Fire, steel, and 911.

28th Kingdom said:
I had it wrong. "No smoke or fire problems," on the 74th floor. Another firefighter says...samething on floor 68 were on 71 coming up behind you.

"Two isolated pockets of fire on the 78th floor...could knock it down with two lines."

I paraphrased some of these.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKdvl--1Dt0
Click to expand...
how were the fires on the 79th floor? 80th? 81st? 82nd?

you know, the areas the NIST report actually says were on fire
 
28th Kingdom said:
BeHOLD: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A

Watching this video...we can all agree that the building fell to the ground...I say by planted explosives you say by phantom fires and invisible exterior damage.

It's like watching the Zapruder film...and I'm like, "Kennedy was shot in the head." And, you are all like, "Um, no..are you crazy?" I'm like...what are you talking about it...it's as clear as day...
Click to expand...

Bad Kennedy analogies, aside, did you happen to notice a complete lack of:

Horatius said:
Sounds for one thing. Show us a video of the collapse of any of WTC1, 2 or 7 that has anything like the explosive sounds you find in known CD cases. Show us that these sounds are correlated with the collapse. An explosion minutes before the collapse is meaningless. If explosives were used to bring down the towers, they would have collapsed almost immediately upon detonation.

Another thing would be flashes or high-speed jets of debris. Lots of them, co-ordinated with each other, and with the sounds mentioned above, and proceeding the collapse, not following it. All of the "squibs" and "flashes" that have been shown so far fail on all these counts.
Click to expand...

Or did you add the sound effects yourself? "KerPow! Boom! Boom! Arrgh!"

That the building fell is the only thing you can tell from that video. There is nothing to suggest that it fell due to CD. You can't see any of the damage to the south side, nor can you see what's happening on the inside, or at the foot of the building. As evidence, it's just about as useful as going down to Ground Zero and saying, "Hey, didn't there use to be a building here?"
 
I know somebody requested proof of molten steel under the rubble at ground zero. Here are some accounts for you:

Molten Metal: Flowing and in Pools

There are several published observations of molten metal in the basements of all three buildings, WTC 1, 2 ("Twin Towers") and 7. For example, Dr. Keith Eaton toured Ground Zero and stated in The Structural Engineer,

'They showed us many fascinating slides' [Eaton] continued, 'ranging from molten metal which was still red hot weeks after the event, to 4-inch thick steel plates sheared and bent in the disaster'. (Structural Engineer, September 3, 2002, p. 6; emphasis added.)


The observation of molten metal at Ground Zero was emphasized publicly by Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer responsible for the design of the World Trade Center Towers, who reported that "As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running." (Williams, 2001, p. 3; emphasis added.)

Sarah Atlas was part of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue and was one of the first on the scene at Ground Zero with her canine partner Anna. She reported in Penn Arts and Sciences, summer 2002,

'Nobody's going to be alive.' Fires burned and molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet. (Penn, 2002; emphasis added.)

Notice that the molten metal was flowing down in the rubble pile early on; so it is not the case that the molten metal pools formed due to subterranean fires after the collapses. Dr. Allison Geyh was one of a team of public health investigators from Johns Hopkins who visited the WTC site after 9-11. She reported in the Late Fall 2001 issue of Magazine of Johns Hopkins Public Health, "In some pockets now being uncovered they are finding molten steel."

A video clip provides eye-witness evidence regarding this metal at ground zero: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4p6UuGE0plk

The observer notes that the observed surface of this metal is still reddish-orange some six weeks after 9-11. This implies a large quantity of a metal with fairly low heat conductivity and a relatively large heat capacity (e.g., iron is more likely than aluminum) even in an underground location. Like magma in a volcanic cone, such metal might remain hot and molten for a long time -- once the metal is sufficiently hot to melt in large quantities and then kept in a fairly-well insulated underground location. Moreover, as hypothesized below, thermite reactions may have resulted in substantial quantities (observed in pools) of molten iron at very high temperatures -- initially above 2,000 °C (3,632 °F). At these temperatures, aluminum materials from the buildings should continue to undergo exothermic oxidation reactions with materials also entrained in the molten metal pools including metal oxides, which will then keep the pools molten and even growing for weeks despite radiative and conductive losses.

THERE's some evidence for you.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
video of south tower collapse

28th Kingdom,

Earlier you posted this far away video which you say shows the floors below the crash point being detonated.

youtube.com/watch?v=_u_k217RkUo

Well check out this video of the exact same spot, only much closer:

video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5405555553528290546&q=WTC&pl=true

Notice the top of the building starts downward before any puffs appear. Also notice the inward bending outer columns just before the collapse, and how they buckle inward just as the collapse starts.

I can't link yet, so you will have to copy and paste.
 
28th Kingdom said:
Thanks...you just proved that there wasn't any raging fire shooting down the stairways...Now, all we have are the elevator shafts.
Click to expand...

And who was it exactly who ever said there was fire shooting down the stairways?

Straw men do not impress.
 
28th Kingdom said:
I know somebody requested proof of molten steel under the rubble at ground zero. Here are some accounts for you:
Click to expand...

You do realize that this message board keeps the previous posts, right?

Because this:

stateofgrace said:
Please do . Please tell me what type of explosives cause molten steel weeks after it has gone off.
Click to expand...

...is actually asking you for information on the explosives sued to produce the "molten metal".

How is "molten metal" proof of CD? Are there any examples of verified CDs that produced such molten metal? Do you have any calculations on the amount of energy needed to produce molten metal for weeks afterwards, and calculations that show this could only be produced by explosives?
 
28th Kingdom said:
I know somebody requested proof of molten steel under the rubble at ground zero. Here are some accounts for you:

Molten Metal: Flowing and in Pools

There are several published observations of molten metal in the basements of all three buildings, WTC 1, 2 ("Twin Towers") and 7. For example, Dr. Keith Eaton toured Ground Zero and stated in The Structural Engineer,

'They showed us many fascinating slides' [Eaton] continued, 'ranging from molten metal which was still red hot weeks after the event, to 4-inch thick steel plates sheared and bent in the disaster'. (Structural Engineer, September 3, 2002, p. 6; emphasis added.)


The observation of molten metal at Ground Zero was emphasized publicly by Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer responsible for the design of the World Trade Center Towers, who reported that "As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running." (Williams, 2001, p. 3; emphasis added.)

Sarah Atlas was part of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue and was one of the first on the scene at Ground Zero with her canine partner Anna. She reported in Penn Arts and Sciences, summer 2002,

'Nobody's going to be alive.' Fires burned and molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet. (Penn, 2002; emphasis added.)

Notice that the molten metal was flowing down in the rubble pile early on; so it is not the case that the molten metal pools formed due to subterranean fires after the collapses. Dr. Allison Geyh was one of a team of public health investigators from Johns Hopkins who visited the WTC site after 9-11. She reported in the Late Fall 2001 issue of Magazine of Johns Hopkins Public Health, "In some pockets now being uncovered they are finding molten steel."

A video clip provides eye-witness evidence regarding this metal at ground zero: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4p6UuGE0plk

The observer notes that the observed surface of this metal is still reddish-orange some six weeks after 9-11. This implies a large quantity of a metal with fairly low heat conductivity and a relatively large heat capacity (e.g., iron is more likely than aluminum) even in an underground location. Like magma in a volcanic cone, such metal might remain hot and molten for a long time -- once the metal is sufficiently hot to melt in large quantities and then kept in a fairly-well insulated underground location. Moreover, as hypothesized below, thermite reactions may have resulted in substantial quantities (observed in pools) of molten iron at very high temperatures -- initially above 2,000 °C (3,632 °F). At these temperatures, aluminum materials from the buildings should continue to undergo exothermic oxidation reactions with materials also entrained in the molten metal pools including metal oxides, which will then keep the pools molten and even growing for weeks despite radiative and conductive losses.

THERE's some evidence for you.
Click to expand...

I bet you got all your stuff from http://www.youtube.com

Are you as bad as this at school?
 
28 IQ said:
This is just a tip for everyone...if you actually want to engage me in conversation....I'm not gonna sit and take your insults.
Click to expand...
It might help if you understood what's been going on here for almost a year. We have been over certain conspiracy claims time and time again, presenting evidence to people who pop in here all breathless after having just seen Loose Change.

Then you come in a couple of days ago, boasting about how you have positive proof and a high IQ, but trotting out the same hoary old pieces of conspiracy trash, and apparently expecting to get a reaction like we've never seen this crap before. We've seen it, examined it, found it lacking. You deserve quite a bit of ribbing about it. Like when I called you "28 IQ."
 
28th Kingdom said:
Hora...are you a communist or socialist? This question applies to everyone else as well...how many communists are here. Please stand up. I have never seen so many people who are completely and utterly infatuated with government and authority. Most people despise big government power and influence....but most of you seem to revel in it. Did I hit it on the head, or what?
Click to expand...
Red herring
This is not an obscure delicacy but a fallacy that involves bringing irrelevant ideas to a discussion as though they can add to it. For example:
You say that prisons are ineffective, but what about those who thought the streets were safe for them now? How will they feel when they see the person who robbed them going unpunished?​
Even though we could say that by suggesting that prisons are currently ineffective we are not saying that they should just be closed down and everyone inside let out (that would be another fallacy—a straw man), the point is that none of this is relevant to the issue at hand: if prisons do not work as they are, then that is so whether or not we have in mind some improvements, a better idea or are just making a criticism of an imperfect system. By introducing this objection, attention is drawn away from the prison question and onto something entirely different.
In general, if a claim about A is countered by referring to B, the important question is to ask whether B is relevant to A. If so, it may be an objection worth considering; if not, the objection is a red herring.
Click to expand...
http://www.galilean-library.org/int16.html#red_herring
 
thermite vs explosives

28th Kingdom,

Now you are discussing molten steel. Do you contend that the alleged pools of molten steel was caused by thermite?

Before you were alleging that explosives destroyed the floors below the crash point.

You do know that thermite is not an explosive. It is a cutting agent that must be held against steel for some time to work.

Or do you now say thermite was used to cut the steel and explosives were used to detonate the floors?

There must be some amazing pictures of the molten pools of steel, especially night pictures, right?
 
Last edited:
28th Kingdom said:
I know somebody requested proof of molten steel under the rubble at ground zero. Here are some accounts for you:

Molten Metal: Flowing and in Pools

There are several published observations of molten metal in the basements of all three buildings, WTC 1, 2 ("Twin Towers") and 7. For example, Dr. Keith Eaton toured Ground Zero and stated in The Structural Engineer,

'They showed us many fascinating slides' [Eaton] continued, 'ranging from molten metal which was still red hot weeks after the event, to 4-inch thick steel plates sheared and bent in the disaster'. (Structural Engineer, September 3, 2002, p. 6; emphasis added.)


The observation of molten metal at Ground Zero was emphasized publicly by Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer responsible for the design of the World Trade Center Towers, who reported that "As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running." (Williams, 2001, p. 3; emphasis added.)

Sarah Atlas was part of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue and was one of the first on the scene at Ground Zero with her canine partner Anna. She reported in Penn Arts and Sciences, summer 2002,

'Nobody's going to be alive.' Fires burned and molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet. (Penn, 2002; emphasis added.)

Notice that the molten metal was flowing down in the rubble pile early on; so it is not the case that the molten metal pools formed due to subterranean fires after the collapses. Dr. Allison Geyh was one of a team of public health investigators from Johns Hopkins who visited the WTC site after 9-11. She reported in the Late Fall 2001 issue of Magazine of Johns Hopkins Public Health, "In some pockets now being uncovered they are finding molten steel."

A video clip provides eye-witness evidence regarding this metal at ground zero: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4p6UuGE0plk

The observer notes that the observed surface of this metal is still reddish-orange some six weeks after 9-11. This implies a large quantity of a metal with fairly low heat conductivity and a relatively large heat capacity (e.g., iron is more likely than aluminum) even in an underground location. Like magma in a volcanic cone, such metal might remain hot and molten for a long time -- once the metal is sufficiently hot to melt in large quantities and then kept in a fairly-well insulated underground location. Moreover, as hypothesized below, thermite reactions may have resulted in substantial quantities (observed in pools) of molten iron at very high temperatures -- initially above 2,000 °C (3,632 °F). At these temperatures, aluminum materials from the buildings should continue to undergo exothermic oxidation reactions with materials also entrained in the molten metal pools including metal oxides, which will then keep the pools molten and even growing for weeks despite radiative and conductive losses.

THERE's some evidence for you.
Click to expand...
of the accounts youve posted only 2 specifically say "molten steel" and one is a second hand account written by someone who was not at ground zero citing leslie robertson

of the others, many state that the molten metal was red hot, therefore it could not have been iron or steel as they are yelow to white hot when molten

what IS red hot when molten is aluminum
 
28 IQ said:
I know somebody requested proof of molten steel under the rubble at ground zero. Here are some accounts for you:
Click to expand...
In all those accounts, I must have missed how the observers determined that it was steel that was molten. Can you point that out exactly? I mean, a non-technical reporter might mistake any molten metal, such as aluminum, for molten steel, or he might use the term "molten" when all he meant was "glowing hot." Can you see why it would be important to have some way of verifying that it was steel, and that it was molten, to prove your point?

After that, you can then explain how the presence of molten steel supports the case of controlled demolition.
 
28th Kingdom said:
BeHOLD: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A

Watching this video...we can all agree that the building fell to the ground...I say by planted explosives you say by phantom fires and invisible exterior damage.

It's like watching the Zapruder film...and I'm like, "Kennedy was shot in the head." And, you are all like, "Um, no..are you crazy?" I'm like...what are you talking about it...it's as clear as day...and you're like, "Um, no...the government said...he was actually shot in the side...which suddenly raised his blood pressure to a boiling point...which in turn caused a spontaneous acute aneurysm unlike the world had ever seen."
Click to expand...
Straw man
This fallacy takes its name from the image of someone stuffing some clothes with straw and then beating seven bells out of the resultant opponent, supposing thereby that they have somehow won a fight. The fallacy occurs when an argument is countered by taking a weaker form of it and showing where it fails, assuming that this means the original argument has also been defeated.
Take an example:
You say we should invest more in public health services, but taking everyone's money off them and deciding what they should spend it on for them is nothing less than totalitarianism.​
We could render this as a syllogism as follows:
P1: Investing more in public services is equivalent to taking everyone's money and deciding how it should be spent for them;
P2: This is equivalent to totalitarianism;
P3: Totalitarianism has been refuted previously;
C: Therefore, the idea of investing more in public services is refuted.​
Even if we accept P2 and P3, which we needn't, the important point is that P1 is false and does not accurately describe what was originally claimed. By making two different ideas equivalent the argument becomes easier to address but, since the refutation deals with one idea and the argument with another, nothing is actually accomplished. The argument is mischaracterized or misrepresented in order to make it easier to tackle, but by doing so it isn't tackled at all.
Another example could be this:
You advocate the death penalty but I doubt that anyone will accept televised hanging of people on meat hooks.​
Here the idea of what the death penalty involves is mischaracterized (we would hope) by supposing that anyone advocating it is actually asking that people be publicly hung on meat hooks. Since (again, we would hope) this measure would not be accepted, the argument is considered defeated. A simplistic and deliberately repugnant version of the death penalty is used to discredit the idea when the person suggesting it probably said nothing of the sort; as a result, the refutation is unsuccessful.
This fallacy is unfortunately very common and some politicians tend to be adept at its use. It can be used in humour but perhaps the most important lesson to learn from it is not to unwittingly or otherwise make straw men of other people's ideas ourselves.
Click to expand...
http://www.galilean-library.org/int16.html#straw_man
 
28th Kingdom said:
I know I caught myself...notice how my later posts say Floors 7 and 8, instead of 10 and 13...I realized I made that mistake earlier. But something I left out, is the firefighter who is on the 78th floor...and he says no fire or damage there (something to that effect)....INTERESTING. That damn phantom flame...at it again.
Click to expand...

Well, if you made that mistake and even posted afterwards, why didn't you take a few seconds to correct yourself? Instead of waiting for someone to point it out? Did you hope that nobody here would be smart enough to pick up on it? You are quickly losing what little credibility you have here 28th.

Oh, and it's already been pointed out that your video took some liberties with those quotes. The Firefighter says "floor Seven-Eight. Seven-Eight." Not "floors seven and eight. seven. eight." as they try to imply.

So, NONE of the floors you mentioned 7, 8, 10, or 13, had any explosions. Do you agree?
 
VespaGuy said:
So, NONE of the floors you mentioned 7, 8, 10, or 13, had any explosions. Do you agree?
Click to expand...

Actually, I heard him say "7 and 8" the first time, but then he does say just "7- 8". So it's open to interpretation, but we also have to allow for the effects of stress on the guy. Who hasn't misspoken in a moment of stress in their life?

It also might be a quirk of how (some?) firefighters speak on their radio, in order to try and be clear over a bad channel. Anyone here know for sure?
 
28th Kingdom said:
THERE's some evidence for you.
Click to expand...

You have NO idea what real evidence is.

Dr. Keith Eaton toured Ground Zero and stated in The Structural Engineer, 'They showed us many fascinating slides' [Eaton] continued, 'ranging from molten metal which was still red hot weeks after the event, to 4-inch thick steel plates sheared and bent in the disaster'. (Structural Engineer, September 3, 2002.)

1. Who is Dr. Keith Eaton?
2. He was shown only slides.
3. You quote him as saying “molten metal” where does he say MOLTEN STEEL?
4. Why is there no mention of molten steel at the Structural Engineering website?

The observation of molten metal at Ground Zero was emphasized publicly by Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer responsible for the design of the World Trade Center Towers, who reported that "As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running." (Williams, 2001, p. 3; emphasis added.)

Did Mr. Robertson personally see this? Evidence please.

“Sarah Atlas was part of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue and was one of the first on the scene at Ground Zero. “Nobody's going to be alive.' Fires burned and molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet.”

What expertise does a Urban Search and Rescue worker have in metallurgy?

Dr. Allison Geyh was one of a team of public health investigators from Johns Hopkins who visited the WTC site after 9-11. She reported in the Late Fall 2001 issue of Magazine of Johns Hopkins Public Health, "In some pockets now being uncovered they are finding molten steel."

Again, what metallurgy expertise does a medical doctor have?

A video clip provides eye-witness evidence regarding this metal at ground zero: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4p6UuGE0plk

Where is the word STEEL used in that video clip?


Why don’t you stop cut and pasting stuff from CT websites and open your mind?


 
VespaGuy said:
Well, if you made that mistake and even posted afterwards, why didn't you take a few seconds to correct yourself? Instead of waiting for someone to point it out? Did you hope that nobody here would be smart enough to pick up on it? You are quickly losing what little credibility you have here 28th.

Oh, and it's already been pointed out that your video took some liberties with those quotes. The Firefighter says "floor Seven-Eight. Seven-Eight." Not "floors seven and eight. seven. eight." as they try to imply.

So, NONE of the floors you mentioned 7, 8, 10, or 13, had any explosions. Do you agree?
Click to expand...

No I don't agree...all the other firemen addressed two digit floors...by speaking them properly not by breaking them up into single numbers 7,8 7,8. Plus he said 7 AND 8. DEBUNKED YO BOOTY !! Woo Hoo
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom