did to all the steel," said Fire Chief Stephen Clancy "when it melts steel girders like butter you know what you've got""
-
Searchers Sift Debris At Refinery .At Least 14 Killed In Explosions,...
Bangor Daily News - Jul 25, 1984

There's plenty more I just don't have time to keep copy and pasting it all here for you to rationalise away.

The pictures...wha'ts coming out of the south tower. Show me one report of cladding melting...one at all?

Lets assume for the sake of argument that steel was melting. Why wouldn't the cladding or other metals also melt? If there's tons of molten steel around, there's going to be tons of other melted metals around too.

Now, have that thought in mind. We know steel got so hot it glowed, and we know it can glow and twist at a much lower temperature than it melts, so if its around other metals why wouldn't they melt?

If I can't prove it's steel you can't prove it's not.

I can however prove it is extremely unlikely

that's why something else would have had to be involved. That is at least reasonable doubt...at least.

Except where's the reason to think it was thermite?

Its common for people to talk about melting steel and melting girders in fires, even people that know what they are talking about re: veteran firefighters that are trained in what metals melt in fires.

You say "something else had to be involved":

I'll leave you a quote from a professional firefighter guide:

22.3.3 Solid Fuels. Investigators should not interpret the presence of melted
metals to be an indicator of the use of an ignitable liquid as an
accelerant, in the belief that only an ignitable liquid can produce
sufficiently high temperatures. Common combustibles
and ignitable liquids produce essentially the same flame temperature.
Melting temperatures given in handbooks and in
this guide are for the pure metal, unless otherwise stated. In
many cases, alloys are used rather than the pure metal. The
melting temperature of an alloy is generally lower than that of
its constituents. The actual composition of a metal part and its
melting temperature should be determined before any conclusions
are drawn from the fact that it has melted. Accidental
alloying may occur during a fire. For instance, zinc may drip
onto a copper wire or tube and form a brass alloy, which melts
at a lower temperature than copper. Likewise, molten aluminum
can drip onto steel sheet metal, which can cause the
appearance of melting of the sheet steel. Some properties and
uses of solid fuels are given in Table 22.3.3"


(screenshot here)

Note I am not saying continious Molten steel...could have been pockets when ever some some un ignited theremite ignited.

Consider what you're saying! If you say they only needed a small amount to cut the beams, then where is all this unignited thermite coming from thats just lying around the fire only spontaneously getting ignited once and a while, where there is enough of it to melt steel into a river and keep it molten long enough for people like Robertson to see it?

Thats why I asked you how much thermite do you think it would take to melt a steel beam into a "river". Thats the problem you have, thermite just doesn't work this way and its incomprehensible why they would have such a lot in the towers, that loads of it somehow would stay unignited after the collapse yet when all this thermite is meant to be igniting to demolish the towers we only see a few sparks from something that looks like its molten but might not entirely be (like the wood fire waterfall picture) from a single corner of a single tower.

So none of your theory makes any sence or corresponds to any of the evidence. It is based primarily on the idea that reports of molten steel is abnormal and not meant to exist at all, which is totally wrong. Its entirely expected to get those kinds of reports (I could have gone on for pages giving you more and more newspaper quotes), and faulty understanding and ignorance of how things like landfill fires work and how bad they are.

Really see Cole he does explain this.

As I said before, please give me the video and timestamp so we can see what he says and if he responds to the things myself and others have been telling you.

 

[Animal]

I don't think it was the 'government' per say..a relativily small cabal inside of it...trying to get cart blanh hatred for muslims, as well as bring in a police state.

Do you ave any clue as to what it takes to get something done in a building in Manhattan? I worked on a few small projects in NYC, including one in the WTC, the Empire State Building, the former Gimbles building, the Daily News building, and South Street Seaport.

