• 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.

NIST engineer John Gross interview

CTer: What about the Boeing 747 which hit the tower?

Sane Person: What 747? I didn't see a 747, did you?
 
SLOB said:
Anyone here know of how CT's explain "huge pools of molten steel"?
Click to expand...
The only "explanation" I'm aware of is that "thermite can do it". :rolleyes:

This pseudo-explanation was roundly dealt with here by our in-house specialists.
 
He is probably lost in the dryer (they tend to collect there), but...In case you return Gmoney...or Gmotives...or whatever:

NIST had a mandate (you know, a directive, a set of goals and objectives), and they fulfilled it quite well.

If you have a problem with things that they did not address, but said they would, then that is fair, however, if you have trouble with issues or aspects of the attacks they did not address, but never claimed they would, then you are wasting your time. Perhaps what you want is a seperate investigation, by NIST, or some other scientific body, to directly look at the collapse itself. Start one of your own, or petition for one.

You telling NIST they needed to do things different, is kind of like me telling the CEO of GM how to run the company...get real.

Apart from that welcome to the closeline...I mean the forum.

TAM:)
 
Amazing btw, at almost the same time as this video shows up at this forum, someone posted the same, albeit in swedish, at "my other forum". Perhaps Im not the only one posting there and there. Am I being followed? Are they onto me?

Cheers,
S
 
SLOB said:
Does even Steven Jones maintain that thermite could have kept steel molten for what, up to six weeks?
Click to expand...
Yes.

From his paper:

Thus, molten metal was repeatedly observed and formally reported in the rubble piles of the WTC Towers and WTC 7, metal that looked like molten steel or perhaps iron. Scientific analysis would be needed to conclusively ascertain the composition of the molten metal in detail.
I maintain that these observations are consistent with the use of high-temperature cuttercharges such as thermite, HMX or RDX or some combination thereof, routinely used to melt/cut/demolish steel.
...
Furthermore, we have seen published reports that "molten steel [or other metal] flowed in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet" -- how could building fires have caused that effect? Has it ever been seen before? We know of no such instances. However, thermite-derivative reactions as conjectured would produce molten flowing iron, as observed
Click to expand...
 
GMotives said:
Hey I'm new to these forums iv been browsing here for a while, but never really commented. Iv also been visiting loose change forums as well. You all both seem to have ur good and bad points with ur arguments, as it stand at moment im netural on subject. I have recently come across interview with Nist engineer John Gross. I was really disturbed to see lack of study and investagtion that was done. He has basicly just ignored very important aspects of collapse and after effects that would prove the governments accounts right or wrong. I normally dont choose side on this matter as it seems to very up in air atm. But this is very worrying in way this was handled. Espically somthing of this magnitude. What are your guys opion on mattters?

video:
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7180303712325092501&hl=en
(some reason im not allowed post urls till have at least 15 posts which seems abit over top but anyways)
Click to expand...

How many times have threads been started with very similar opening posts. They are neutral at the moment when in fact they have a very specific opinion.
 
SLOB said:
Ahhh, for six weeks I would have accepted thermite. For eight weeks however...it must have been small tactical nukes.

Cheers,
SLOB
Click to expand...

Even then, thermite only burns for a matter of seconds. To have an amount of thermite large enough to burn for 6 weeks would be literally in the hundreds of thousands of tons. :) But you know "common sense" tells us it was thermite :p
 
eeyore1954 said:
How many times have threads been started with very similar opening posts. They are neutral at the moment when in fact they have a very specific opinion.
Click to expand...

I'm almost convinced they have a "Guide To Posting at JREF" thread in their little private forum over at LC. One of the points in it must be "claim to have a neutral point of view - then gradually show that we are more convincing then they are".

I'd almost bet money on it. I've seen it done before.
 
GMotives said:
Hey I'm new to these forums iv been browsing here for a while, but never really commented. Iv also been visiting loose change forums as well. You all both seem to have ur good and bad points with ur arguments, as it stand at moment im netural on subject.
Click to expand...

