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

Any hypothesis on pools of metal?

Devil's Advocate said:
Devil's Advocate : One who argues against a cause or position, not as a committed opponent but simply for the sake of argument or to determine the validity of the cause or position.

That applies to both sides.
Just because some people may not like it does not mean I deserve to be falsely painted as one thing or another.
One could simply say that they do not like it, and me for it. That I can accept.
Being falsely accused and expected to accept it as if I did something wrong I cannot accept.
And I think a logical person would agree.

I think the fact of the matter is, some do not like the questions I have asked because they seem to be questions that CT people use as 'proof' of conspiracy. And in that, people think I am trying to trap someone into something with it. Which is not the case.
I ask questions about things I do not have as much information on. I was encouraged by some to ask questions and people would help me with sources to answer my questions. I do not see my fault or failure in any respect.
Click to expand...

YOu can pretend all you want that people don't like the questions you ask which are all questions asked here on a regular basis and answered on a regular basis by the people you feel don't like the questions. But we all (including you) know that isn't true. if people didn't like the questions, they wouldn't come to a forum where those questions are expected to be asked. Now if this was not a conspiracy forum, you might have a point.

But what people don't like are other masquerading around on a screen name thinking that using a certain name gives them permission to pretend they are open minded and to insult the intelligence of everyone here by thinking everyone is too stupid to know any better. If you were actually being honest, you wouldn't need to come up with a special screen name for such a purpose, you would just be a normal person like everyone else asking questions. Everyone here asks such questions regardless of what they believe. But they don't dance around a screen name to justify their questions. And they don't pretend to be something they are not.
 
Jonnyclueless said:
YOu can pretend all you want that people don't like the questions you ask which are all questions asked here on a regular basis and answered on a regular basis by the people you feel don't like the questions. But we all (including you) know that isn't true. if people didn't like the questions, they wouldn't come to a forum where those questions are expected to be asked. Now if this was not a conspiracy forum, you might have a point.

But what people don't like are other masquerading around on a screen name thinking that using a certain name gives them permission to pretend they are open minded and to insult the intelligence of everyone here by thinking everyone is too stupid to know any better. If you were actually being honest, you wouldn't need to come up with a special screen name for such a purpose, you would just be a normal person like everyone else asking questions. Everyone here asks such questions regardless of what they believe. But they don't dance around a screen name to justify their questions. And they don't pretend to be something they are not.
Click to expand...

First off, as stated before, I was encouraged to ask questions. And I did.
I was attacked and falsely labeled from my first question. My very first one.
So how am I supposed to react to that?

I encourage you to ask questions.
You ask a question.
I call you a wolf in sheep's clothing CT clown.
And that is your fault? No.

What gives you the impression that I am "masquerading around on a screen name" ?
"Masquerading" is another implication that I am acting under false pretenses.

And I am pretending to be open minded? Qualify that remark. I am not pretending anything. I will not speak against evidence or facts.
But, when someone asks, "How can someone believe that..." I may put up something that may be for or against one side or the other to see what their thoughts, opinions, and stance is with regard to the question.

You have nothing but false logic and baseless assumptions. Maybe some have come and acted similar to me and were really on the CT side. But that is not my fault or problem. Someone just posted that just because Northwoods showed that people in government have purposed fake terrorist attacks in the past does not mean it is that way now.....How is that different from me and my situation?
Just because people have come in the past and were really on the CT side has nothing to do with me.

I do not see evidence to support the CT side, but I do not close my mind to the possibility that there may be things I have not seen, or that someone may speak out and blow the whole thing out of the water.
Do I expect it? No.
Do I think that it is possible? Yes.
Thus I am open to possibility.
Open Minded :Having or showing a mind receptive to new ideas or arguments
 
Devil's Advocate said:
Thus I am open to possibility.
Open Minded :Having or showing a mind receptive to new ideas or arguments
Click to expand...
But where do you draw the line about which ideas or possibilties can't be taken seriously? Would you, for example, be receptive to someone putting forth the argument that the Sun orbits the Earth?
 
Corsair 115 said:
But where do you draw the line about which ideas or possibilties can't be taken seriously? Would you, for example, be receptive to someone putting forth the argument that the Sun orbits the Earth?
Click to expand...

Where do you draw the line? At the evidence for or against.

A perfect example is in another thread.
One person made it seem as if it were impossible to get 32,000lbs of thermite/thermate into the towers.(Based on the amount of flow coming out of the south tower before it collapsed)
Formed as a question, that makes it open to theoretical possibility in reply to a theoretical problem.

I argued simply that it could have been possible to get that much in the towers. If the plane's cargo hold was full of thermite/thermate, then it is possible.
That does not mean I believe it is the case, but it is a way to show that such an idea is not impossible. Just because people refuse to accept it does not make it impossible.
Unlikely? Yes.
Impossible? No.
 
Max Photon explains the sources of the pools of molten metal

---

Good people,

There seems to be much confusion about pools of molten metal.

First, define your terms.


There were pools of molten iron on impact floors left over from the phreato-thermatic explosions of the jets. This is molten iron from the improvised-thermite reaction.

For more on improvised thermite, please visit:

The aluminum from Flights 11 & 175 was used to create phreato-thermatic explosions



There were also many hand-planted-thermite reactions in the WTC towers.

Thermite was hand-placed in perimeter-panel box columns and spandrel splices (and other steel connectors) - not to cut or melt steel - but to heat-weaken steel, so it would appear to fail naturally and spontaneously (uncatalyzed).

Please visit:

Max Photon Solves the Mystery of NIST Figure 9-45: Thermite was poured into perimeter-panel box columns



The molten iron from the improvised thermite, and the hand-planted thermite, found its way - flowed ("like rivers of lava") - to the bottom of the debris pile, and collected as time passed.

Remember...

Thermite was not used to cut or melt steel.

That is the biggest misconception going at the moment and most of you are deeply - and possibly permanently - branded with this insidous, assinine idea that "thermite = cutting." (Talk about fixed thinking!)


Some steel did melt, but that was incidental. FEMA photos clearly show steel members that have been melted. Again, that was incidental.


The firemen et. al. refer to rivers of molten steel. Cut them a little slack. They can't know at that time that it's molten iron, not molten steel. That is a perfectly understandable mistake.


NIST's Gross did not lie when he said NIST found no evidence of melted steel. (Note that he was not asked if NIST found evidence of molten iron.)


It is all very simple. You are looking at molten iron, from thermite reactions.

Thermite = Controlled-Demolition


Steel yourselves people, for the possibility that MAX-MIHOP just might be correct.

Regards,

Max

---
 
Max Photon sources the firetruck / molten iron photo

---

Devil's Advocate,

The source is listed below the photo.

I also added it in the PS of my post.

Max

---
 
Devil's Advocate said:
First off, as stated before, I was encouraged to ask questions. And I did.
I was attacked and falsely labeled from my first question. My very first one.
So how am I supposed to react to that?

I encourage you to ask questions.
You ask a question.
I call you a wolf in sheep's clothing CT clown.
And that is your fault? No.

What gives you the impression that I am "masquerading around on a screen name" ?
"Masquerading" is another implication that I am acting under false pretenses.

And I am pretending to be open minded? Qualify that remark. I am not pretending anything. I will not speak against evidence or facts.
But, when someone asks, "How can someone believe that..." I may put up something that may be for or against one side or the other to see what their thoughts, opinions, and stance is with regard to the question.

You have nothing but false logic and baseless assumptions. Maybe some have come and acted similar to me and were really on the CT side. But that is not my fault or problem. Someone just posted that just because Northwoods showed that people in government have purposed fake terrorist attacks in the past does not mean it is that way now.....How is that different from me and my situation?
Just because people have come in the past and were really on the CT side has nothing to do with me.

I do not see evidence to support the CT side, but I do not close my mind to the possibility that there may be things I have not seen, or that someone may speak out and blow the whole thing out of the water.
Do I expect it? No.
Do I think that it is possible? Yes.
Thus I am open to possibility.
Open Minded :Having or showing a mind receptive to new ideas or arguments
Click to expand...

Thanks for the rhetoric. I rest my case.

In the next post, maybe you can throw in some generic saying about people overlooking color and learning to love their neighbors too. I bet that will impress a lot of people. Thank you also for helping everyone here to be open minded because until you came along, no one here understood the concept. But you have educated us all thanks to your screen name. How can we ever repay you?
 
Max Photon to Devil's Advocate - Save your open mind for useful purposes.

---

Devil's Advocate,

To me, you are (at least in this little exchange) the epitomy of a normal person applying the scientific process properly and with integrity.

You are keeping an open mind, and you are open to changing your position.


You are truly rare.


Whether we ever agree or not, I admire that you are keeping an open mind.

Others would do well to emulate you.


With that said, may I request that you spend your energy not on defending yourself (because there is no need to), but on trying to wreck my hypotheses (because there is a need to - I need critical input from peers).


Regards,

Max

---
 
Revolutionary91 said:
Many kinds of samples were taken from ground zero, NASA flew over with infra red imaging equipment, the entire site was mapped using sophisticated sonar equipment. Amongst all of this, did nobody think to take a sample of this metal and test it?
Click to expand...

Eh, what? How much of the debris field was under water? :hypnotize
 
HeyLeroy said:
Eh, what? How much of the debris field was under water? :hypnotize
Click to expand...
Sonar, or the equivalent, can be used to map sub-surface structures (i.e. through a solid). I don't know if such was used at the WTC, though.

Ultrasound scans (e.g. of a fetus) works the same way; it's basically sonar.
 
I was under the impression that radar was used for solids (eg., ground-penetrating radar) and in air; sonar (eg., sonograms) is the preferred technology for imaging through liquids.
 
Max Photon said:
---

Devil's Advocate,

To me, you are (at least in this little exchange) the epitomy of a normal person applying the scientific process properly and with integrity.

You are keeping an open mind, and you are open to changing your position.


You are truly rare.


Whether we ever agree or not, I admire that you are keeping an open mind.

Others would do well to emulate you.


With that said, may I request that you spend your energy not on defending yourself (because there is no need to), but on trying to wreck my hypotheses (because there is a need to - I need critical input from peers).


Regards,

Max

---
Click to expand...

How can you be closed minded and follow even the idea of science? You can't.
But yeah, I'm done with all that.
If people want to call me names, falsely judge me, be childish, then that is fine. Enjoy.
I am just honest. And if I feel I am being slighted, then of course I'll defend myself, or anyone else I feel is being slighted.
But if they start name calling and all that, then I will not take up for them.
Some people deserve what they get, others do not.

I appreciate what you said, Max....even if I do not agree with your positions. I will look over your stuff more though. Just a warning, I am a hard sell. :D
 
Devil's Advocate said:
The pentagon and satanism was tongue in cheek as stated later in the thread. Is that ok with you? If not, then deal with it.
Click to expand...

Belz almost always works the same way. He does line-by-line rebuttals.
He chooses his targets with some kind of woo radar, or by smell, or by the vibrations of distant woo he hears deep in his underground lair.

He's good at what he does.

If you don't want to play with Belz, stop playing d's arse, and just tell him what you think. As soon as you start sounding reasonable, he'll get bored.


Devil's Advocate said:
Thanks for the warning/ info.
I think I have an idea what someone is trying to do. And I hope they realize it will not work.
Click to expand...



Devil's Advocate said:
I argued simply that it could have been possible to get that much in the towers. If the plane's cargo hold was full of thermite/thermate, then it is possible.
That does not mean I believe it is the case, but it is a way to show that such an idea is not impossible. Just because people refuse to accept it does not make it impossible.
Unlikely? Yes.
Impossible? No.
Click to expand...

This is a kind of creativity that is misplaced and will cause mistrust around here, and rightly so. Lay off the "it's theoretically possible that x" stuff, because almost anything's theoretically possible.

There's an issue of taste with 9/11.

Thousands of pounds of thermite placed in a hijacked passenger plane is a far-fetched scenario, and you know it. If you don't you ought to.
 
Devil's Advocate said:
One person made it seem as if it were impossible to get 32,000lbs of thermite/thermate into the towers.(Based on the amount of flow coming out of the south tower before it collapsed)
Formed as a question, that makes it open to theoretical possibility in reply to a theoretical problem.

I argued simply that it could have been possible to get that much in the towers. If the plane's cargo hold was full of thermite/thermate, then it is possible.
That does not mean I believe it is the case, but it is a way to show that such an idea is not impossible. Just because people refuse to accept it does not make it impossible.
Unlikely? Yes.
Impossible? No.
Click to expand...

Well let's take UA175 for example. That plane was a Boeing 767-200. Do you know how many cargo containers that plane held? Do you know what the maximum weight was for each container? Do you know how many cargo containers were filled with passenger's luggage and regular cargo? Do you know what metal the cargo containers were made of? The model number maybe?

If you haven't done the math how do you know if it's possible or not?
 
Last edited:
HeyLeroy said:
I was under the impression that radar was used for solids (eg., ground-penetrating radar) and in air; sonar (eg., sonograms) is the preferred technology for imaging through liquids.
Click to expand...
Depends on the densities and scale involved, I believe. Mind you, the only specific technologies I am absolutely sure of are ultrasound (since my work is developing medical imaging software) and "sound" used for geophysical research. Note that ultrasound is not through liquid. (Small explosives are set off, or large weights are thumped, and microphones pick up the reflected sound transmitted through the ground. Similar, but on a much larger scale, is the "imaging" of the Earth's interior by earthquake waves; P-waves are essentially sound waves.)
 
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