Nothing moves in NYC without union involvement. Nothing enters a building without union involvement. Trash is removed without another union involvement (and a few other characters, usually named Vito......but that is another story) Elevators had to be reserved days in advance, the list of restrictions and red tape was a mile long. (And people wonder why everything costs more in NYC) The buildings are occupied 24/7 so any power, water or sanitary, sprinkler or elevator interruption was not a big deal....they were HUGE deals.

Anyone that thinks that a "small cabal" would have been able to pull ANYTHING off is either willfully ignorant or terminally stupid.

Anyone who thinks that the unions would either have been ignorant to the comings and goings of people and material into the buildings turned a blind eye to it, or believed some made up story about "elevator repairmen etc.. is beyond terminally stupid.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Anyone that thinks that a "small cabal" would have been able to pull ANYTHING off is either willfully ignorant or terminally stupid.

I would not rule out, willfully ignorant AND terminally stupid.

 

[1337m4n]

I'm talking about him specifically see the other thread..he knows ask him. Took his molten metal test got it right..asked him how I did,,he replies what test...that lie

Are you aware that the members of JREF Forum are not all the same person?

Trufax.

The Molten Metal Identification Challenge was my thread. The point of which is that without relevant expertise a person cannot tell the difference between two different molten metals (and even for people WITH relevant expertise it can often be quite difficult).

This is because all molten metals look roughly the same: like glowing orange goop. A professional metallurgist may be able to tell the difference. But to the layman--you know, the kind of person you are relying on for your entire argument--glowing orange goop is glowing orange goop. I don't recall ever taking a "Molten Metal Identification" class in high school; do you?

Actually, I suppose you wouldn't know, because your level of knowledge, arrogance, and general attitude suggest you've never been to high school.

 

[tmd2_1]

Why not? Its critical to your theory. If its a patently absurd amount then you get an idea of how likely your theory is.

You claim that only a small amount is required, yet you claim tons of the stuff was lying around unreacted, reacting, then melting steel, and that it kept the pile hot for months.

I saw you claim several pages ago that oxygen wouldnt be able to get into the pile to keep it hot, yet I showed you this has happened many times before and even one tire fire that still has intense heat inside after 13 years! I showed you other landfill fires that lasted for months is still very hard to extinguish and they have specifically developed ways to try and stop the oxygen from getting to the fire and also that water often doesn't do much to help.



Timestamp as requested twice before please.



We showed you wood burning being poured that looked like a river of molten metal, thats not even metal burning.

When all this stuff was going off in the towers only one corner of one building do you see any sparks and stuff that looks like molten metal. How is that possible when you claim that there was SO much in the towers for there to be SO much left over that somehow did not react that it fed a fire that melted steel and kept the pile hot for months?

And yes... thats IS a question I want answered please, my questions are not actually rhetorical. I want you to answer them.



Except the one I gave that has lasted 13 years and counting..

Why would it matter if its 60 rather than 99 anyway? Why do you think that makes such a big difference The WTC was not a landfill fire, it was LIKE a landfill fire. Different materials, different amounts, different size, different fuel.



It is a valid comparison but you insisting that 99 days somehow means something is absurd. Some last a helleva lot longer than that. Your original claim you are apparently now moving away from here was not just how long it burned, but that it shouldn't have been burning at all or that it shouldn't have been difficult to put out in the first place. Remember when you balked at the idea oxygen could get to the fire to feed it? As it turns out oxygen getting to a fire is a huge problem when fighting a fire like that, as I just showed you.




I know that, pay attention.



He said "like" a river of steel the same way people talked about the collapse sounding LIKE a freight train, that doesn't mean they were describing a freight train on 911, or when I said earlier that the rubble pile on 911 was LIKE a landfill fire.

So if I said what Robertson said, I could easily be describing metal around the columns that looked like steel but wasn't. Plenty of other metals melt without being steel and would have been around there especially if the steel around it was already very hot. We already know that plenty of other times people have described seeing molten steel in fires, even veteran firefighters trained and expereinced in what melts in a fire like the example I gave you before said he saw molten steel in a 1996 fire.

Robertson was speaking casually and it was an off hand remark, he wasn't making a big point about steel specificaly he was making the point about there being molten metal, which is why he doesn't even remember saying it and that when asked specifically if he saw molten steel he says he did not.

He didn't realise truthers would be quote-mining every mention of molten metal and molten steel on 911 for ten years and pretending that this was totally strange and uncommon in a fire. He'd have probably chosen his words more carefully if he did. Its similar to when truthers quote-mine every single mention of someone saying "explosion" and they ignore the fact that explosions are common in a fire and not only that people use the word "explosion", "blast" and even phrases such as "sounding like bombs" to describe things that aren't explosives all the time, even when they already know they arent describing explosives before they said it!




Exactly the point.

People who are....

1. Not trying to be specific, talking casually.. OR
2. Who are not experts in metallurgy ...

...will often use the word molten "steel" to refer to any molten metal. I already proved this to you that people do this all the time. I've shown you just a limited amount of quotes from times this has happened.

This is precisely why in normal fires so many people talk about molten steel when there wasn't any, its why Fire Commissioner Raymond Orozco reported molten steel in a 1996 fire and why Robertson said he saw molten steel on 911. They probably didn't in either case.




Except that long list of facts I listed prove the opposite.

All you have is Robertson and a dodgy picture from someome who has used touched up pictures in the past. With Robertson all you do is insist that when he said "like a river of steel" he really meant he saw a river of steel, the same way someone insisting that when people said they heard sounds "like" trains on 911 that they really did hear trains, even when you talk to them and they tell you they didn't hear trains. That's how crazy you sound.




And yet they will tell you they saw no actual molten steel, is that difficult for you to understand?

Maybe this will help. Melting doesnt mean melted. Steel begins to soften around 425oC and looses about half of its strength at 650cC. So imagine the steel is 900oC, red hot and "soft", you could easily describe that as melting.

Once again, they were not being that specific and speaking casually about how hot everything was. It also wouldn't be the first time people have casually descibed steel beams as melting.

The first of the below list describes the beam as melting, yet they meant sagged and weakening. Its just common for people to describe it like that.




And you're going to LOVE this one:

Here's another Firefighting Chief talking about fire melting steel "like butter" after a propane truck exploded:




There's plenty more I just don't have time to keep copy and pasting it all here for you to rationalise away.





Lets assume for the sake of argument that steel was melting. Why wouldn't the cladding or other metals also melt? If there's tons of molten steel around, there's going to be tons of other melted metals around too.

Now, have that thought in mind. We know steel got so hot it glowed, and we know it can glow and twist at a much lower temperature than it melts, so if its around other metals why wouldn't they melt?




I can however prove it is extremely unlikely




Except where's the reason to think it was thermite?

Its common for people to talk about melting steel and melting girders in fires, even people that know what they are talking about re: veteran firefighters that are trained in what metals melt in fires.

You say "something else had to be involved":

I'll leave you a quote from a professional firefighter guide:






Consider what you're saying! If you say they only needed a small amount to cut the beams, then where is all this unignited thermite coming from thats just lying around the fire only spontaneously getting ignited once and a while, where there is enough of it to melt steel into a river and keep it molten long enough for people like Robertson to see it?

Thats why I asked you how much thermite do you think it would take to melt a steel beam into a "river". Thats the problem you have, thermite just doesn't work this way and its incomprehensible why they would have such a lot in the towers, that loads of it somehow would stay unignited after the collapse yet when all this thermite is meant to be igniting to demolish the towers we only see a few sparks from something that looks like its molten but might not entirely be (like the wood fire waterfall picture) from a single corner of a single tower.

So none of your theory makes any sence or corresponds to any of the evidence. It is based primarily on the idea that reports of molten steel is abnormal and not meant to exist at all, which is totally wrong. Its entirely expected to get those kinds of reports (I could have gone on for pages giving you more and more newspaper quotes), and faulty understanding and ignorance of how things like landfill fires work and how bad they are.



As I said before, please give me the video and timestamp so we can see what he says and if he responds to the things myself and others have been telling you.

You seem a lot more reasonable and more intelligent then most of the people here. I appreciate that, I just wanted to tell you that. I think I will be ignoring most of these other people, they are only getting in the way of any real debate....because all I truly want to do is find the truth. If it's the official story so be it...if not then we (as a nation) must deal with it as we see fit.

I want to be clear I never said when this steel was found that the witnesses reported. I guess all melted steel would have been found early, I don't know. You'd have to ask the people that found it. Same thing with the rivers it would have been early...but again I don't know. Fires lasting that long...who knows... landfills have more brush and other more easily burnable stuff in it. Maybe the fires could go on that long...maybe not. It doesn't make a break anything.

But here are Cole's videos. He explains briefly in one of them about on going thermetic reactions. He also explains and proves how what was coming out of the tower can not be aluminum mixed with normal office stuff. He shows how little thermite could be used. What he does looks just like what happened at the WTC. It's hard to give a time stamp....it's all important, every minute of it..i ask you watch all of them. It may take a little while but is important.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwqLu8ZXIX0&feature=channel_video_title

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvQDFV1HINw&feature=relmfu

 

[Dayan81]

I don't think it was the 'government' per say..a relatively small cabal inside of it...trying to get cart blanh hatred for muslims, as well as bring in a police state.

TMD- I wish to state for the record that I sincerely apologize to you for our failure to properly educate you and folks like you on the issue of 9-11.

We have been trying our best for almost 10 years now to explain to you and other 9-11 Truthers what happened on 9-11, but somehow we have failed to provide the needed evidence or the right information.

This is not your failure of understanding but our failure of teaching. And I am sorry.

There is no reason why anyone other than the clinically insane, mentally retarded, or paranoid schizophrenic should believe in the ideas of 9-11 Truth. And of course highly-intelligent but economically & politically unsuccessful individuals who use the events of 9-11 to make money and gain fame. These are the only individuals in our great country who should to still be participating in the 9-11 Truth Movement. But somehow we have failed to convince & educate many thousands of Americans who still accept these lies & fairy tales.

Perhaps a new way for dealing with 9-11 Truthers needs to be conceived. Or perhaps we need to develop different strategies for different groups of 9-11 Truthers as they are clearly not in any way monolithic.

But again, I am sorry. I am sorry we have failed to convince you of the truth.

 

[dafydd]

You seem a lot more reasonable and more intelligent then most of the people here. I appreciate that, I just wanted to tell you that. I think I will be ignoring most of these other people, they are only getting in the way of any real debate....because all I truly want to do is find the truth. If it's the official story so be it...if not then we (as a nation) must deal it as we see fit.

I want to be clear I never said when this steel was found that the witnesses reported. I guess all melted steel would have been found early, I don't know. You'd have to ask the people that found it. Same thing with the rivers it would have been early...but again I don't know. Fires lasting that long...who knows... landfills have more brush and other more easily burnable stuff in it. Maybe the fires could go on that long...maybe not. It doesn't make a break anything.

But here are Cole's videos. He explains briefly in one of them about on going thermetic reactions. He also explains and proves how what was coming out of the tower can not be aluminum mixed with normal office stuff. He shows how little thermite could be used. What he does looks just like what happened at the WTC. It's hard to give a time stamp....it's all important, every minute of it..i ask you watch all of them. It may take a little while but is important.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwqLu8ZXIX0&feature=channel_video_title

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvQDFV1HINw&feature=relmfu

More links to a nutter on youtube. What are you hoping to achieve by doing this? You are exposing the truth movement to ridicule. Are you a paid government agent here to discredit the truth movement? If you are then your handlers will be proud of you. Mission accomplished.