Molten Steel

[Jackanory]

Christopher7 oh Christopher7 - when do you become 8? Perhaps i will buy you your very first chemistry set for your birthday!

Your hypothesis needs some basic explanation and needs to be backed up with evidence! Other than the usual redirection to hearsay or just another witness. Witnesses that say things like "it looked like" or "it smelled like" or " it sounded like" or "bob said this and Bill said that"! Hearsay and disinformation just doesnt do!

You clearly do not possess the limited knowledge about the subject you have stumbled across. Your research and evidence comes from disinformation that has been handed from one twoofer to another to another. Your evidence began as someone elses sad delusion and has since been distorted and twisted by so many more deluded and angry young men!

I will give you the opportunity to redeme your misguided loyalty to those who spread deluded nonsense. Try some of your own research. Just to get you started i have given you some pointers below. Then get back to us with your 'evidence'.

1 - Please explain in your own words how you think thermite works?
2 - Please tell us how long you think 'thermite' burns for and at what temperature it burns at.
3 - Please then explain, in your own words, how molten steel can be found amongst rubble and what fueled the fires to keep it molten!
4 - Please tell us what material you think an excavators bucket is made from, including the teeth and nuts/bolts used to attach the teeth/cutting edge.
5 - Please tell us which contractors and specifically which machine operator reported molten steel.
6 - Please tell us the locations of these pools of molten steel.

Please take your time as we wouldnt want you to rush your research. Now run along.

 

[TheRedWorm]

Please, using physical evidence, show what about my statement is so laughable.

...

 

[Christopher7]

Please, using physical evidence, show what about my statement is so laughable.

Because you know the physical evidence was destroyed. Your repeated stupid question gets stupider every time you ask.

 

[Christopher7]

Christopher7 oh Christopher7 - when do you become 8? Perhaps i will buy you your very first chemistry set for your birthday!

Will someone get this lad a box of kleenex?

 

[TheRedWorm]

Because you know the physical evidence was destroyed. Your repeated stupid question gets stupider every time you ask.

Ask yourself this: Who do the lurkers think is being the larger fool, me, who asks you do defend your assertions with physical evidence...

-or-

You who claims, definitively, that liquid steel exists without a shread of physical evidence?

 

[Christopher7]

Ask yourself this: Who do the lurkers think is being the larger fool, me, who asks you do defend your assertions with physical evidence...

-or-

You who claims, definitively, that liquid steel exists without a shread of physical evidence?

The one who incessantly ask for what he knows does not exist.

 

[TheRedWorm]

Will someone get this lad a box of kleenex?

Perhaps you missed the rest of his post. I have quoted it for your considered response.

...
1 - Please explain in your own words how you think thermite works?
2 - Please tell us how long you think 'thermite' burns for and at what temperature it burns at.
3 - Please then explain, in your own words, how molten steel can be found amongst rubble and what fueled the fires to keep it molten!
4 - Please tell us what material you think an excavators bucket is made from, including the teeth and nuts/bolts used to attach the teeth/cutting edge.
5 - Please tell us which contractors and specifically which machine operator reported molten steel.
6 - Please tell us the locations of these pools of molten steel.
...

 

[Grizzly Bear]

That's like asking "What's the difference between a duck?"

A 2/3 cut from what to what?

I am using steveaustin's example. He states that a 2/3 reduction in a sound measuring 140 decibels should result in a cut to roughly 94 decibels. This is incorrect, as several people have pointed out. The absolute sound increases/decreases exponentially as you increase/decrease the decibel reading it's not linear. I do hope you know this... You certainly don't seem to have felt compelled to correct SA when he brought his link up ad made his claim.

 

[Jackanory]

Will someone get this lad a box of kleenex?

Just answer the questions or go back to youtube!

 

[TheRedWorm]

The one who incessantly ask for what he knows does not exist.

So if I say that Jedi squirrels with lightsabers brought down the towers, and all evidence of this was destroyed, and you ask me to back my claim, YOU are the one acting silly?

 

[Jackanory]

The one who incessantly ask for what he knows does not exist.

You should be on stage.

 

[Dave Rogers]

That's like asking "What's the difference between a duck?"

A 2/3 cut from what to what?

SteveAustin referenced some work that showed that sound reduction measures, including some fairly bulky additional equipment, was capable of reducing the peak overpressure of a 140dB explosion by 2/3. He interpreted this as a claim that it could reduce the sound level to 47dB. However, sound levels don't work like that, because the scale is logarithmic. It was pointed out to me in a PM that the sound intensity varies as the square of the peak pressure, so a 2/3 reduction in peak pressure corresponds to a reduction in sound intensity by a factor of 9. However, on the decibel scale this is only a reduction of 9.5dB (a reduction of 10dB corresponds to a ten-fold reduction in intensity). Therefore, SteveAustin's noise abatement techniques would reduce the intensity, not to 47dB, but to 131dB, which, as we can tell from Christopher7's chart, is still above the "uncomfortably loud" level.

NIST's calculation is that an explosive charge capable of severing one core column of WTC7 would generate 130dB. With noise abatement (which, if I recall correctly, included burying each charge in twoce its own weight of earth, a difficult operation to carry out unnoticed in a busy office block) this might come down to 121dB. That would still be unmistakable on any sound recording. And that's only to sever one core column, whereas conspiracy theorists claim they all had to be severed simultaneously.

Dave

 

[Christopher7]

Perhaps you missed the rest of his post. I have quoted it for your considered response.

I deleted the rest of the post because it's a lot of stupid questions that call for speculation so you can make a lot of smartass retorts.

 

[Jackanory]

I deleted the rest of the post because it's a lot of stupid questions that call for speculation so you can make a lot of smartass retorts.

Classic come back. Never expected anything else. Good bye troll.

 

[TheRedWorm]

I deleted the rest of the post because it's a lot of stupid questions that call for speculation so you can make a lot of smartass retorts.

Asking for evidence, and asking to see the chain of logic that has you conclude, definitively, (with absolutely no physical evidence, BTW) that there was liquid steel are smartass retorts, now?

 

[Jackanory]

I deleted the rest of the post because it's a lot of stupid questions that call for speculation so you can make a lot of smartass retorts.

You came here with speculation and hearsay! My questions are directed to your own comments made throughout this thread!My questions are simply asking you to verify what you came here to discuss!


Answer the questions to the issues you raised!

 

[Christopher7]

Christopher7's chart, is still above the "uncomfortably loud" level.

I love the way yo call it "my chart".


The NIST Final report is a pack of lies, omissions and obfuscation.


And you are doing the same with your numbers.

A 2/3 reduction in sound is a 2/3 reduction in sound. What matters is how loud it is, not what number you put to it.

 

[BigAl]

Because you know the physical evidence was destroyed. Your repeated stupid question gets stupider every time you ask.

The claim that all the pile was sent to China unexamined is stupid and wrong. I know some of this close to first-hand. The operation that sorted ALL the rubble was near where I live and well covered in the local news. I know a couple people that worked on the pile and they describe how rubble was raked and sifted literally by human hands before it got trucked to the sorting operation I am familiar with. At all times, the material was treated as if it was part of a crime scene. Much of the rubble was closely examined three times. Thousands of objects and body parts were collected and teh phrase "fingertip-sized" is uncomfortably accurate for what happened.

The structural steel was handled differently and others will describe how it was examined at WTC and them again at the scrap yards.

People familiar with the cleanup know that categorical asertions of failure to examine the evidence is wrong. (Yes the Mob reportedly stole some steel but there was lots of steel. )

Chunks of slag or previosuly molten steel did not escaped the cleanup.

 

[BigAl]

I love the way yo call it "my chart".


The NIST Final report is a pack of lies, omissions and obfuscation.


And you are doing the same with your numbers.

A 2/3 reduction in sound is a 2/3 reduction in sound. What matters is how loud it is, not what number you put to it.

You clearly don't know how logorithims work or how sound level is measured and perceived.

This is High School math and science.

 

[GStan]

Funny, I was just thinking the same thing about you guys.

What relevant professionals?

You are aware of who they are. You have consistently dismissed/ignored their work for 2 1/2 years. (Except, of course, for the rare occasions where you childishly interpret out-of-context statements/analysis as supporting your fantasy when they clearly do not.)

Of course you are dear.

When you have no response, just be a smarta$$. Got it.

There is no reason to doubt them.

Are you at least minimally aware of the fact that you are on a skeptic's board?

What scientific analysis?

You are aware of the reports. You have consistently dismissed/ignored the work for 2 1/2 years. (Except, of course, for the rare occasions where you childishly interpret out-of-context statements/analysis as supporting your fantasy when they clearly do not.)

Groping for reasons to deny the firefighters who saw molten steel running down the channel rails, a specialist on a History Channel special who said there was molten steel at the WTC, the contractor in charge who said he saw pools of molten steel, as we many others who saw molten steel, is neither logical or rational.

Any time you'd like to support your appeal to authority with some facts, I'm ready.

What body of evidence?
I've heard a lot of speculation and double talk but no evidence.

You are aware of the reports. You have consistently dismissed/ignored the work for 2 1/2 years. (Except, of course, for the rare occasions where you childishly interpret out-of-context statements/analysis as supporting your fantasy when they clearly do not.)

Please. Do you want their mother's maiden names too?

Nope, just their names and the date of the interview. I'll find out the rest of what I want to know myself. I have contacts in the FDNY who will help me do your homework.

The statements do NOT need to be re-verified. That is a BS denial tactic to eliminate all witness statements.

What an arse! Are you afraid of what your MATERIAL WITNESSES might say?!?! These are your MATERIAL WITNESSES for your mass murder fantasy! You don't even know their names yet you're using their statements to support your allegations of mass murder? What are their names? For all you know, they could be truthers dressed up like firefighters who made the video clip for other dolts like Steven Jones to sell retarded DVDs about thermite. For all you know, the video could be clipped out of a fictional TV show.

What are their names?

Get out of town!
Who the hell are you to say he dosen't know what he is talking about? Your arrogance is only exceeded by your disrespect.

Perfect straw man. I have not said he does know what he is talking about. He simply made a mistake about a detail of what he saw. Its an honest mistake and pointing it out need not be insulting or disrespectful. But don't worry I am going to contact him too. We'll get to the bottom of this minor anomaly in the witness statements.

The rest is just more of the same.

DenialStuff that I can't rationally refute.

Fixed that for you.

Also, don't forget to list the other 18 witnesses who claim to have seen liquid steel. Or at least have the decency to retract your claim that there were "two dozen" witnesses to molten steel at ground zero. Thanks.