Why is it that every single new person who claims to be neutral, turns out to be a full-fledged troother within 10 posts?


GMotives - if you don't mind... how old are you? Is English your first language?

ETA: Apparently, I was having the same thoughts as eeyore.
 
Last edited:
The Doc said:
Ok let's play "Who's noticed the new trend?"

What's with the new socks/LCers/CTers coming on here and starting off by claiming "I take neither side". They then turn out to spout the same claims we've heard 10,000,000 times and pretend it should all be new to us.
Click to expand...

I thought it first :(:p
 
eeyore1954 said:
How many times have threads been started with very similar opening posts. They are neutral at the moment when in fact they have a very specific opinion.
Click to expand...

The Doc said:
I'm almost convinced they have a "Guide To Posting at JREF" thread in their little private forum over at LC. One of the points in it must be "claim to have a neutral point of view - then gradually show that we are more convincing then they are".

I'd almost bet money on it. I've seen it done before.
Click to expand...

I think we should name it. It is almost like a skin lesion, but that is too repulsive to most, so perhaps something like...

"Truther Mark" - The initial phrasing of a posting or argument that proposes innocence and benign engagement in debate, but is often a cloak for a more malignant intentions.

TAM:)
 
VespaGuy said:
Why is it that every single new person who claims to be neutral, turns out to be a full-fledged troother within 10 posts?


GMotives - if you don't mind... how old are you? Is English your first language?

ETA: Apparently, I was having the same thoughts as eeyore.
Click to expand...
It's not a tactic exclusive to the twoofers. Remember all the fun we had with the homeopaths here a while back? Remember the posters that would start off with...

"My wife is using a homeopathic remedy for her migraines, and it seems to be working, but I'm a little skeptical..."

And ten posts later the same person would be ranting...

"Big Pharma and the AMA have been conspiring to oppress the TRUTH of homeopathy for the last fifty years because they're afraid yada, yada, yada..."

This is what happens when you buy your knock off Romulan cloaking device out of the bargain bin. They just don't hold up like the genuine models.
 
The Doc said:
I thought it first :(:p
Click to expand...

I actually brought up this phenomenom in Offchops' thread (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=73399&highlight=offchops)

:P

Me said:
Oh, and welcome to the forums Offchops. I've seen a lot of new posters who claim to be "undecided" intially, but later reveal that they actually believe one conspiracy theory or another. Hopefully, you don't fall into that category.
Click to expand...

Too bad that Offchops didn't stick around long enough to show us if he was truly neutral.

I agree that needs a name. It happens all too often.

How about:

woo-trality: The claim of being 'undecided' on a topic such as 9/11 conspiracies, while actually being a real troother.
 
Vespa and Psiload:

Absolutely correct. In keeping with this, I have renamed it as follows:

"Mark of Woo" - The initial phrasing of a posting or argument that proposes innocence and benign engagement in debate, but is often a cloak for a more malignant intentions.

TAM:)
 
GMotives said:
Please dont bother twisting words. You cant not provide any resonable answer. Yes ur good at attacking my character by saying im uneducated. Or saying my response is not good enough for you. You making alot assumptions like no need to investage because its obvious wow did you just steal that of John Gross. Gee you really do think for ur self dont you.. Most obvious scenario is not alway right, and what is wrong with want rock solid invesgation that would prove with out doubt offical story right? Why would you ignore important aspects becuase it obvious (in ur opion) which is just pure speculation, you have no grounds to say that it is right cause you have no scienific backing. All im asking is scienfic explanation on way it would fall. Is that asking to much is it?
Click to expand...
It's obvious you're uneducated. Your spelling, bad grammar, lack of understanding of basic engineering give it all away.

Why don't you stop skipping all your classes at middle school, and come back when you have some actual knowledge?
 
JimBenArm said:
It's obvious you're uneducated. Your spelling, bad grammar, lack of understanding of basic engineering give it all away.

Why don't you stop skipping all your classes at middle school, and come back when you have some actual knowledge?
Click to expand...

ZING!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom