• 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.

New Article on PrisonPlanet

More than two dozen firefighters, engineers, and other witnesses reported seeing substantial quantities of molten iron or steel, flowing like lava in the debris under all three World Trade Center high-rises
Click to expand...

Is this the only evidence that exists for this molten iron / steel nonsense? Witnesses aren't sufficient evidence to identify exactly what metals were present. How do we KNOW it was molten steel or iron? Couldn't it have been aluminum?
 
Nothing new. Same old BS from an idiot who has no idea how the things he designs are ultimately put together, or how they would look when falling apart.

He also shows zero knowledge of what an explosive device would do inside a cloud of dust.
 
Last edited:
The only thing new is probably the number of "firefighters, engineers, and other witnesses" they claim saw "substantial quantities of molten iron or steel".

When the claim first came up, it was maybe one witness and one or two second-hand statements. Now they've inflated it to "[m]ore than two dozen".
 
Cl1mh4224rd said:
The only thing new is probably the number of "firefighters, engineers, and other witnesses" they claim saw "substantial quantities of molten iron or steel".

When the claim first came up, it was maybe one witness and one or two second-hand statements. Now they've inflated it to "[m]ore than two dozen".
Click to expand...

Gee. I missed that. :o
 
adkinsjr said:
Is this the only evidence that exists for this molten iron / steel nonsense? Witnesses aren't sufficient evidence to identify exactly what metals were present. How do we KNOW it was molten steel or iron? Couldn't it have been aluminum?
Click to expand...
Or lead or zinc or glass or all of these.
 
Cl1mh4224rd said:
When the claim first came up, it was maybe one witness and one or two second-hand statements. Now they've inflated it to "[m]ore than two dozen".
Click to expand...

A number of fire fighters did find significant solidified ingots of once-molten metal. It was in WTC6. It was lead. It usually had cylindrical brass inclusions.

DUH!
 
Mac53 said:
Is there anything new or truthful in this article?
Click to expand...

No, it's simple truther perseveration. Everything in this article has been discussed to death, and every point raised either hasn't been properly established, has a perfectly innocent explanation, or is simply an outright lie. For the most part, it falls into the third category. Here are a few examples:

"These microspheres can only have been formed during the destruction of the World Trade Center at temperatures far higher than can be explained by the jet fuel and office fires" - lie. There's no reason to suppose the microspheres were formed during the collapse.

" More than two dozen firefighters, engineers, and other witnesses reported seeing substantial quantities of molten iron or steel, flowing like lava in the debris under all three World Trade Center high-rises" - lie. Molten metal was widely reported; very few reports identify this metal as iron or steel (and none give any justification for it being steel).

" For this to happen, all 47 of their massive core columns as well as a large fraction of their external columns would have to be compromised with explosives beforehand" - lie. There's simply no rational basis for this statement.

"More than 100 first responders reported hearing explosions and seeing flashes of light at the onset of destruction" - lie. Explosions and flashes of light were seen at various times prior to and during the collapse, not "at the onset of destruction".

"That speed and distance indicates that a high-pressure explosion initiated the ejection" - lie. Again, there's simply no rational basis for this statement.

"Yet NIST has failed to review or acknowledge the obvious implications of this fact, which is that the columns must have been explosively severed within fractions of a second of each other" - double lie. NIST quite explicitly considered the possibility of, and implications of, blast events in the WTC7 report; and there is no rational basis for the statement that explosives must have severed the columns.

"... video analysis reveals clearly that the upper [section] disintegrated in waves of explosions prior to any crushing of the lower [section]." - lie. The video analysis doesn't reveal any explosions.

"In short, NIST’s official technical explanation is fraudulent and inconsistent with the basic laws of physics" - lie. NIST's explanation doesn't violate any laws of physics.

"By contrast, the hypothesis of controlled demolition is consistent with all of the available technical evidence" - lie. There is a large body of evidence that is completely inconsistent with controlled demolition.

Overall, a worthless statement by a worthless man.

Dave
 
Do you think Gage is at a point where he's just trying irrationally hard to cling to his Non Profit Orginization? I mean the guy obviously doesn't want to go back to his day job right?
 
Scott Jurgenson said:
Do you think Gage is at a point where he's just trying irrationally hard to cling to his Non Profit Orginization? I mean the guy obviously doesn't want to go back to his day job right?
Click to expand...

Does he even have a day job to return to? Would he even be considered for an architectural contract after all of this?
 
HannibalGroup said:
Does he even have a day job to return to? Would he even be considered for an architectural contract after all of this?
Click to expand...

A very large number of architects are laid off at the moment. He would be very hard pressed to find a firm that was hiring.
 
HannibalGroup said:
Does he even have a day job to return to? Would he even be considered for an architectural contract after all of this?
Click to expand...

Well, he's had a long vacation in fantasy land; Serving has a high priest in the 9/11 ''truth'' cult for a half decade isn't going to look good on a resume.
 
What I find interesting is this.

There are some half descent, educated, political people who are following Alex Jones. Some of degrees, some are politicians, and some are credible people. (very few lol but some)

In any case, why haven't these people bothered to check out the history of Alex Jones, to see what type of person he is??

Im sure if I was in their position, I would not align myself with someone who is obviously a bit neurotic!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom