Loose Change

[kookbreaker]

[September 12, 2001-February 2002: Witnesses See Molten Metal in the Remains at Ground Zero A chunk of hot metal being removed from the North Tower rubble about eight weeks after 9/11. [Source: Frank Silecchia]
In the weeks and months after 9/11, numerous individuals report seeing molten metal in the remains of the World Trade Center:
Ken Holden, who is involved with the organizing of demolition, excavation and debris removal operations at Ground Zero, later will tell the 9/11 Commission, “Underground, it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from [WTC] Building 6.” [9/11 Commission, 5/1/2003]
William Langewiesche, the only journalist to have unrestricted access to Ground Zero during the cleanup operation, describes, “in the early days, the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole.” [Langewiesche, 2002]

And yet, for all this talk, not one pool of molten steel has been taped, photographed. Molten metal could also mean molten aluminum, which while not glowing, is a molten metal that could be reached in am office fire.

August 27, 2003: NIST Investigators Rule Out Weak Steel as a Factor in Collapses At the end of a two-day meeting to discuss the progress of their investigation of the WTC collapses on 9/11, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) investigators say that early tests on steel beams recovered from the World Trade Center showed they met or were stronger than design requirements.

Which means that we can rule out defective materials as a cause. Nothing more.

It also will point out: “Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250�C. ... Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250�C. ... Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 �C.”

I bolded the relevant part for you geggy. You are missing the fact that NIST had only limited samples because they did not qant to work with unidentified steel. Get it?

Explosive Evidence. The FEMA report titled World Trade Center Building Performance Study, Appendix C (Available at http://www.fema.gov/library/wtcstudy.shtm) “Limited Metallurgical Examination”, shows evidence of explosives used, by way of photographs, microscopic, and chemical examination. They do not draw this conclusion though. Instead, the authors write (in these selected sentences [The coloring of the text is added here. See below for reason]) “Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure.”... “The thinning of the steel occurred by high temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation.”...“The unusual thinning of the member is most likely due to an attack of the steel by grain boundary penetration of sulfur forming sulfides that contain both iron and copper.”...“A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.”... â€

A horde of non-explosive reasons have been given for this. Without any further info

And finally:

Please list the number of Structural Engineers that agree with your asessment, or any other CT asessment as to how the buildings fell.

Geggy is a lying, squirming litte snot trying to repeat stuff we've debunked dozens of times. Stop wasting our time.

 

[geggy]

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/...estigations:_a_detailed_look=wtcinvestigation

It's all right here, dorks...

 

[kookbreaker]

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/...estigations:_a_detailed_look=wtcinvestigation

It's all right here, dorks...

And its all crap, fishbulb.

Anyone do a drink calculation for geggy's latest spew?

 

[CurtC]

Look on right side of the tower. Concrete flying straight outward at an accelerating speed. how do you explain this?

So you think the debris off to the sides has come there horizontally, instead of being in the process of falling from a higher level and on its way mostly down? Can you find the video that shows this? After all, there are many videos of the collapse - just find one that shows this debris going sideways.

Also, since you seem to be implying that this was the result of a controlled demolition, please find any video of a controlled demolition anywhere that has large amounts of building material being ejected sideways.

Geggy, do you really believe this cr*p you post, or are you just trying to get a reaction out of us? I just can't believe that anyone would be so clueless as to believe what you just posted.

 

[chipmunk stew]

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&investigations:_a_detailed_look=wtcinvestigation

It's all right here, dorks...

Keep on linking and ducking, geggy. You're doing great.

 

[kookbreaker]

Geggy, why are you such a sniveling, lying, slimey weasel?

 

[CurtC]

If Gravy does appear on Roxdog's show we should ensure that we are all on IM at the time to aid in quick fact checking so he doesn't get overwhelmed in a pile of drek, a la Hovind v Shermer.

The comparison to Hovind is apt. Hovind's main characteristic is the sheer number of lies that he can casually spew out. By the time a debater shows his first lie to be false, Hovind is already on lie number 87. And if he gets cornered in one subject area, he can quickly switch to a different front.

I think the only way to debate these guys would be to announce your intent up front, to look at each claim in enough detail to rebut it, and refuse to let them switch subjects on you until you're finished with the one you were on.

 

[geggy]

And yet, for all this talk, not one pool of molten steel has been taped, photographed. Molten metal could also mean molten aluminum, which while not glowing, is a molten metal that could be reached in am office fire.

Right and all the witnesses are lying.

I bolded the relevant part for you geggy. You are missing the fact that NIST had only limited samples because they did not qant to work with unidentified steel. Get it?

Got any evidence the heat on the steel ever reached above the temp. of 600 C?

 

[CurtC]

What do you get if you multiply six by nine?

Wow - before I read this, it had never occurred to me that (42base13) = (54base10).

I wonder if this thread will make it to (269base10) pages.

 

[chipmunk stew]

Right and all the witnesses are lying.

Got any evidence the heat on the steel ever reached above the temp. of 600 C?

Simultaneously defending the conflicting ideas that there was molten steel and that the steel never got hotter than 600C.

Not connecting both or either of these ideas with how they support the controlled demolition theory.

Keep going, geggy. You're a laugh a minute.

 

[kookbreaker]

Right and all the witnesses are lying.

The witnesess can be mistaken, and in some cases were using artistic liscence, or never saw any such steel themselves.

http://911myths.com/html/dr_alison_geyh.html

Got any evidence the heat on the steel ever reached above the temp. of 600 C?

Yes, why don't you read the entire NIST report instead of getting trimmed bits from your kookspiracy websites. Or would that be too much like real work? Are you guys allergic to real research or something?

 

[NobbyNobbs]

Look on right side of the tower. Concrete flying straight outward at an accelerating speed. how do you explain this?

Acceleration: a change in velocity over a period of time. Either an increase or decrease in speed or a change in direction

Newton's 1st Law:(simplified) An object will not change its velocity without a force on it. No force, no acceleration.

The debris you refer to is in mid-air. The only force on it in that photo is gravity. Gravity pulls downward. So, in a way, you are right. The concrete is flying outward (it has momentum) and it is accelerating. However, it is accelerating downward.

That is all you can tell from the photo, and you can only tell that much because we are sure, without a shadow of a doubt, that gravity exists. We are not sure that controlled explosives exist, so we can't tell if it is accelerating outward.

Since acceleration is a change in velocity over a period of time, and since a photo is only one moment in time, it is impossible to tell if an object is accelerating from one photograph.



(This educational moment has been brought to you by a full-standing member of the National Science Teachers Association. Join us again next time when we discuss why Einstein's theories show how unlikely it is that aliens are visiting us.)

 

[pgwenthold]

The comparison to Hovind is apt. Hovind's main characteristic is the sheer number of lies that he can casually spew out. By the time a debater shows his first lie to be false, Hovind is already on lie number 87. And if he gets cornered in one subject area, he can quickly switch to a different front.

I think the only way to debate these guys would be to announce your intent up front, to look at each claim in enough detail to rebut it, and refuse to let them switch subjects on you until you're finished with the one you were on.

That's why I have said that the debate should be a very narrow topic. Something like, Flight 93 landed in Cleveland. Now, debate that.

CTers would NEVER agree to that, however, because they know they would be completely massacred. First thing they'd have to explain is what happen to each of the 40odd people who were on the flight. They can't do that, because they could find no evidence at all that anyone of them are alive. Leaves a fairly large hole in the argument.

Typically, they just brush the group off with some conspiracy claim. However, if the topic is focused, they would have to address each one individually, and actually provide evidence for their claims.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

"charliebean" posted your challenge on the LC forum, and "DemolitionCrew" responded:

Besides being someone NEW, WHO ARE YOU DUDE?

I ask that to say...what would Dylan or any member from the LC Crew have to gain by debating you?????

Perhaps someone should point out that Dylan (IIRC) already requested that people from this site debate him - on his "radio show."

So the question isn't why he should do it -- he says he is willing to -- the question is why won't he do it in a neutral forum, rather than where he controls the microphone and can edit at will?

Seems to me that he was quite vocal in calling people cowards if they did not choose to appear in his podcast to literally hund^h^h^h^h doze^h^h^h^h a few people. He's willing to debate "nobodies"; he just isn't willing to do it where he cannot control the editing.

Draw your own conclusions.

 

[Gravy]

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/...estigations:_a_detailed_look=wtcinvestigation

It's all right here, dorks...

Check your PM, geggy. I'd like a reply.

 

[chipmunk stew]

Perhaps someone should point out that Dylan (IIRC) already requested that people from this site debate him - on his "radio show."

So the question isn't why he should do it -- he says he is willing to -- the question is why won't he do it in a neutral forum, rather than where he controls the microphone and can edit at will?

Seems to me that he was quite vocal in calling people cowards if they did not choose to appear in his podcast to literally hund^h^h^h^h doze^h^h^h^h a few people. He's willing to debate "nobodies"; he just isn't willing to do it where he cannot control the editing.

Draw your own conclusions.

That was "Roxdog"/"conspiracybeliever", one of Dylan's loyal followers.

 

[Stellafane]

No...the "power of christ" reference was from family guy. It's just funnier when peter griffin said it. It was in the episode which chris started speaking ebonic hip hop language and peter thought he had been possessed, so he pulled over his car to start cranking up biblical references and spray holy water on chris to get rid of the blackness in him. Just like I think you guys have been possessed by believing that the offcial account of sept 11 is true, therefore you are possessed by the government.

OK geggy, can you explain to me why you're quoting from Family Guy, when its creator, Seth Macfarlane, obviously had advance warning of 9/11 and is thus part of the conspiracy? Because as I explained in an earlier post, Macfarlane was supposed to be on one of the planes that hit the WTC, but at the last minute he "accidently" missed the flight. So doesn't that make it obvious that Macfarlane is in on the conspiracy?

This isn't just some goof -- I really do want you to explain to me why Macfarlane missed that plane. And do you know why? Because I want you to admit it doesn't mean anything, it's just a coincidence. Then I can slam you by pointing out the fact that you're willing to overlook this coincidence, but you attach all sorts of meaning to other coincidences that are vastly less striking and suspicious. Not only that, you've built a vast conspiracy out of these bits of meaningless fluff.

So which is it: Are you finally ready to admit your 9/11 conspiracy is a big load of stupid crap, or is Peter Griffin yet another agent of GW Bush? One or the other, geggy -- your choice.

 

[Gravy]

Perhaps someone should point out that Dylan (IIRC) already requested that people from this site debate him - on his "radio show."

So the question isn't why he should do it -- he says he is willing to -- the question is why won't he do it in a neutral forum, rather than where he controls the microphone and can edit at will?

Seems to me that he was quite vocal in calling people cowards if they did not choose to appear in his podcast to literally hund^h^h^h^h doze^h^h^h^h a few people. He's willing to debate "nobodies"; he just isn't willing to do it where he cannot control the editing.

Draw your own conclusions.

That's Roxdog, you're referring to, not Dylan Avery. All Roxdog has to do is come here, make his points, and stick around for the debate, but he won't do that. This forum gets many times the audience that his podcast does. He is a sad, cowardly person.

ETA: As for me being on his show, sure! I'd act really dumb, and that would give Avery the confidence to debate me.

 

[bob_kark]

September 12, 2001-February 2002: Witnesses See Molten Metal in the Remains at Ground Zero A chunk of hot metal being removed from the North Tower rubble about eight weeks after 9/11. [Source: Frank Silecchia]

No link to confirm. Also, what exactly is this to confirm? What explosives leave metal in a liquid state for 8 weeks? I have an answer for you in my next quip.

In the weeks and months after 9/11, numerous individuals report seeing molten metal in the remains of the World Trade Center:
Ken Holden, who is involved with the organizing of demolition, excavation and debris removal operations at Ground Zero, later will tell the 9/11 Commission, “Underground, it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from [WTC] Building 6.” [9/11 Commission, 5/1/2003]

This is the key point, Underground.

Firefighters have extinguished almost all but the last remnants of underground fires that have burned at the World Trade Center site for more than three months since the Sept. 11 terrorist attack.

William Langewiesche, the only journalist to have unrestricted access to Ground Zero during the cleanup operation, describes, “in the early days, the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole.” [Langewiesche, 2002]

The link for this is to a book, I'm not going to purchase just to debunk an incomplete sentence that could have been taken completely out of context.

August 27, 2003: NIST Investigators Rule Out Weak Steel as a Factor in Collapses At the end of a two-day meeting to discuss the progress of their investigation of the WTC collapses on 9/11, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) investigators say that early tests on steel beams recovered from the World Trade Center showed they met or were stronger than design requirements. It also will point out: “Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250�C. ... Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250�C. ... Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 �C.”

What they fail to follow up with is this:

Examination of photographs showed that 16 of the exterior panels from WTC 1 were exposed to fire prior to the building collapse. None of the nine recovered panels from within the fire floors of WTC 2 were directly exposed to fire. NIST used two methods to estimate the maximum temperatures that the steel members had reached:

Observations of paint cracking due to thermal expansion. Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250�C: east face, floor 92, inner web; and north face, floor 98, and truss connector. Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250�C. NIST did not generalize these results, since the examined columns represented only 3 percent of the perimeter columns and 1 percent of the columns from the fire floors

So, these columns represented only 3 percent of the perimiter columns and 1 percent of the columns from the fire floors. Not really damning evidence.

Observations of the microstructure of the steel. High temperature excursions, such as due to a fire, can alter the basic structure of the steel and its mechanical properties. Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 �C.

These results were for a very small fraction of the steel in the impact fire zones. Nonetheless, these analyses indicated some zones with WTC 1 where the computer simulations should not, and did not, predict highly elevated steel temperatures.

Oh, wait, so the areas where the samples were located weren't even supposed to have elevated steel temperatures!

July 23, 2002: A “lost tape” of radio messages from firefighters inside the WTC on 9/11 is made public. Supposedly, “city fire officials simply delayed listening” to this tape until after the official report on the fire department’s response to the attacks was published, and they still refuse to allow any officials to discuss the contents. The tape reveals that two firefighters were able to reach the crash site on the 78th floor of the South Tower. While there, “Chief Palmer could see only two pockets of fire, and called for a pair of engine companies to fight them.” [New York Times, 9/4/2002; Guardian, 9/5/2002]

Full quote:

At that point, the building would be standing for just a few more minutes, as the fire was weakening the structure on the floors above him. Even so, Chief Palmer could see only two pockets of fire, and called for a pair of engine companies to fight them.

Explosive Evidence. The FEMA report titled World Trade Center Building Performance Study, Appendix C (Available at http://www.fema.gov/library/wtcstudy.shtm) “Limited Metallurgical Examination”, shows evidence of explosives used, by way of photographs, microscopic, and chemical examination. They do not draw this conclusion though. Instead, the authors write (in these selected sentences [The coloring of the text is added here. See below for reason]) “Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure.”... “The thinning of the steel occurred by high temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation.”...“The unusual thinning of the member is most likely due to an attack of the steel by grain boundary penetration of sulfur forming sulfides that contain both iron and copper.”...“A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.”... â€

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/

Again, this article starts off on the wrong foot by making a false claim in the first sentence.

 

[dubfan]

That was "Roxdog"/"conspiracybeliever", one of Dylan's loyal followers.

Tonight at 9:30 was supposed to be my big debut on Roxdog's show. I asked him last week for details (what we were going to discuss specifically, who else would be on, and what number to call), and he has yet to reply.

They're all atwitter over there now about the Pentagon videos that will be released at 1PM. Dylan went way out on a limb and predicted the videos would show a "silver blob".