• 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

GlennB said:
Regrettably, those satellite photos were horribly misinterpreted. The hardware was simply not capable of operating within those parameters.

But I'd guess it would be a waste of time asking you to read Ryan Mackey's analysis of the issue.

Or would it?
Click to expand...
Mackey works for NASA right? Yeah I'd like to see what he wrote.
 
AJM8125 said:
So no comment on post #1894 tmd?
Click to expand...

I see nothing silver melting/dripping. Again I find it hard to believe NIST would not have mentioned this. You should really contact them if you believe you have new evidence.
 
jaydeehess said:
I see I missed your opening term. Thanks to reading Beahnut's post I caught it now.

What is a "jet fuel office fire"?
The office fires in the towers were started by the burning jet fuel. The jet fuel was what is known as an acellerant and caused the office fires to be, within seconds, large area fires on each of several adjacent floors. This is a condition (multiple large area fires on several adjacent floors within seconds) that simply has never occured anywhere except in this one case of large fast fuel laden passenger jets ramming 200 foot square office buildings known as WTC 1 & 2.

No fire engineering firm has ever run tests in which multiple floors are set ablaze at the same time over large areas.
Click to expand...

Yeah I was typing to fast. I meant Jet fuel and normal office supplies will not get hot enough to melt steel.
 
jaydeehess said:
I did not ask about how hot it was, I expressed doubt that there was thermite supplying heat to the underground debris, especially given that for some reason none of this left over thermite seems to have been on the top of the debris. Do you not find it odd that, supposing Jones is correct, that the thermite supplying heat to the debris is exclusive to well below grade?


http://911review.com/errors/phantom/st_plane.html


OK, I'll look around.

ETA: it was in the "Continuation...." thread where you were expounding upon this fantasy tmd.

BTW the tanker version of a 767 was developed from the 767-200ER and again later from the 767-200LRF. So referring to a 767 and a tanker in the same sentence or post would mean that you are referring to a 767-200 variant.
Sort of like you referring to facial tissue made by Kimberly-Clark and me referring to it as you having talked about Kleenex.
Click to expand...

Yes if it was a conspicary the tanker would have been the most logical plane used. I don't know what was on top of the pile, the evidence was taken away in record time. Not sure what you mean about the thermite being exclusive to well below grade? What makes you say that?
 
tmd2_1 said:
Still not sure I follow you. I'm saying that at 1800F aluminum melts silver. Whatever came out of the WTC 2 was not silver.
Click to expand...

You still have not read post #1884.
You must have missed it the first time.
You're error is answered there.
 
cantonear1968 said:
You still have not read post #1884.
You must have missed it the first time.
You're error is answered there.
Click to expand...

tmd2_1 said:
It's all explained previously. Brief Summary:

Really only 3 possibilites. Lead very unlikely, would need to be the UPS, doesn't seem like it would melt that much. Lead melts silver.

Aluminum: Melts silver, however NIST claims when mixed with office supplies will turn it orange. Experiments have shown these office supplies will fall off so NIST is not correct. The color would still be silver.

Steel: It looks like it, seems to be the last of the 3 that is possible. Steve Jones analyzed a sample from somewhere at GZ, showed it was not aluminum. You can look up all the references in this thread.
Click to expand...


This is post 1884. What are you talking about?
 
tmd2_1 said:
This is post 1884. What are you talking about?
Click to expand...

My apologies. Post #1844
NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!
It poured out red hot! That is plain as day! But because it was removed from its heat source, it started to cool and, after pouring out red hot, some gathered on the lip, starting to turn back silver (and I have not brought up how this was pure aluminum, as others have pointed out).

The material flowing from the WTCs was continuously inside a heat source until exiting the building. So all the material you see flowing out at the top of the building was kept at a continuous temperature from inside the fires at between 700-1000C.

This is why I kept grandmastershek's comments in my signature. Your appeal to you tube experiments is outright unscientific, if I feel like being kind, and utterly ridiculous if I don't! If you do not admit to accepting this, then you are disingenuous at best and dishonest at worst!
Click to expand...
 
Reactor drone said:
Only if the perpetrators had access to time travel technology. As I've said twice in this thread the first flight of a 767 tanker was in 2005.
Click to expand...

I mean a tanker is just a modified 767. It would have been a plane designated to be a tanker, possibly, or perhaps something else. I can't be sure.
 
tmd2_1 said:
I mean a tanker is just a modified 767. It would have been a plane designated to be a tanker, possibly, or perhaps something else. I can't be sure.
Click to expand...

Since when did that stop you from believing something?
 
tmd2_1 said:
I mean a tanker is just a modified 767. It would have been a plane designated to be a tanker, possibly, or perhaps something else. I can't be sure.
Click to expand...
This is why you must include Boeing in your incredibly vast conspiracy.
 
tmd2_1 said:
I mean a tanker is just a modified 767.
Click to expand...
No it's not, despite your use of the diminishing "just".

It would have been a plane designated to be a tanker, possibly, or perhaps something else. I can't be sure.
Click to expand...
Yet you're making definitive statements. I find that unwise.
 
Last edited:
I just realized the heating elements on my stove glow red whenever I'm cooking something.

Is this one of them new "thermite stoves" I've been hearing so much about. Hey, my toaster does it too. What's going on here?
 
1337m4n said:
I just realized the heating elements on my stove glow red whenever I'm cooking something.

Is this one of them new "thermite stoves" I've been hearing so much about. Hey, my toaster does it too. What's going on here?
Click to expand...

If steel glows, melts or flows and it's not on a youtube truthbot video, did it really happen?
 
1337m4n said:
I just realized the heating elements on my stove glow red whenever I'm cooking something.

Is this one of them new "thermite stoves" I've been hearing so much about. Hey, my toaster does it too. What's going on here?
Click to expand...

According to truthers I believe that means the heating elements on your stove were molten or melted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom